He rode camels because they were available

He ate dates because they grew around him

He used Arabic because it was his mother tongue

He covered his head because the sun demanded it.

He used miswak because toothbrushes hadn’t been invented.

He used kohl (surma) because it was a protection against desert sun and sand.

The desert terrain was hot, rough, and full of dust, dirt, and animal waste. He wore his lower garments above the ankles for hygiene, mobility, and durability, not as a divine dress code.

These were tools of his time, not eternal truths

But somehow today, we turn them into markers of piety as if Islam is a costume, not a conscience. Following the Prophet’s Arabian culture is NOT Sunnah.

No my dear Muslim friends. No.

A Muslim in a white thawb is seen as more religious than one in dhoti or any traditional dress

A woman in black abaya is called modest, but one in a saree or jeans with dignity is questioned

A child who learns Arabic alphabets is praised — even if he doesn’t understand them, but a child who reads Quran in Hindi is advised to learn how to read in Arabic.

What are we preserving – faith or performance?

We live in India. Not in tribal Quraysh.Not in the sands of Najd.

But in a country of poetry, diversity, art, and ancient spirituality. We live among Sikhs who believe in service, Hindus who light lamps for love, Jains who preach nonviolence, and Buddhists who renounce hatred.

And instead of growing with that beauty – we fear becoming “less Muslim” or  if we smile during Holi, or greet a neighbour on Diwali, or say – merry Christmas, or light a diya in remembrance, or visit a Gurdwara to pay respect.

Why is your Islam so weak it breaks with kindness?

The Prophet taught mercy, truth, and wisdom.Not brand loyalty to the Arabian Peninsula.

If Islam was meant to be Arab-only, it would’ve stayed there. But it travelled. It adapted.

It bloomed in Persia, Africa, Indonesia, and yes even India.

So why are we now trying to reverse it into cultural regression, when the message was meant to transcend culture?

You can be deeply Muslim and proudly Indian.

You can pray in Arabic and speak in Tamil, Hindi, English, Sanskrit. You can use Chandan, Jasmine, not Oudh necessarily

You can fast in Ramadan and share sweets on Diwali.

You can follow the Sunnah and wear a saree.

You can love the Quran and still find peace in Kabir’s dohas, in Rahim’s couplets, in Amir Khusrau’s verses

You follow Muhammad and still love Guru Nanak. You can listen to Hadith and still listen to Ramayana or read Guru Granth Sahib.

This isn’t syncretism. This is the soul of Indian Islam – a soul that once healed, harmonized, and humbled. Islam doesn’t demand imitation. It demands intention.

You have made culture your qibla, not truth. The Prophet didn’t teach us to erase our identity

He taught us to elevate it with integrity, not imitation.

So yes – you can be deeply Muslim and unapologetically Indian. You are still stronger because you allow your faith to coexist with diversity – the beauty of our country!!

Posted by Munaz Anjum on his Facebook

(https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18f76Liet1/)

The post Not everything the Prophet practiced was religion  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

• Why did I use the term Islamist instead of Islamic?

My Response: The term Islamic is a broad, neutral adjective that refers to anything related to Islam—its religion, culture, civilization, and traditions. It applies to concepts like Islamic art (art influenced by Islamic culture) and Islamic law (Sharia, the ethical and legal framework derived from Islamic principles). This term does not carry any inherent political meaning.

Islamist, on the other hand, is a more specific term with political connotations. It refers to individuals, movements, or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society, often advocating for a political order based on their interpretation of Islam. While some Islamists pursue their goals through democratic means, others adopt more radical or militant approaches. Importantly, Islamist does not equate to Islamic—not all Muslims are Islamists, and Islamism represents a distinct political ideology rather than the religion itself.

The choice of Islamist in my article was deliberate. It accurately reflects the political dimension of the subject being discussed, distinguishing it from the broader religious or cultural aspects of Islam. Precision in terminology is essential, especially when addressing political ideologies or movements within the Islamic world.

• Another criticism levelled at my work is that it merely presents others’ viewpoints without a clear, cohesive argument.

My Response: This critique misinterprets the article’s purpose. Far from lacking direction, my work deliberately highlights the diversity of perspectives on secularism and Islam—concepts that are inherently contested and open to multiple interpretations. The absence of a rigid, singular definition is not a flaw but a reflection of the discourse itself.

Contrary to the claim that my argument is unclear, I explicitly advocate for secularism as religious neutrality and Sarva Dharma Samabhava—equal respect for all religions. This framework stands in direct opposition to theocratic visions promoted by Islamist groups, which reject pluralism in favour of a monolithic religious order.

Rather than weakening my case, the inclusion of diverse perspectives strengthens it. By engaging with a spectrum of viewpoints, I demonstrate the complexity of the debate while reinforcing secularism as the most viable model for a pluralistic society like India. My article is not a passive compilation of opinions but a structured, purposeful defence of secularism—one that gains depth, not dilution, from the multiplicity of voices it engages.

• What we now call secular values—human rights, equality, compassion, and justice—are deeply rooted in religious morality. Modern secular societies did not emerge in isolation; rather, they evolved from centuries of religious teachings that laid the groundwork for these principles. Paradoxical as it may seem, secular values originate from religion itself, making secularism an inherent part of religious traditions rather than a departure from them.

My Response: I do agree. Secularism is not inherently anti-religious but can align with religious values by promoting neutrality, freedom, and equality. It ensures the state doesn’t favour any religion, protecting religious diversity and allowing all faiths to coexist peacefully. This aligns with religious principles like freedom of conscience (e.g., “no compulsion in religion” in Islam) and treating others with respect (e.g., “love thy neighbour” in Christianity). Secularism also fosters collaboration on shared goals like social justice, reflecting religious values of compassion and service. By separating religion from state power, it prevents extremism and respects moral autonomy, allowing individuals to practice their faith freely. In essence, secularism supports religious values by creating a fair, inclusive society where diverse beliefs thrive.

• The term “Islamism” originated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Initially, it was used in European languages as a neutral synonym for Islam, much like “Christianism” for Christianity. Early Western writers, including Voltaire and Encyclopædia Britannica (first edition, 1771), used “Islamism” simply to refer to the religion of Islam.

My Response: Islamism and Islam are used interchangeably. Most Islamophobes adopts this method. This approach is wrong. This is equal to equating of Hindutva with Hinduism and Zionism with Judaism.

• Islam itself is however already an “-ism” – given this, why did European languages create “Islamism” instead of just using “Islam”?

My Response: The term “Islamism” was indeed coined in European languages to create a clear distinction between Islam as a religion and the political movements or ideologies that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance and society. While “Islam” refers to the faith, spirituality, and practices of Muslims, “Islamism” specifically denotes political ideologies that advocate for the implementation of Islamic law (Sharia) and the establishment of Islamic-based political systems. This distinction emerged in the late 20th century as a way to analyse the political dimensions of Islam separately from its spiritual and theological aspects, providing clarity in discussions about religion versus ideology.

However, the distinction between Islam and Islamism is not always clear-cut, and the term “Islamism” itself has been subject to debate. It can oversimplify the diversity of political movements within the Muslim world and may be used to stigmatize legitimate political expressions of Islamic identity.

The interpretation of Islamic values is a topic of ongoing debate, particularly between Islamists and those who prioritize Quranic values. Islamists often focus on implementing Sharia law, emphasizing legalistic interpretations over broader ethical values. In contrast, the Quran highlights values such as justice, mercy, compassion, and human dignity. One of the fundamental principles of the Quran is freedom of religion, as stated in verse 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” However, some Islamist movements have been accused of imposing religious practices, undermining this principle.

The Quran also promotes fraternity and equality, envisioning the ummah (global Muslim community) as a brotherhood of equals. Nevertheless, some Islamist regimes have faced criticism for fostering sectarianism and discrimination. Individual self-determinism is another key value in the Quran, emphasizing personal responsibility and individual accountability. In contrast, Islamist ideologies often prioritize collective identity over individual freedoms. The Quran is clear in its advocacy for justice, fairness, and human rights, including those of women and minorities. However, some Islamist policies have been criticized for being discriminatory or unjust, particularly toward women and religious minorities. In addition, the Quran encourages coexistence and dialogue among diverse groups, promoting pluralism and diversity. Unfortunately, some Islamist movements reject pluralism, seeking to establish homogeneous Islamic states. The Quran promotes peace and reconciliation, yet some Islamist groups have been linked to violent extremism, contradicting these principles.

Finally, the Quran advocates for economic justice, prohibiting usury and mandating charity (zakat). While Islamist attempts to implement Islamic economic systems have had mixed success in achieving justice, the importance of economic fairness remains a core Islamic value.

• The term “Islamist” has developed a pejorative connotation, especially in modern political discourse. While Islamic governance has existed for centuries—without the need for a distinct label—”Islamism” emerged in Western discourse to specifically refer to political movements advocating for governance based on Islamic principles, with an implicit tone of disapproval.

My Response: You are right. The term “Islamist” has become a focal point in the broader issue of Islamophobia, reflecting and reinforcing deeply ingrained biases in Western discourse. Historically, the West’s engagement with the Islamic world—from colonialism to the Cold War and the post-9/11 era—has shaped a narrative that associates Islam with backwardness, violence, and authoritarianism. This narrative has been perpetuated through the pejorative use of “Islamist,” which is often applied indiscriminately to a wide range of Islamic political movements, from moderate reformers to extremist groups. By conflating these diverse movements under a single, stigmatized label, the term contributes to a perception that Islam itself is inherently incompatible with democracy or modernity. This framing not only delegitimizes legitimate political expressions of Islam but also fuels Islamophobia by portraying Muslims as a monolithic group prone to extremism. The lack of equivalent terms for religiously motivated movements in other faiths, such as “Christian democracy” or “Hindu nationalism,” underscores the double standard at play, further entrenching stereotypes and fostering fear and mistrust of Muslim communities.

• Your article is about “Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy” is not about “making a compelling case for secularism as the best model for a pluralistic society like India.” India is not even mentioned in the article and rightly so because what has India to do with Why Quranic Principles Advocate Secular Democracy Over Theocracy? You seem to have lost track of what the article is about.

My Response: My critique presents a theoretical and theological challenge to the imposition of Sharia within political Islam, examining its far-reaching implications for societal structures, governance frameworks, and individual liberties. At its core, my argument questions whether enforcing Sharia as state law aligns with fundamental principles of legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state.

A critical analysis reveals that such enforcement poses significant risks, including marginalizing non-Muslim communities and silencing dissenting voices within Muslim societies. It also risks clashing with universal human rights standards, particularly in areas such as gender equality, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

From a theological perspective, my critique emphasizes that Sharia is not a monolithic entity, but rather a complex and dynamic system subject to diverse interpretations shaped by historical, cultural, and contextual factors. Rigid enforcement of Sharia within modern political systems disregards its inherent adaptability, distorting its original principles and fostering authoritarianism—where religious elites consolidate power, stifling intellectual and social progress.

Politically, my critique contests the exploitation of Sharia as a means of consolidating power and exerting control over populations, thereby exacerbating societal fractures and eroding social cohesion. A comprehensive review of historical precedents and comparative analyses demonstrates that imposing religious law often leads to the suppression of dissenting voices and the erosion of individual liberties.

Ultimately, my critique calls for a critical reassessment of Sharia’s role in modern governance. It advocates a framework that safeguards legal pluralism, human rights, and the separation of religion and state—fostering a more inclusive, tolerant, and equitable society.

• The (Iranian) regime is not corrupt; it is principled. It has prioritized principles over political compromises. It faces sanctions because it supports Palestine—ironically, as a Shia state, it is the only one backing Sunni Palestine. The suffering of its citizens is primarily due to sanctions and military spending for national defence. Iran remains the only Muslim state capable of standing up to the U.S. in conventional warfare, making it the last bastion that the U.S. and Israel seek to bring down.

My Response: While Iran adheres to a distinct ideological framework, its governance is driven by both principled and pragmatic considerations, with internal power struggles and instances of corruption undermining the system’s integrity. The significant economic influence wielded by the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and political elites has raised allegations of nepotism and financial malfeasance. Moreover, prioritizing principles over pragmatic political compromises is not inherently virtuous if it results in widespread hardship for citizens.

A balanced approach is essential—one that upholds fundamental principles while carefully considering their impact on human welfare. Iran’s troubling human rights record, as seen in the case of Mahsa Amini, highlights the urgent need for such scrutiny.

While sanctions and military expenditures contribute significantly to economic difficulties, internal economic mismanagement and political repression also play substantial roles. Many Iranians hold their government accountable for economic struggles, citing corruption, lack of transparency, and crackdowns on dissent. The government’s resource allocation, such as funding regional militias versus domestic welfare initiatives, is a contentious issue debated among Iranians themselves. Rather than being merely a victim of external pressures, the Iranian regime actively shapes its domestic and regional realities, with consequences both positive and negative.

• “The notion that Islam requires the integration of religion and state is a historical development, not a Quranic mandate.” “Fight until there is no more oppression and injustice and the Law of Allah prevails.” (Q.8:39)

My Response: This verse can be interpreted in another way. A humanistic interpretation of Q.8:39 would focus on the broader ethical and moral principles it conveys, emphasizing themes of justice, freedom, and the pursuit of a harmonious society. From this perspective, the verse could be understood as a call to resist oppression and work toward a world where human dignity, equality, and fairness are upheld. The “Law of Allah” could be interpreted symbolically as a universal moral order that aligns with humanistic values such as compassion, justice, and the common good. The emphasis on ceasing hostilities if the opposition stops (“if they desist”) could be seen as a call for reconciliation and peace, highlighting the importance of resolving conflicts through dialogue and mutual understanding rather than violence. This aligns with humanistic ideals of nonviolence and the belief in the potential for positive change in human behaviour. The reading would focus on the underlying message of striving for a just and equitable world, where all individuals are free from oppression and can live in dignity and peace. It would encourage reflection on how these principles can be applied in contemporary contexts to promote social justice and human flourishing.

• Q. 5:44 clearly affirms that governance must align with divine law.

My Response: Q.5:44 emphasizes the importance of divine guidance in governance and justice, reflecting the principle that laws should align with moral and ethical values rooted in faith. From a Quranic perspective, this verse can be understood as a call for governance that upholds justice, compassion, and the dignity of all human beings. Divine law, in this context, is not merely a rigid set of rules but a framework that seeks to promote the well-being of individuals and society. It emphasizes accountability, fairness, and the protection of human rights, which are universal values shared across cultures and faiths. I interpret divine law as a means to foster a just and equitable society where the welfare of people is prioritized. It encourages leaders to govern with wisdom, mercy, and a deep sense of responsibility toward all members of society, regardless of their faith or background. This aligns with the broader Islamic principle of Rahmah (mercy) and the concept of Maqasid al-Shariah (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which include the preservation of life, intellect, faith, lineage, and property. In essence, governance aligned with divine law, from an Islamic humanistic viewpoint, is one that serves humanity, promotes justice, and ensures the dignity and rights of all individuals are respected and protected. It is a call to integrate spiritual and ethical principles into leadership, ensuring that power is exercised with humility and a commitment to the common good.

• Islamic governance, in both theory and practice, incorporated consultation, judicial impartiality, and legal pluralism—values that align with modern democratic ideals.

My Response: My critique of contemporary political Islamists centres on their deviation from the historical and ethical principles of Islamic governance, rather than an attack on Islam itself. Many modern political Islamist movements have distorted these principles, centralizing power, side-lining diverse voices, and imposing rigid, exclusionary interpretations of Sharia. These movements often prioritize ideological purity over practical governance, using religion as a tool for political control rather than a means to promote justice and welfare. For example, the concept of hakimiyyah (sovereignty of God) has been weaponized to justify authoritarian rule, while the dynamic and adaptive spirit of early Islamic law, exemplified by ijtihad (independent reasoning), is often ignored. This rigidity leads to the suppression of dissent, the marginalization of women and minorities, and a failure to address pressing socio-economic challenges. Moreover, the politicization of religion by these groups undermines the spiritual and ethical dimensions of Islam, reducing it to a mechanism for power consolidation. By rejecting democratic principles as “Western impositions,” many political Islamists alienate broader populations, particularly the youth, who seek inclusive and pragmatic solutions to modern problems. My critique targets the authoritarian, exclusionary, and rigid practices of contemporary political Islamists, which diverge sharply from the pluralistic, consultative, and justice-oriented spirit of early Islamic governance. By reclaiming these historical principles, it is possible to envision a form of governance that is both authentically Islamic and aligned with the aspirations of modern societies for fairness, inclusivity, and good governance.

(V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The inherent problem with political Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are the countries wherein this monster is all set to eat violently those who nurtured it for their own vested interests. This left doing politics, normal living, and meeting people all at risk. And thousands of children, the elderly, and young people have fallen victim to it.

Media and scholarly, academic reports reveal that Muslims living in the West too are now influenced by their preachers and imams. They have begun to believe in sectarian conflicts as well as emotional slogans like a revival of the old Caliphate. Amazingly, thousands of youth born and bred in the West were recruited or joined the forces of the fake Caliphate established by the notorious Abubakar Al-Baghdadi a decade ago?

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, but what is the condition of Islamic ideology there? What is the sanctity of a human life? From time to time, a fanatic mob would rise, blaming a person for blasphemy. No matter whether he is a Muslim or non-Muslim, it would kill him in cold blood or often burn him alive. The police simply watch the spectacle, indeed, occasionally participate in the crime. Later, religious people would start justifying the heinous act by citing old jurists and their fatwas. And secularists and liberals would start condemning the act. The administration remains deaf and dumb. Judiciary very seldom takes suo motu cognizance. After a few days, the matter is normalised.  The cruel bloody mob then goes out in search of another prey. All businesses of life and religion continue to thrive!

The killing of the then Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer by his own official bodyguard a few years ago on fake charges of blasphemy is a case in point. The dastardly killer was then turned into a saint! The presumably educated advocates in Pakistani courts threw rose petals over him when he came to face the charges of murder. After his execution, his grave has been turned into a shrine. Thousands visit it regularly to pay their obeisance. What Fanaticism!

While the West is thinking of building colonies on Mars and China is conquering new vistas with AI, what is the favourite pastime of the great Muslim ulama, clergy and religious scholars of Pakistan and India, indeed even Bangladesh?  It is to make ordinary Muslims blindly believe in unverifiable predictions about the appearance of the supposed Imam Mahdi. These people are saying, day in and day out, particularly sice the genocide of Palestinians started, that Dajjal is about to come out and Mahdi has to appear and after that Jesus will come and the rule of Islam is just about to be established on the whole planet.

Religious Muslims are generally simple-minded and naive. They believe in these myths. They do not feel the need to move forward in the world. Our task should be to promote science and technology, indeed first create a scientific temperament among the rank and file of Muslims.

 History shows that this situation will finally lead to the point when the political leaders will have to resort to fighting the monster of their own making as Pakistan is compelled to do with the Taliban now. Muslim clergy and ulama in the Indian subcontinent must also repent and take a vow never to use religion for political purposes. If Muslims come to this point, they must put before them some hard facts to eradicate extremism from its foundation.

First, this demon of extremism did not come down from heaven directly. It is a cherished baby born of religious thought which is taught and studied in our religious schools and madrasas under different titles, such as the enforcement of Sharia, Jihad and eradication of infidelity, polytheism, apostasy, etc. Radicalised people and extremist movements draw inspiration from this traditional theology. They propagate it for their dastardly purposes. This prominent religious thought and its political interpretations popularly called Political Islam have been logically criticized by some thinkers and brilliant minds of Islam like Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Javed Ahmad Ghamdi. Had there not been stirring uproar, protests, and threats from ulama in the face of scientific reasoning, certainly the thought of these thinkers would have changed people’s minds and popular narratives.

Now to counter the religious radicalism in Muslim societies we have to develop a counter-narrative to the propagated traditional religious thought. Still, it is unfortunate and tragic for Muslim societies that violence and extremism prevail to protect religion and preserve Sharia.

Unfortunately, the culture of disagreement with politeness and respect has not yet developed. These situations require us to be sensitive to freedom of opinion in religious ideas and thinking. And to be frank, our clerics and religious preachers exert a policy of pressure to prevent the freedom to express free opinion. If they want to reveal the error to those who disagree with them, they can do so in an open way by resorting to the weapon of knowledge and reasoning. The world of knowledge does not accommodate compulsion, protests, uproar, and tyranny. It is a counter-narrative of popular religious thought presented by the likes of Mr. Ghamidi that alone can reform the situation in the Muslim community, not propaganda of secularism or anti-religionism. Iqbal the poet and philosopher tried a century ago to draw our attention to the same truth in his lectures on the need for reconstruction of religious thought that he delivered in Aligarh and elsewhere. Sir Syed and his school of thought made the same effort.

Second, in secular fields, we do not allow someone to establish institutions to graduate children and boys as doctors, engineers, or skilled in any division and department of science and arts. This cannot be done without giving Muslim children general education for twelve years or so. But children and young people are trained as religious scholars in madrasas and centres of religious learning. These madrasas close the door of modern learning on them altogether and play with their future lives. Some of them could have been doctors, some of them engineers, poets, writers, photographers, etc.. But these madrasas, regardless of their aptitude, taste, inclinations, or qualifications, make great efforts to make them religious scholars only and deprive them of all opportunities to choose an area of science and art of their own choice.  They cut their ties to society and made them aliens in their own societies by depriving them of general public education for twelve years. Therefore, it has become necessary to prohibit religious schools, like all other institutes of specialized education, from interfering with a student without giving him general education up to 12 grade.

We can say with confidence that this one step alone will change the current situation created by the institutes of religious education. As Founder-Editor of NewAgeIslam.com, Mr. Sultan Shahin told the UN Human Rights Council at Geneva some time ago, madrasa education is the biggest violation of the human rights of Muslim children. Every child has the right to acquire general education before going in  for specialisation in any field. If we don’t give our children medical or engineering education at the age of five, then why burden them with theology at such a tender age. Young children and adolescents need general education first. They should have the choice to go in for any specialisation they want.

Thirdly, it is necessary to end the dominance of clerics and preachers of hate in masjids and mosques. They generally use Friday pulpits for their vested interests in Muslim societies. If we don’t do this, we cannot escape extremism. Who does not know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) established a Sunnah regarding the Friday prayer? It was that the Imam (head of government) or whoever he appoints is entitled to lead the Friday prayer and deliver the sermon. No one else is permitted to use this pulpit unless they have this specific instruction from the ruler.

However, throughout the decadent age, Muslim monarchs typically lacked the necessary tools to perform this function. They gave the Friday pulpits to the clergy and Ulama. Since then, the Ulama and clergy have gained such clout that they utilize Jumma (Friday) sermons and mosque pulpits to push their objectives and vested interests in Muslim societies.

This has resulted in deepening the sectarian lines. Now separated along sectarian and Fiqhi lines,  in lieu of God’s mosques we have Ahle Hadis mosques and the Hanaf mosques, Deobandi mosques, and the Barelvi mosques, etc. They ought to be God’s mosques alone wherein worship of Allah is practiced.

 Mosques are now becoming hubs for extremism and sectarianism. The mosque must be run by a collective management of Muslims and should not be used by individuals, movements, or organizations to spread a particular theological or political message. Mosques are houses of God. They must not be transformed  into sites of conflict and disunity among Muslims. They should never be used to radicalise Muslims for a particular purpose. This is an essential step.

Research Associate with Centre for Promotion of Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims of India, AMU Aligarh.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Muslim societies need counter-narrative to radicalisation and religious extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Main Points:

1. Wahhabism: A Source of Division
2. Islam at its core is a religion of peace and tolerance, but Wahhabism’s violent interpretations distort this message.
3. The movement fosters sectarian division rather than unity, destabilizing Muslim societies.
4. Wahhabism’s interpretations have been linked to global terrorism, misrepresenting Islam as a violent religion.

There are individuals who identify as Wahhabi, Ahle Hadis, or Salafi (terms commonly used to describe those who follow the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi, and thus branches of Wahhabism) and assert that they do not support extremist ideologies or violent actions. While some adherents of these movements may sincerely believe in a puritanical interpretation of Islam, it is undeniable that Salafism and Wahhabism, in their more extreme forms, have been linked to significant political, ideological, and social upheaval in the Muslim world. The impact of these ideologies on both the understanding of Islam and the state of global affairs is complex, but it is evident that these movements have contributed to some of the most troubling aspects of contemporary Islam.

Wahhabism: Ideology of Control and Division

Wahhabism, in its origin and its contemporary manifestations, was established with a vision of consolidating political power and religious orthodoxy. At its heart, Wahhabism sought to purify Islam by stripping away what its proponents considered to be innovations (Bid’ah) and superstitions that had crept into the practice of the faith. While this idea of purging Islam of practices not directly derived from the Quran or Hadith may appeal to some Muslims, it often leads to a rigid and exclusionary approach, where those who deviate from the Wahhabi interpretation are labelled as apostates or innovators.

The tendency to declare Muslims as “Kafir” (disbelievers) or “Mushrik” (polytheists) for engaging in certain practices—such as visiting the graves of saints, celebrating the Prophet’s birthday, or seeking intercession—has resulted in an environment of fear and division. This relentless focus on “purity” has led some followers to justify violence against fellow Muslims who do not adhere to the Wahhabi creed, branding them as heretics or apostates. Such ideological purges have caused widespread strife and bloodshed, as various groups within the Muslim community are treated as enemies rather than brothers and sisters in faith.

In this climate of extreme sectarianism, Wahhabism’s emphasis on violent jihad as a central tenet of its ideology has paved the way for radicalized groups. Groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others have taken inspiration from these interpretations, using them to justify terrorist acts and the imposition of their own narrow version of Islamic rule. This connection between Wahhabism and global terrorism has had far-reaching consequences, not only for the Muslim world but for the perception of Islam in the international arena.

The Disconnect from the Spirit of Islam

At its core, Islam is a religion of peace, harmony, and tolerance. The very word “Islam” comes from the root word “Salaam,” which means peace. The spirit of Islam calls for the peaceful coexistence of all people, regardless of their faith, and emphasizes compassion, justice, and mercy. However, Wahhabism, with its rigid and militant interpretation of the faith, has distanced itself from these essential principles. By focusing heavily on violence and the imposition of a singular interpretation of Islam, it has neglected the broader, inclusive message of Islam that encourages peace, unity, and dialogue.

Instead of embracing diversity within the Muslim community, Wahhabism has fostered an environment where followers are encouraged to view other Muslims as enemies if they do not conform to its strict orthodoxy. This departure from the spirit of Islam has created rifts within the Muslim world, leading to ideological, theological, and sometimes physical battles between factions. In this sense, Wahhabism has contributed to the destabilization of Muslim societies, as people who should be united by their shared faith are instead divided by doctrinal differences.

Wahhabism and the Narrative of Terrorism

Wahhabism’s global influence has put Muslims in a difficult position where, increasingly, they have to clarify to the world that Islam itself is not a violent religion. While the majority of Muslims reject extremist ideologies, the association of Islam with terrorism persists, largely because of the actions of radical groups who claim to represent Islam while adhering to distorted interpretations of its teachings. The emergence of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram has made it necessary for Muslims to constantly explain that their religion advocates for peace, not violence.

The unfortunate reality is that Wahhabism has become synonymous with the rise of ideological terrorism in many parts of the world. This is not because Wahhabism represents the true essence of Islam, but because its interpretation has been twisted by extremists seeking to justify their violent actions. The damaging impact of this is twofold: not only does it tarnish the reputation of Islam globally, but it also leaves Muslims to grapple with the misconception that their faith promotes terror, rather than peace.

Wahhabism and Its Allegiance with Israel and Western Powers

One of the most troubling aspects of Wahhabism is its political alignment with Western powers and Israel. While the movement is often positioned as a defender of Islam, it has been accused of maintaining strategic relationships with entities that are seen as adversaries to the broader Muslim world. The Saudi regime, which is a major proponent of Wahhabism, has been a longstanding ally of the United States and other Western nations, despite their involvement in conflicts that have caused immense suffering in Muslim-majority regions, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, Wahhabism’s relationship with Israel is highly controversial. Despite Saudi Arabia’s historical stance on supporting the Palestinian cause, the influence of Wahhabism within the kingdom has created a complex situation where the regime has been accused of tacitly aligning with Israel and its interests in the region. This political alignment undermines the narrative that Wahhabism is solely concerned with defending Islam; rather, it reveals a more pragmatic and opportunistic agenda that focuses on maintaining political power and securing relationships with global powers, even at the expense of Muslim solidarity.

This dual narrative—one of aggressive religious puritanism and another of political alignment with global powers—adds another layer of complexity to Wahhabism’s role in the Muslim world. It shows that while Wahhabi leaders may present themselves as champions of Islam, their actions often betray their true agenda, which involves the consolidation of power and influence at the expense of both religious and political unity among Muslims.

The Dangers of Wahhabism’s Legacy

While not all individuals who identify as Salafi or Wahhabi support violent extremism, the ideological foundations laid by these movements have undeniably contributed to the rise of terrorism and the deep divisions within the Muslim world. Wahhabism’s narrow interpretation of Islam, its promotion of violence against those deemed as apostates or innovators, and its political alliances with Western powers and Israel have played a significant role in the ongoing strife in the Muslim world.

As a result, the larger Muslim community must continue to push back against these extremist ideologies and reclaim the true spirit of Islam—a religion of peace, tolerance, and harmony for all people. Only by rejecting the divisive and violent narratives perpetuated by Wahhabism can Muslims hope to rebuild unity within their communities and present a more accurate understanding of Islam to the rest of the world.

Wahhabi and Salafi Scholars’ Role in Ideological Terrorism

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars have contributed to the spread of ideological terrorism by offering specific interpretations of Islamic texts, especially those regarding jihad, the role of violence, and the legitimacy of acts deemed as “holy war.” Some of their interpretations have been used by extremist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, to justify violence. Below are some of the key narratives and interpretations promoted by certain Wahhabi-Salafi scholars, which have been controversial and linked to growing ideological terrorism?

1. Interpretation of Jihad as Violent Warfare

One of the central aspects of Wahhabi and Salafi ideology is the interpretation of jihad as not just a spiritual struggle, but as a violent form of warfare against perceived enemies of Islam.

Example: Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328) argued that jihad was obligatory in defence of Islam. Radical groups have cited this interpretation to justify violent jihad against both non-Muslims and Muslims deemed apostates.

2. Takfirism – Declaring Muslims as Apostates

Takfirism, the practice of declaring Muslims as apostates, is central to Salafi-Wahhabi thought, justifying violence against those who do not adhere strictly to their interpretation.

Example: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) declared practices such as seeking intercession through saints to be forms of polytheism and thus justified violence against those who engaged in them.

3.       The Obligation to Wage War against Non-Muslims

Wahhabi-Salafi scholars have interpreted certain Quranic verses as endorsing perpetual warfare against non-believers.

Example: Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (1910–1999), former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, advocated the necessity of jihad against non-believers, a view referenced by extremists.

4. The Concept of “Defensive Jihad” Against Western Powers

Some Wahhabi-Salafi scholars advocate defensive jihad against perceived enemies of Islam, particularly Western powers.

Example: Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966) called for jihad to overthrow non-Islamic rule, particularly Western influence, which influenced extremist groups like al-Qaeda.

5. Martyrdom and Rewards in Paradise

Wahhabi-Salafi thought often emphasizes the rewards of martyrdom in paradise for those who engage in jihad, particularly suicide bombers.

Example: Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292–1350) wrote about the rewards for martyrs, which have been exploited by extremist groups like ISIS.

6.         The Call for the Establishment of an Islamic State

Radical Salafi scholars advocate for the violent establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law.

Example: Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (b. 1959) has argued for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish a pure Islamic state.

Conclusion

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars, through their radical interpretations, have contributed to the ideological terrorism that has destabilized regions and fostered extremism. Their influence, particularly regarding jihad, takfirism, and martyrdom, has been central to justifying violence in the name of Islam. While mainstream Islam condemns these interpretations, their continued influence in extremist circles demands a counter-narrative to promote a peaceful and contextualized understanding of Islam.

Kaniz Fatma is a classic Islamic scholar and a regular columnist for New Age Islam.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Wahhabism, Ahle Hadis, or Salafism’s Impact on the Muslim World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The emergence of male reformist scholars engaging in ijtihad (independent reasoning) on gender issues within Islam holds profound significance for the acceptance and advancement of gender-affirmative interpretations of the faith. In this op-ed, we will explore the reasons why the male gender identity of these reformist ijtihadists matters, the collective nature of their efforts, their theoretical sophistication, insider engagement with tradition, global accessibility, and resonance with contemporary Muslim audiences. We will argue that these factors contribute to the potential impact and wider acceptance of gender-affirmative interpretations of Islam.

Male Gender Identity and Credibility

One of the notable aspects of the male reformist scholars’ ijtihad on gender issues is their gender identity. Historically, gender-affirmative interpretations were often dismissed by conservative-minded male scholars as feminist or subjective products of female identity. However, male reformist scholars challenge this narrative by providing a male perspective on gender equality within Islam. In traditional societies, religious authority has been predominantly associated with male figures, making the arguments put forth by these male reformists harder to dismiss. Their gender identity lends credibility to their perspectives, as they can navigate the patriarchal structures of Islamic scholarship and engage with a broader audience.

Collective Effort and Credibility

The collective nature of the male reformist scholars’ efforts significantly contributes to the impact of their work. It is not just a few isolated voices but a relatively large number of male scholars who are devoting their time and effort to foster gender equality-affirming interpretations of Islam. This collective effort enhances the credibility and influence of their arguments, distinguishing them from earlier male reformers of the twentieth century. Scholars such as Khaled Abou El Fadl , Muhammad Khalid Masud, Yousef Eshkevari ,Mohsen Kadivar and myself have made significant contributions to these discourses, amplifying the reach and influence of gender-affirmative interpretations of Islam.

Theoretical Sophistication and Engagement with Tradition

The male reformist scholars stand out due to their remarkable theoretical sophistication in engaging with the pre-modern Islamic tradition. Their work goes beyond superficial interpretations and offers robust and systematic approaches to gender issues. This level of scholarship adds substantial weight to their arguments, making them harder to dismiss or ignore. Moreover, these scholars have an intimate familiarity with the pre-modern Islamic hermeneutical, theological, ethical, and legal tradition. Many of them have undergone traditional Islamic education or have held high-ranking clerical positions. Their insider perspective enables them to engage with the tradition on its own terms, providing credibility and authority that cannot be easily dismissed by their traditionalist detractors.

Global Accessibility and Muslim Audiences

The impact of these reformist scholars extends beyond their scholarly contributions. Many of them reside in Western liberal democracies but write in major Islamic vernacular languages such as Arabic and Farsi, or their works are translated into these languages. This multilingual approach, coupled with the availability of their ideas through websites and publications, enhances the accessibility of their work to global Muslim audiences. This accessibility allows their gender equality-affirming hermeneutics to resonate with the lived realities and ethical sensibilities of contemporary Muslims, both male and female.

Reconciling Lived Experiences with Religious Ideals

Perhaps the most significant aspect of gender-affirmative Islamic hermeneutics is their potential to reconcile the lived experiences of contemporary Muslims with their desired religious ideals and norms. Unlike traditional interpretations, these hermeneutics acknowledge and address the gender-based realities of Muslims today. By doing so, they offer a path to bridge the gap between lived experiences and religious ideals, aligning with the ethical sensibilities of many contemporary Muslims.

The rise of male reformist scholars engaging in ijtihad on gender issues heralds a significant milestone in the pursuit of gender equality within Islam. Their gender identity, collective efforts, theoretical sophistication, insider engagement with tradition, global accessibility, and resonance with contemporary Muslim audiences all contribute to the potential impact and wider acceptance of gender-affirmative interpretations of Islam. By advancing gender equality through their scholarship, these male reformist scholars are paving the way for a more inclusive and progressive understanding of Islam that aligns with the lived realities and ethical sensibilities of Muslims in the modern world.

—–

A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books are ( co-edited)-  Shame, Modesty, and Honora in Islam  and Interfaith Engagement Beyond the Divide  (Springer)

This piece is based on authors academic paper that can be accessed here- https://www.academia.edu/43990448/Contemporary_Muslim_Male_Reformist_Thought_and_Gender_Equality_Affirmative_Interpretations_of_Islam

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The Significance of Male Reformist Ijtihad on Gender Issues in Advancing Gender Affirmative Interpretations of Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hamline University in Minnesota, USA, recently fired a professor for showing a painting of Muhammad during his lecture. The course was about global art history wherein the professor had included a section on Islamic art. It was within this module that he showed a particular painting of the prophet Muhammad. To his credit, he had already asked Muslim students that if they found it offensive or hurtful, they had the option of leaving the class. But as it so happened, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) accused the professor of Islamophobia because he included that particular painting. It should be pointed out that the MSA, which has many offshoots, is known for its fondness of Islamism. Some studies have argued that the group is infested with the ideas of Hassan al- Banna and Abu ala al-Maududi, both ideological wellsprings of Islamism.    

The university, in a very hurried decision, without even giving a chance to the professor to explain himself, relieved him from the job. According to the university, it did so because, ‘it was decided that it was best that this faculty member was no longer part of the Hamline community’. The University, explaining the decision to all employees further said, ‘respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom’. Coming from a university, this is really worrying and points to a larger issue about engaging with Islamic sentiments without giving up the core values of freedom that define academic life.        

But first let us see the painting in question. The painting depicts Muhammad receiving the first revelation of the Quran brought by Angel Gibreel. This moment has been celebrated all over the Muslim world as Laylat ul Qadr (The Night of Power) and is generally ritualized as a night of prayer and gratitude. Far from being Islamophobic, the painting announces and extols the prophecy of Muhammad and Quranic revelation. Moreover, the original painting was part of the illustrated book written by the famous 14th century scholar, Rashid al Din Hamdani. It is important to recall that Rashid al Din was a historian, illustrator, calligrapher and a high-ranking administrator of the Ilkhanate/Mongol empire. Thus far from being Islamophobic, the painting witnesses the call to prophecy of Muhammad and was commissioned by a practicing Muslim himself. It is rather intriguing, how the mere showing of this painting by a professor constitutes any kind of Islamophobia.

Had the university done its homework before taking a decision, it would have known that the said painting has been increasingly used in history of art classes throughout the western world. Partly because of the aesthetics of the art work and partly in an effort to decolonize art; the academic world has been using this particular painting for long now.

Moreover, the university has completely missed the nuanced debate within the Muslim world regarding visual depictions of Muhammad. The art historian Christiane Gruber informs us that visual representations of Muhammad had been commonplace till recently, particularly in places of Shiite influences. One finds depictions of Muhammad with the face veiled throughout the Muslim world. The Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals commissioned such paintings and included them in texts. This was a time of ascendancy of Sufism and the paintings depicted the “luminous” character of the prophet or his many attributes. But it was not the case that the face of Muhammad was veiled in all paintings or hidden by a luminous light. In fact, naturalist and abstract depictions of the prophet went hand in hand and with the coming of print in the 19-20th centuries, there was a veritable explosion in the production and consumption of such images. Gruber tells us that especially in Iran, pictorial greetings with Muhammad images were commonly found in the market place.

These mass-produced images were mostly made and consumed by Muslims themselves. It is ironic therefore that Hamline University considered the particular image as being hurtful to Muslims. Even outside Iran, there is historical evidence that such images were used (though discreetly) by Muslims as aid to remembrance and meditation. In trying to exclude these pictures from the domain of Muslim aesthetics, the Hamline University seems to have sided with the neo-conservatives and Islamists within Muslims who argue that such depictions have always been forbidden in Islam. Throughout Muslim history and even today, there has never been a singular way of experiencing Islam. Consequently, one cannot say that Sunni way is better than the Shia simply because the latter uses pictures. In siding with one interpretation of Islam, Hamline University seems to be oblivious to such debates within the Islamic world. And this is not surprising in the least if the University authorizes a sectarian organization like the MSA to become the sole representative of Muslims. In the name of being inclusive, the University is in fact empowering a version of Islam which is inherently exclusivist.   

Universities are expected to create spaces for dialogue, dissent and pluralism. It might be possible that some Muslim students would have objected to the inclusion of a particular painting depicting Muhammad. But the answer to that shouldn’t be a knee jerk reaction like firing the professor; the better way for the University was to engage with such students. It is entirely possible that given the current state of the Muslim world, these Muslim students would themselves be unaware of their own iconic history. The University should have also asked the logical question as how a professor can teach a course of the history of art without using the visual medium as an aid to pedagogy.

But then if a university itself privileges religious sensitivities over academic freedom, then there is nothing much left to argue. If this ill-informed attitude continues, then the decay of the university system seems imminent.

Arshad Alam is a New Delhi-based independent researcher.

The post Should Respect for ‘an Islam’ Supersede Academic Freedom? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ever since the tiny gulf country, Qatar, won the rights to organize the football world cup, there has been a barrage of criticism, mostly emanating from Europeans. The criticism levelled at Qatar relate to its human rights abuses, its non-recognition of alternative sexual identities, the sexual segregation, etc. Some of this criticism seems valid, but some are the products of deep-seated anxiety with the Islamic faith. Certainly, Qatar is an Islamic country, and as such the religion informs much of its law related to life style, etc. But unlike other countries in the region, Qatar has quite a presence of women in the public sphere, with some of them occupying high offices.

It is also true that the country did not follow the laid down procedures of international labour laws; there were reports that it did not even compensate these workers properly. But the only people who should be complaining about this are the countries from which such workers were sourced: Nepal, India, Bangladesh, etc. There are reports that nearly 650 workers, mostly from these countries, died during the construction spree witnessed during the last decade. Europeans should be the last people to raise these issues, certainly not after incinerating millions in Iraq and other parts of the world. It would be much better if they just concentrated on their own appalling record of human devastation across the globe.

Qatar, and other countries in the region, are faced with an existential dilemma. And that has to do with the future holds for them after the oil has run out. It is for this reason that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are diversifying their economies, making them less dependent on oil revenues. The UAE has nearly transformed itself into a financial hub of the region; the Saudis are emulating them and are trying to open the economy. But the economy just does not operate in a vacuum; it needs an ideological infrastructure to flourish and thrive. Changes in economic policies are often accompanied by changes in social and religious mores. The organization of Halloween by the Saudis was designed to test whether the country is getting ready for such changes and one shouldn’t be surprised if they organize more such ‘un-Islamic’ events.

There were many reasons for Qatar bidding for the world cup and eventually winning it, but the economy was perhaps the foremost reason. Again, the country wanted to diversify and move away from its dependence on oil. But also, they were interested in it for geopolitical reasons. By becoming the center of footballing world, they have shown to the big brothers like Saudi Arabia that their blockade didn’t really work. Today, the whole of middle east is in Qatar, enjoying the world cup and perhaps ruing the day when they decided to financially encircle this tiny country. But then again, can a diverse economy remain immune to changes in cultural and the religious sphere? Qatar had a chance to show the world that their Islam was one which could adapt and change. But that opportunity is perhaps lost.

First by inviting a person like Zakir Naik to be an important guest (and reportedly to preach Islam to people assembled there), Qatar is unfortunately telling the world that it still believes in the supremacy of Islam to all other religions. After all, why call a man who made Islamic supremacism his creed, and has consistently argued that except Islam, all other religions are false. This preacher is wanted in India and in UK, primarily because he has inspired Muslims (though only a few) to take up terrorism in defence of their faith. By extending invitation to such a person, Qatar is basically endorsing the Islamist position of Zakir Naik. Moreover, Qatar should not forget that it was one of the first countries to censure India over the ‘hate speech’ of Nupur Sharma, the ex-BJP spokeswoman, when she had spoken uncharitable words about the prophet. Qatar then had preached India about the values of religious tolerance and pluralism. How should we then understand this invitation to Zakir Naik whose very presence is insulting to other religious traditions, including Hinduism. So, is Qatar telling the world that values of religious pluralism, etc. are to be respected only when Islam is at the receiving end?

Second, the decision to ban alcohol (primarily beer) by Qatari authorities has similarly generated much debate. Many Muslims have supported the decision by arguing that as a sovereign country, Qatar has the authority to follow its traditions; in this case keeping beer away from stadiums. However, these same Muslims have a huge issue when a country like France enforces its own secular tradition of banning burqas and head scarfs. Many would call his hypocrisy but again the point perhaps is something else. Muslims are basically arguing that while they should be free to enforce their own tradition, non-Muslim cultures do not have that choice. Again, this underlying supremacy of Islam needs to be questioned, but Qatar seems to have strengthened that notion through its action.

The football world cup is a global event and fans from very different cultural and religious traditions take part in it. Not making space for their point of view will only remind them about the insularity of Islam and Muslims. And there is historic precedence within the Muslim culture to make space for other traditions. Muslims in the Ottoman empire always made exceptions for Christians and their consumption of alcohol. The Ottomans always argued that the ban on drinking was only for Muslims; the Christian tradition allows for its consumption and hence we should not stop it. Why is it that this historical precedence was not invoked by Qatari authorities to make this mega event more inclusive and accepting of other ways of life? The less it is said about its Qatar’s treatment of LGBTQ+ rights, the better it will be. It is sad that hosts of football lovers who come from such communities decided against travelling to Qatar because of its strict laws against gays and lesbians.  

The opening show was equally a chance to showcase the variety of ways cultures and traditions that have built the country. Qataris are a minority in their own country, so it is the guest workers who have very nearly transformed the country into one of the richest in the world. Like most of the Arab world, they do not get citizenship status. The least they could have done was to pay respect and homage to these workers who come from very different religions and cultures.

The opening ceremony started with the passage of the Quran which celebrates plurality but alas, its deeper message was completely lost on the organizers.

——

Arshad Alam is a New Delhi based independent researcher.

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

The post How Qatar Lost the Chance to Showcase Islamic Pluralism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After two people, including a 12-year-old child, were brutally shot dead by Assam Police in Gorukhuti village of the Dholpur (Dhalpur) region of Assam’s Darrang district last week, efforts are being made by a desperate regime to deflect attention from the entire sordid state of affairs that began with the heartless eviction of as many as 800 families from their homes amidst a raging Covid-19 pandemic and heavy monsoon in a flood prone riverine region. An attempt is now being made to add a distinct communal hue to the entire exercise, perhaps also because it is election season in Assam, with five by-elections scheduled for Oct 30. This means it is also a ripe opportunity for polarisation and division, and seeking votes on the basis of hyped-up hate, instead of concrete issues. 

The top brass of the Assam Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is busy spreading the rumour that Parbati Das, the widow of Karna Das, the priest of the Shiva temple in Dhalpur, and their son, were “taken away” by Muslims. They have alleged that the widow was forced to marry a Muslim man and forcibly converted to Islam along with her son. 

But when we spoke to Parbati Das, she shot down the communal rumours and told us her story.

“I was married to the priest of this Dhalpur temple when I was around 12 or 13 years old. We both used to offer prayers there,” she says. Her family and two other Hindu families used to live in peace with their predominantly Muslim neighbours. Later the other two Hindu families moved away. Meanwhile, many Assamese Hindus who lived across the river came and offered prayers at this temple. Parbati and Karna had two sons, the elder of whom now works as a daily wage labourer in Guwahati. 

“My husband died about 20 years ago, but I continued to offer prayers,” says Parbati. But after her husband’s death, a young Parbati fell upon difficult times. “I ended up working as a help in the homes of Assamese families, and even carrying bricks at construction sites, to make ends meet,” she says. Sometimes, she also worked as a help in the homes of Muslim families. This appeared to have rubbed some communal-minded people the wrong way, and they resorted to harassing the poor widow. “Even the new priest who came after my husband died, harassed me because I used to work in the homes of Miya Muslims to feed my children… it was torture,” she says.

“Around that time, the condition of the house I used to live in, deteriorated so much that it became unlivable. I asked the Temple Committee for help, but they claimed that I had no land. But I knew we had land. So they directed me to the Circle office,” says Parbati, who ran pillar to post collecting evidence of land ownership. “I managed to get copies of revenue receipts,” but the harassment continued. She ended up living in a makeshift tent. “I built it using banana leaves and a saree,” she says, recalling her trauma. “When nobody helped me and I could not live there anymore, I decided to get married to a local man, so that my children and I would have shelter during the rainy season,” she says. Parbati married a Bengali-speaking Muslim man, their shared language playing a part in her choice. 

As far as religious conversion goes, Parbati clarifies, “As one person cannot have two religions, I accepted my husband’s religion voluntarily.” She reiterates, “Nobody forced me to change my religion.” What is also noteworthy is that her name still appears as Parbati Das in her documents. Her voter ID and other documents may be viewed here:

Her sons from her first marriage have both retained their Hindu names and religion. Her son from her second marriage practices his Muslim father’s faith.

But the truth has not stopped the Assam BJP from spreading misinformation, that has the potential to spark a communal conflagration. At the forefront of this communal rumour campaign are none other than Dilip Saikia, the BJP Member of Parliament (MP) from Mangaldoi, which is the district headquarters of Darrang, the site of the violence, and Padma Hazarika, the BJP MLA from Sootea. 

Recently, Atanu Bhuyan, Editor of DY 365, a popular local news channel, tweeted that Saikia had told his channel that a Shiva temple priest’s wife had been forced to convert to Islam in Dhalpur.

The indigenous population in Dholpur has come under threat from encroachers to such extent that some Muslim people took away Dholpur Shiva temple priest’s wife abd child and forcibly converted them @DilipSaikia4Bjp

— atanu bhuyan (@atanubhuyan) September 24, 2021

The issue was also amplified by @VoiceOfAxom, an influential Twitter handle with over 36,000 followers. It claimed that the Dhalpur Shiva temple is 5,000 years old and that its patrons included both Ahom and Nepali kings. But when it comes to the temple’s modern-day management, it says that Hindu dairy farmers of Gorukhuti village contributed to its upkeep. But, in a rather viciously communal twist, it goes on to peddle the same narrative of forced conversion of the temple priest’s wife.

After the demise of the Pujari Kartik Das in 2011, his wife was forced to marry a Muslim man. She and the three children of the late Pujari Kartik Das were converted to Muslim. Such is the threat to indigenous people in Dholpur. 10/n

— Voice of Assam (@VoiceOfAxom) September 25, 2021

But that’s not all. In an interview with Anupam Chakraborty, editor of NKTV in Assam, another BJP heavyweight Padma Hazarika also promoted the same narrative saying, “Parbati Das, the wife of the temple priest and her son Ganesh Das, were taken away by a ‘particular’ community. Now, that Parbati and her son are in a Muslim house nearby the temple.” He also alleged that the two had been forcibly converted.  

But, two things are clear from Parbati’s interview to us:

–          Nobody “took Parvati and her son away” from the priest

–          There was no “forced conversion”

CJP’s sister publication SabrangIndia has been covering evictions in the region, and we have been following how the eviction drives are disproportionately targetting members of the Muslim community.

Here are a few examples of recent evictions:

May 17, 2021 – 25 families evicted from Dighali chapori, Laletup, Bharaki Chapori, Bhoirobi and Baitamari in Sonitpur District. These are flood-prone riverine areas.

June 6, 2021 – 74 families evicted from Kaki in Hojai District. Roughly 80 percent of the population here is Muslim.

June 7, 2021 – 49 families evicted from Dhalpur, Phuhurtuli in Darrang District. All, except one family, are Muslim.

August 7, 2021 – 61 families evicted from Alamganj in Dhubri District. 90 percent of the population here is Muslim. 

September 20, 2021 – Around 200 families evicted from Fuhuratoli, Dhalpur in Darrang District.

After the evictions carried out on June 7, the one in which Parbati Das was evicted from her home, our team spoke to residents. According to them, after the Assam movement, Muslims as well as three Bengali Hindu families lived together in harmony in the region. One of those three families was the family of Karna Das who founded a small Shiva temple on a hill located there. He married a woman named Parbati and gradually other people also started offering prayers at the temple including Assamese Hindu families that live across the river. But later two other Hindu families moved to Kalang in Morigaon District. However, the temple priest Karna Das and his wife Parbati Das remained in Dhalpur.

Now, the Shiva temple that is at the heart of this controversy, has two priests, one of whom joined just five months ago. But despite being formerly married to a priest of the same temple, it was Parbati who was thrown out of her house with her new family during the eviction. “This is the second time I was thrown out of my house. I am homeless now and don’t know what to do,” she said.

Therefore, the BJP’s purpose behind spreading this false story appears to be to create a communal divide in a state that has so far been proud of its plural, secular, multi-ethnic culture. Given how by polls are due in Assam in Gossaigaon, Tamulpur, Mariani, Thowra and Bhabanipur on Oct 30, could this all be a political ploy to reap a rich electoral crop by polarising the electorate?

Related:

Heartless government poised to evict thousands amidst Covid-19, monsoon in Assam
Assam Police Firing: 12-year-old shot dead while returning home from Aadhaar centre!
Crowd control by Police: How much force is too much force?
Assam Police Firing: Who are “encroachers” and who are “indigenous”?
Assam Police Firing: People across India demand justice for evicted families
Assam Police Firing: Support for victims grows
Assam Police Firing: Death toll rises, victim blaming rampant
Police firing in Assam: Illegal and unforgivable
BREAKING: 2 killed, 10 injured in police firing in Assam

The post EXCLUSIVE! Assam priest’s widow shoots down claims of “forced conversion” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Artwork by Lalla Essaydi. Source: Flickr
 

In these pages, I propose to put forward my ideas on the rights of women which I have held for long. Although many of my other ideas have changed over time, I have had no reason to change or alter any of my ideas in this regard. If anything, I find myself holding on to them even more firmly with the passage of time. I hope that the articulation of these ideas and acting on them will bring about much- needed reform that will pull my community out of its current state of decline and despair.

I am well aware that I will be charged with aping the British and worse. And that many of my fierce opponents will go into overdrive to contradict, ridicule me. Abuses too will be hurled. But those to who sincerely believe in the majesty and grandeur of Shariah laws, those whose notions of dignity, self-worth and self-respect will not deter them from taking inspiration from the life and times of Prophet Mohammed and his family and the values they promoted, will have no hesitation in responding positively. Nor will they be discouraged by the criticisms of individuals and organizations, or the scorn and ridicule that they too would be subjected to by the ignorant and the rogues.

If this humble effort of mine results in the protection of the rights of even a single old woman in the entire country I would consider my effort to have been worthwhile.

Male Supremacy Myth

Men and women are both part of the human species. Neither is superior to the other but in each there are some distinctive qualities which makes them different from the other. These distinctive characteristics call for a corresponding set of different responsibilities and duties for men and women but beyond that there must be no differentiation between the two sexes. Apart from the distinctions based on their innate, God-created differences, any attempt to widen the divide or to prove the superiority of one over the other is nothing but personal prejudice and gender bias. It is but obvious that these differences are merely circumstantial, ephemeral and non-durable, the product of different environments, age and cultural background. We will show that the differences that are sought to explain and justify the differing status and rights of men and women go way beyond what is explicable or justified on the basis of the inherent differences between them. These are based on nothing but the presumptions, prejudices and ignorance of men. The consequences of such aberrant modes of thinking and being are the decline of culture, the ruination of the world and the continuance of the barbarism of ancient times in the name of Islam.

Most of our cultural constructs are rooted in the false notion that men are sovereign and women are their subjects, in the belief that women have been created with the sole purpose of placing herself in the service of men. Because of such a belief, men assert their rights over women just as they claim ownership rights over other forms of property and claim that women cannot have rights equal to that of men. If such false and baseless notions were merely the product of male prejudice and self-centeredness and there was no attempt to justify their claims with logic, reason and religious belief it would have been one thing. But the tragedy is that the claims of male supremacy are sought to be premised on sound reason, lofty principles and divine edict. The purpose of writing this piece is to expose the hollowness of their claim and the shamefulness of their conduct.

To the best of our knowledge the arguments which are forwarded to prove male supremacy are the following:

1. God has given men more physical strength than women. Therefore men claim full rights over all that is gained with the use of superior strength and hard labour. That is why the right to rule or govern, which includes the use of force, is both natural and divine right of men.

2. In addition to physical prowess men also have a superior mental capacity. That is why in every age and in every country women have been considered to be of low intellect, inherently gullible, ill-informed, lacking in conceptual ability, unreliable, treacherous.

3. Just as sovereignty over others is the most prestigious thing in worldly affairs, being bestowed with the mantle of a prophet or messenger is the greatest gift from God. Throughout human history Allah, has bestowed prophethood only on men. No woman has ever been sent to preach the divine message.

4. Theologically speaking, the Quranic verse, “al rejala qawwamoona alan nisa” is frequently quoted in support of men’s superiority. The verse is taken to mean that men are rulers over women.

5. Another bogus argument presented is that Allah first created Adam and Eve was created subsequently only for his benefit. Therefore, it is the divine intent that women remain servile to men and be a source of his happiness and well-being.

6. In the Quran, the evidence of two women is treated as equal to that of one man. This and the fact that in inheritance the share of a woman has been stipulated as half that of a man is also proof of men’s superiority.

7. The fact that men are permitted to marry four wives while the reverse is prohibited further proves that God has given man a more elevated status.

8. Virtuous men have been promised beautiful wives in paradise while even virtuous women have been given no such promise.

Call them fanciful, philosophical, logical or theological: such is the evidence and the proofs we are offered on the basis of which half the world is kept under subjugation, forced to live like slaves of men and even worse. Thus is the better half of God’s finest creation forced to satisfy the lust of the basest among men, cater to every demand of the even the most worthless and vile among self-serving men.

We will now examine these claims one by one and see whether they stand the test of logical scrutiny or whether they are false and baseless views manufactured by self-centered men. Anyone who is capable of shedding his cultural prejudices, prepared to examine arguments on merit, not consumed by anxiety about the implications of embracing a new idea for their own future conduct, will see that all the male supremacy arguments are baseless and worthless. What’s more, these are gross violation of God’s edicts and Shariah laws.

Physically Superior?

The first claim about men’s greater physical prowess is a mere assertion pretending to being a logical argument. Admitted, men are physically stronger than women. So what? How does this prove that physical strength is a legitimate basis for the claim that men are superior to women? It is but obvious that those who are physically stronger are expected to undertake more difficult, arduous and hazardous tasks than those who are less strong. Whoever said that men should not be asked to handle tasks that require greater strength, are more arduous or hazardous? Men are most welcome to them: breaking boulders, chopping trees, slitting throats and all such jobs that are hard to do or which only the heartless can do. But the question remains: how does their physical ability to do such tasks makes them superior or more cultured? How is superior to be defined and where is the argument or evidence for that?

The absurdity of this argument will be immediately apparent if instead of comparing men with women, we compare men with four-legged animals. Suppose we argued that because God has given greater physical strength to them than men, animals are superior and sovereign over men? If you stick to your warped logic, how can you run away from our claim? Are we not being true to the logical method? If men are superior (your definition) over women, by that very logic if follows that donkeys are superior to men. If the fact that a donkey can carry a far greater load than a man does not establish the former’s supremacy over the latter, how does a man become superior to a woman merely owing because he is capable of withstanding greater physical hardship?

To simplify the point further and to nail the bogus claim, let us analyze the basis on which men are women are/ought to be compared? There is no doubt that men and women are a part of the animal world. Surely this animalism is not what constitutes their identity but it is their human qualities and capacities which qualify both as being humans. A human being is a special animal endowed with common sense, logic and wisdom. It is these qualities and the evolutionary possibilities inherent in them that elevate a mere animal to the lofty level of humanity. Therefore, any comparison between them will make sense only if we examine the extent to which they have evolved from their animal existence.

But all that the superiority argument tells us is that men are of a heavier build, their bones are stronger, their legs more powerful. These characteristics are not part of that special quality that elevates the status of humans over animals. As it happens, all the traits referred to are related to animalism and a comparison between man and woman on that basis is nonsensical. Everyone knows that men and women are from the animal species. God in his infinite wisdom and power reduced the bestial qualities in human beings by diminishing their ferocity, predatory instincts and brutality and added some angelic qualities to create a new species: humans. Therefore, the comparison between man and woman ought to be based on these angelic qualities, as opposed to animal traits. Establishing man’s superiority or development on the basis of bestial qualities is, in effect, to prove their baseness.

Apart from what has been said above, even if we were to agree that men are superior to women owing to physical strength, it should be evident that this is the result of social evolution and not the result of divine intent. As far as perceptible causes are concerned, it seems that the excess or lack of physical strength in men and women are not inherent. Instead, various cultures and societies have over countless centuries brought about gender differences similar to the difference between men and men generated over time across nations. Why is it that the Afridis of Kabul are burly and strong, while the Babus of Kolkata are lean and puny in appearance? Why are the Sikhs of Punjab referred to as the lions of Punjab, while the Baniyas of Hindustan are said to be meek? It should not be difficult to understand that what explains the Sikhs of Punjab being physically stronger than the Bengalis and Baniyas also explains men being stronger than women. The only difference is that the historical process that culminated in the different physical capacities of the two sexes started eons before than it did in case of Bengalis and Baniyas.

That more or less physical strength in men and women is not inherent but the result of socially governed causes can be demonstrated in another way too. Even though women in different parts of the world live under more or less similar conditions and do comparable work, due to cultural and other differences their physique and strength are different. If you compare the build of women living in Ghazni and Herat with the genteel ladies of Delhi and Lucknow you will come to know that the difference is not innate or God-given. This only means that the reason why women are physically less strong than men is because they were forced to live in a manner that their corporal capacity gradually diminished through underuse.

The second part, or a corollary, of the first claim about brawn-power based superiority of men is even more pathetic and utterly baseless. In the early period of human civilization, when barbarism and ignorance was rife and rights and the principles of society had not been defined, every controversial and contentious issue was resolved on the basis of the “Might is Right” principle. However, even then no single person was powerful enough to grab whatever he wanted without the active support of allies. By the time people evolved even the most rudimentary form of rule or governance, they had left far behind the ancient mode of life and progressed to a level where systems were in place and laws were laid down for their self-preservation. In other words, people had come to appreciate the importance of laying down customs, norms and laws and begun compelling others to abide by them. The head of state did not depend solely on his corporal might to govern, but rather on the support of his loyal friends and devoted allies. To this day, all kinds of governments are run on these principles.

Now no form of government can exclude women entirely and forever. Men have always been conscious of their superiority and have denied women opportunity and rights. Despite this, they have not managed to evolve any form of government that excluded women entirely. Hence, in all states and nations, at some time or another, the reign of government fell in the hands of women. And some of them ruled so skillfully that it is difficult to find a sovereign of their caliber in the ranks of men. In Hindustan, though the reign of Razia Begum was very brief, with regard to peace and posterity, it was better than the rule of many an emperor. The era of Jahangir saw Noor Jehan Begum as the power behind the throne. For its unparalleled peace, posterity and organization of state affairs, this period will always shine through the history of Hindustan as its golden age. Consider the present age and see how efficiently Her Majesty, the sovereign of the British Empire is governing, ensuring law and order, dispensing justice.

Can it still be said that sovereignty by right is for men only? The continuing belief that government is the result of sheer power is entirely erroneous. The progress of knowledge, promotion of culture and British rule over our country has made it clear that knowledge and learning are the greatest force in the world. Today, only the more educated and the knowledgeable can lay legitimate claim to superiority over others. So we hope that in future, men taking pride in their heavy build and big bones will not claim superiority over women but look elsewhere to buttress their bogus claim.

Intellectually Superior?

The second assertion is again a mere claim without proof. Scientists of the present time have established a marginal difference in the structure of male and female bodies and have described some bones in the female body as being delicate compared to male bones. Yet, to this day no clear distinction has ever been detected in the brain and in the development of those sections of the brain that determine various nuances of intellectual potency. Despite the fact that cultural norms have made women’s corporal strength lesser than that of men – so much so that a difference in the makeup of their bones can now be established – their mental capacity is by no means lesser than that of men. If anything, this shows that if traditional norms had allowed women equal opportunity for physical development, maybe, in fact undoubtedly, their mental faculties would have been more sophisticated than those of men.

As in the first case, a big flaw in this second assertion is that the difference resulting from prevalent social norms is considered to be inherent. In fact, even if the brainpower of women were in future to be found to be somewhat lower than that of men, why should it not be seen as the obvious result of women’s present cultural state, where their physical health is greatly neglected which so affects their nervous system that there is always a risk of diminished mental abilities, of making them what is described as impatient, impulsive, unpredictable, petulant, and dim-witted beings?

Since men and women have not been treated as equals, since they have been denied a level playing field in the pursuit of knowledge and development of their mental faculty, how can men claim their own relative advancement as a result of some innate quality? Using such logic, since at present the Zulus are deep in the throes of barbarism and ignorance while in the field of knowledge the British have left the intellectuals of Greece behind, would it be justified to deduce that there is some innate difference between the mental abilities of the British and the Zulus?

Thus, even if some difference were to be found in the mental prowess of men and women, it cannot be a verdict against the latter. In fact, there is no doubt that despite centuries of neglect in the intellectual development of women, despite the minds of countless generations of women being kept inactive, we still do not find them lacking in anything when compared to men. If anything, this clearly shows that the mental abilities of women are inherently superior to that of men.

All prophets were male?

The third proof of the superiority of men is based on the claim that no woman has ever been blessed with the mantle of a prophet. This is questionable on three grounds. Firstly, Muslims believe that through the ages God has sent 1,24,000 messengers or prophets to the world for the guidance of human beings. In all our holy books we find accounts of only 10 to 15 of these prophets, while all the other prophets from the ancient times probably do not exceed 30. This means that we know nothing of the lives of 123,970 prophets. Therefore, it cannot be said with any certainty whether they were all men, all women or that some were men and some women. To arrive at a verdict or to make jibes at half of humanity on the basis of limited information is nonsensical. Until we know about all the prophets, it is not appropriate to discourse on the basis of mere assumption.

Secondly, the nature of a woman’s creation demands that she should not be assigned any task that requires long years of continuous struggle and hard work, which also necessitates complete separation from home and family. Keeping women free of such demanding activity, if anything, indicates God’s concern for her well-being. This should remind men that just as they derive serenity and comfort from women, so do women from men. They should also know that the well-being of women is of greater concern to God.

Thirdly, we most definitely do not believe in the equality of all men and all women even as we affirm that there is no intrinsic difference between man and woman. It is on account of circumstances that at times some women gain superiority over other women, some men gain superiority over other men and some men leave other women behind, while at other times, women prevail over men in the pursuit of excellence. Hence, the success of a handful of people over others is no proof of the superiority of one gender over another.

Of course, the superiority of some men who were ordained prophets over all men and women is evident. But this in itself does not prove any difference between the vast majority of men and women who are not prophets; this is no evidence of the superiority of the entire breed of men over women. Can any other woman lay claim to the eminence and respect enjoyed by Hazrat Amina who gave birth to Prophet Muhammad or mothers of other prophets? Absolutely not! It was an honor that God had reserved since the beginning of time for these fortunate ladies, and hence, they became its beneficiaries. So what if all the women in the world belong to the same gender as them? Likewise, would it be proper to assume that all the men of the world possess some part of the God-given esteem that prophets have only because they are part of the same gender?

Scriptural Claims Men rulers over women?

After the above-mentioned logical assertions and claims, we come to the scripture-based claims. But these are equally erroneous as they are based on a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the Quran. The foremost proof that they derive from the Holy Quran comes from the Quranic verse which is generally translated as: Men are qawwamun (the protectors and maintainers) of/over (ala) women because God has faddala (preferred) some of them over some others and because they support them from their means. The theologians explaining this verse expound that men have been endowed with two types of higher qualities. One is the capacity to think and act and the other is the fact that men provide for the various needs of women, like food, clothing, shelter, etc.

I do not agree with this explanation because, first of all, translating qawwamun literally as “master” is in my opinion not correct. In fact, except for Maulana Shah Abdul Qadir no one else has translated it as such. Shah Rafi-ud-Din has translated qawwamun as “someone who is ready to move or is on the go,” while his father, Shah Wali Ullah, translated it as “counsel, manager.” In another Persian translation, known as the Sheikh Sa’adi Translation, qawwamun has been translated as a “manager”, “in-charge.” Maulana Qadir does not clarify what according to him is the meaning of “some have been ranked superior over some others” in the verse. If the first “some” stands for some men and the second for some women, how does it establish the superiority of all men over all women? If on the other hand in both instances “some” refers to men, then how does saying that some men are superior to other men prove all men’s superiority over all women? And if the verse is addressing all human beings, even if the first “some” implies all men and the second “some” implies all women it still does not establish the inherent natural or God-given superiority of all men over all women.

Besides, it is not at all clear from the verse in what sense superiority is implied. If one were to assume that in the first part of the verse what is being referred to is men’s superior capacity for thought and action while the latter refers to the superiority arising owing to the fact that men pay for the maintenance of women it can be argued that the latter distinction does not arise from any God-given difference between men and women. That is why we cannot accept this as an argument for superiority. Men’s superiority over women that may be achieved through pursuit of knowledge, excellence of character or other qualities that are an outcome of education and good upbringing is quite a different thing from the claim that men are superior to women by the mere fact of being men. The first is self-acquired or self-created while the second is intrinsic. There are many women who possess these self-acquired qualities of intellect and conduct more than men and in such cases they would obviously be superior to men.

Can anybody claim that Abu Jehal’s (uncle of Prophet Mohammed who remained opposed to Islam throughout his life) ability to think and act was superior to that of Hazrat Khadija (first wife of the prophet? Or that Abu Laheb (another uncle, who was similarly opposed to Islam) was superior to Hazrat Fatima (daughter of the prophet)? Or that all men or a majority of them have more knowledge and love of God than Hazrat Rabia Basry (a renowned female sufi saint from Basra, Iraq)? A father also spends money on his children and pays wages to his servants. Can one conclude from this that the master is intrinsically superior to the servant? Absolutely not! If due to some quirk of fate the master-servant relation gets reversed won’t the superior-inferior relation also get reversed, even though this contradicts the notion of inherent superiority?

Thus this much-quoted verse cannot in any way be considered proof of the superiority of men over women. In fact, the meaning of the verse is straightforward and obvious. The word qawwamun here is used as a form of hyperbole and must not be taken literally. A person who does not find much time to sit and rest due to his hectic schedule and business, a person who is on the go most of the time, is referred to as qawwam. Since men have to travel to far off lands to earn a living and provide for his family, men have been declared qawwam or managers and caretakers of women. Since the world is full of all types of people, rich or poor, weak or strong, generous or miserly, God states that He has granted distinction to one over the other. Men are being asked to take care, look after their wives in keeping with their status, position and economic condition. This verse does not talk of sovereignty and servility. If at all it does, even a cursory reflection shows that men need to be careful as they have a religious duty towards women.

Unequal: Testimony and Shares?

The second spurious logic is based on the fact that the Quran has declared the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man and a woman’s share in inheritance has been pronounced as half that of a man. But even this does not prove any real or inherent superiority. We need to consider several aspects here. Firstly, the cultural condition under which women have been kept leaves them ignorant, illiterate and inexperienced. Given the consequent difference of understanding and experience, if the testimony of men and women were treated on par in all manner of issues and trials, it could result in miscarriage of justice.

The Quranic verse in which the testimony of two women is declared equal to that of one man concerns loan agreements. In traditional societies, women are given little opportunity to engage in data gathering, documentation, account-keeping and court matters. Lack of education, awareness and experience in such matters are outside the realm of women’s everyday experience. Men on the other hand routinely deal with such matters and therefore have no such handicap. That is why, instead of one woman, the testimony of two women is considered necessary, so that, in case, one woman forgets the details of the case, the other woman can help her recall. This in fact is the rationale given by the Quran itself: “Two women should be present, so that if one woman forgets, the other may help her recall.” If the Quran cites this difference arising out of social circumstance as the rationale for two women being present during a testimony and does not say that women’s testimony is worth half that of a man, who are petty theologians with fanciful notions and faulty logic to pass such judgment against half of humankind?

Secondly, the decree of the Quran regarding such testimony is an enabling provision, the observance of which has not been declared obligatory on Muslims. Latching on to an enabling provision elevating it to the status of an obligatory edict and feeding that into the male supremacy argument shows the insularity and sterility of the male mind. Thirdly, as we have stated earlier, the reason for the testimony of two women equaling that of one man is due to social circumstances and not because of the superiority or inferiority of men and women. It is not difficult to appreciate this for apart from the context of loans-related disputes, in matters familiar to women such as nikah (marriage), talaq (divorce), hudood-o-qisas (crime and punishment), where too testimony is involved, God makes no distinction between men and women.

Fourthly, there is an account from the life of the Prophet which actually establishes preference to a single woman’s testimony over others. Sahi Bukhari (the collection of sayings of the Prophet considered to be among the most authentic) narrates the account of Aqba bin Haris, who had married some girl. A woman later objected to this wedding saying that the marriage was not legitimate as she had breastfed both the bride and the groom. Aqba told the woman he did not believe her since she had never before mentioned breast feeding him. He later asked his in-laws and they too said that to the best of their knowledge, the woman had never breastfed their daughter either. Eventually, Aqba went to the Prophet and narrated the story. The testimony of just one woman was enough for the Prophet to nullify the nikah thus terminating the marriage.

Now, can the learned fuqha (jurists) quote even a single example where such a verdict was given on the basis of a single man’s testimony? Yet, it is well known that every now and then, however reluctantly, the fuqha are compelled to rely on the testimony of a single woman to give their ruling. Fifthly, it is possible that the primary reason behind recognizing two women’s testimony as equal to that of one man is that women sometimes are unable to appear before the court due to physical constraints. In such a situation, the advantage of having two women present is that if one is invalid, the other woman would be able to testify. If anything, granting women the option of being able to have her testimony placed on record by another woman affirms the primacy rather the diminishing of women’s rights.

As for share in inheritance, declaring unequal share for men and women does not prove the superiority of men at all. The burden of looking after all of a woman’s financial needs lie entirely on the man, while women bear the easier task of housework. Since a man was charged with the responsibility of providing not only for himself but also his wife and children, how would it be appropriate to grant a woman – who receives wedding-time gifts from her parents, mehr from the husband, is entitled to be adequately taken care of by her husband alimony on divorce, and unlike man has no obligation to spend what is hers on anyone else – a share equal to that of the man in the distribution of inheritance?

This in itself should be a clear and indisputable proof that God is more compassionate and generous towards women. How else can one explain the fact that in spite of being fully entitled to her due share in her husband’s income, she is also entitled to receive a separate share from her father’s inheritance, and has the right to alimony? Hence, in the distribution of inheritance, her share in accordance with Islamic laws does not establish the superiority of men. In fact, it validates the primacy of women.

Adam came first?

The male supremacy claim based on the fact that Adam was created first is nothing but childish. To begin with, we are tempted to assert that this is so because it was not acceptable to God that a woman is left without a companion for even a second. Therefore, it is for her sake that He created Adam first. But as a matter of fact, the belief that Adam was created first and then came Eve is part of the Christian and Jewish faith. This is not at all part of the Islamic creed. There is no mention in the Quran about who was created first, Adam or Eve.

Men allowed multiple wives?

The permission to men to marry four women at a time while women are prohibited from marrying more than one man is a false claim. The problem is that people are literalists who look for the meaning of words in isolation instead of striving to grasp their real meaning and thus unraveling the divine intent. Men gloat over the fact that a Quranic verse clearly entitles men to marry more than one wife: “You may marry two or three or four women whom you choose”. But a little reflection will show that there is no such clear-cut license in the Quran. In fact, having more than one wife at a time is virtually forbidden and those who violate it could be guilty of adultery.

Firstly, some effort is needed to understand this verse in its true perspective. It is not at all clear whether the divine injunction permits a man to have four wives at the same time or whether all that is being said is that a man is permitted to marry sequentially up to four wives. Is it God’s command that on the death of the first wife a man is permitted to remarry and so on, but only one wife at a time is permitted and no marriage fifth time is permitted. Or is it being said that if for some health reasons the first wife is unable to meet her marital obligations, a man is permitted a second wife, even a third or fourth wife for similar reasons? Or are men being told that a man may remarry after divorcing his first wife, and similarly remarry following a second, third and fourth divorce but never after that? Or is it the divine command that no marriage after the first is permitted except with the permission of his current wife or her relations?

Since the verse under consideration is not such whose meaning is clear and unambiguous, we consider it to be among the non-explicit verses of the Quran which theologically speaking cannot be used to assert the veracity of a particular interpretation. For this reason this verse cannot be a basis for Shariah law.

Whether the ulema agree or not, the most likely interpretation in my view is that the permission for subsequent marriage is strictly subject to the willing consent of the first wife or her family members. Our conviction is based on the life of none other than Prophet Mohammed. According to a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Hazrat Ali intended to marry Abu Jehal’s daughter who had converted to Islam even though he was already married to Hazrat Fatima. Hence the relatives of the prospective bride requested permission from the Holy Prophet. On hearing this, the Holy Prophet became very angry. Ascending the pulpit to deliver a sermon he announced: these people are asking for my permission as father to allow them to marry off their daughter to Ali even when my daughter is already married to him. But I will not allow it, I will not allow it, I will not allow it. If Ali really wants to do this, then he must divorce my daughter and only then take another wife. Fatima is very close to my heart, whosoever does her wrong, does me wrong and whosoever hurts her, hurts me.

This Hadith supports the interpretation of the Quranic verse under discussion that permission is a must for the second marriage. The unequivocal opposition from the Prophet proves that it is up to the current wife and her relatives to give or refuse permission. If contracting the second marriage had been permitted by God without consent of the first wife or her relatives, then the Prophet’s conduct would be considered against the will of God, something that is inconceivable for a Muslim.

As we will discuss in the section on marriage (this is a separate chapter in Huqooq Niswan which is not reproduced here) that our ulema and religious leaders have given women the right to stipulate at the time of nikah itself that the husband will not contract a second marriage. Making this condition part of the marriage contract also shows that the second marriage depends on the permission of the first wife. If this consent was not mandatory, placing a condition in this regard at the time of nikah would not have been considered legal and neither would it be religiously binding afterwards. In other words, contrary to widespread perception, there is no blanket permission in the Quran for men to marry up to four vies.

Thirdly, and most importantly, in the verse under discussion, there is a clear-cut directive and an almost impossible-to-meet pre-condition for bigamy. A husband is permitted more than one wife on the strict condition that he ensures justice to all. It is further stipulated that if you are afraid that you will not be able to ensure this, stick to one wife. Now the question is: what are the requirements for justice? Is it possible for the average man to be able to observe it in practice? Most ulema contend that in a marriage, meeting the wife’s daily expenditures, paying her maintenance allowance, providing housing, spending time with the wife and discharging of conjugal duties as a husband are the various requirements of justice. However, we believe that true love and companionship are the paramount consideration in marriage and therefore the essential criteria for fair play and just treatment. And we firmly believe that in a bigamous or polygamous situation, this condition is virtually impossible for a man to meet.

Our adversaries’ object saying there is no point in contemplating something that is practically impossible. If there is nothing to be gained by such discourse, God’s directive is rendered devoid of any practical implication, they say. Our answer to this proposition is that we believe that the real purpose of marriage is to find a lifelong companion, friend and comrade who shares with the spouse the ups and downs of life, is the source of solace and comfort at the end of the daily grind. When referring to the creation of Eve and commendation of marriage God says, “We have placed the love of women in your hearts so that you receive comfort and solace from them.” Therefore, if this aspect is excluded from the marital bond, the relationship gets limited to the satisfaction of male lust.

At another place in the Quran, God asserts, “You will not be able to do justice to your women (wives) even if you strive for it.” It is a basic axiom in Quranic elucidation that for internal consistency and coherence, to the extent possible you search for, unravel the meaning of any verse through other verses. The meaning of justice, for example, must remain uniform throughout the Quran. Now if the justice-to-all command in the verse quoted above is limited to what the ulema who oppose us claim it to be, then the same meaning of justice must apply to the second verse above. Why then does God proclaim that it is impossible for you to treat your wives justly? Why is God categorically and unambiguously asserting that you will not be able to render equal justice to your wives? God Almighty firmly states that you will never be able to do justice but the ulema who support polygamy assert: No, we can do justice! If this is not daring God what is?

However, one might legitimately ask: if God knows that man cannot do justice and says so in plain words in the Quran, why grant permission for up to four wives? Does this impossible to meet criteria not render the permission meaningless? To this we reiterate that, firstly, whatever the Quran says is simple and clear as we have already explained. You ask God what the use of this meaningless permission is. For our part, to the extent that we are able to comprehend the Holy Book, we do not find any difficulty understanding it. Clearly, the way God has granted permission for more than one wife is virtually impossible to achieve. In our view, the granting of permission in this circuitous manner is in fact a severe admonition to desist from misogyny. If a person consumed by greed is told that if he finds the phoenix he will also be able to achieve alchemy, it does not imply a belief on anyone’s part in the actual existence of the phoenix. Or a belief on the addressee’s part that he is quite hopeful of its possession and that the day he finds the phoenix alchemy is sure to follow.

Another good example in this regard could be presented from a Quranic verse in Surah Aaraaf. It reads: “No infidel will enter Paradise until such time as a camel passes through the eye of a needle.” To conclude from this that there will indeed come a time when a camel will pass through the eye of a needle is to present a distorted picture of divine intent. Interestingly, under cover of poetic license a poet taking this statement on face value presents a very comical thought: “Had the miseries which befell me fallen on the camel, infidels would enter paradise.” What the poet means to say is that the camel would become so lean due to grief that it would be able to pass through the eye of the needle. And since their entry in paradise was subject to this condition, infidels would then gain easy access to paradise! God’s edict concerning the taking of more than one wife is similar, when He warns that with multiple wives there is great danger of injustice.

Of course, if there exists a man who is confident that he would never do any injustice, then he may marry as many women as he likes: two, three, or four. In fact, it is only a figure of speech to say marry as many women as you want: there is no special sanctity to the number four. Trying to establish divine permission for multiple wives from this verse is no different from the above mentioned poetic imagination concerning the admission of infidels in paradise.

Keeping Fiqh and Tafseer principles in mind, this verse should be deliberated upon from another angle which has not been done sufficiently hitherto. In my opinion, deriving an edict concerning nikah from this verse is in itself a big mistake. The fact is that this verse is concerned with only a certain form of marriage. During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (jahiliyah), Arab men used to indulge in an extremely vile and heartless practice. They would adopt orphan girls, bring them up, and when they matured, they would marry them with devious intent. Since the orphans had no family, the men would seize all the property of the orphans after marriage. The sole reason for adopting and later marrying these girls was to grab their possessions, just like even nowadays some men marry dance girls only with the intention of getting access to their riches. There are others who despite being married to a good woman are forever on the lookout for some wealthy woman to marry.

The obvious message of this verse is God’s warning to men against the then prevalent deceitful practice. The Quran forbids cruelty towards these orphan girls, commanding men to be judicious as to the rights of orphans. It is also made very clear that if you have any doubt about your ability to do justice, fear that if you marry such helpless orphans you will commit some wrong, by no means must you marry such girls. Instead marry other women with parents or guardians who can hold you accountable for your treatment of them. But even then justice remains a non-negotiable requirement, for that is the true principle behind marriage. If you can do justice, then you can contract up to four marriages; if not, limit yourself to only one wife.

It should be abundantly clear from what has been said above that the verse in question was not a general decree on marriage. Rather it was aimed at warning against the fraudulent dispossession of helpless orphan girls. So even today if there are such people who are guardians of orphan girls they must not marry them if they have any misgivings of unjust conduct on their own part later. Apart from the context of orphans, the Quran is silent on nikah. Perhaps, the issue has been left to both parties intending to marry according to their social status, cultural circumstances and preferences. Consequently, this verse in the Quran is no evidence of a blanket license to men to marry up to four women. And that is why this edict can be no argument in support of men’s superiority.

Male right to divorce

As for divorce, the right of divorce that men have been granted is such that they should be extremely cautious about exercising it. In fact the only way men can lay claim to be decent and civilized is by not exercising this right outside exceptional circumstances. Divorce is such a sour medicine that the only ailment it should be administered for is that which has no other cure. Husband-wife relations are so delicate and private that going to courts and divulging them before others can only add to their grief and sorrow. It is true that nikah is an agreement like any other civil contract. After the covenant is signed, each party reserves the right to force his/her partner who is bent on violating the contract to abide by it and not strain the relationship. But it is also the case that only broken hearts think of terminating the contract. And when that stage is reached even if one is forced to continue with the contract, it can only be under duress. The relationship then will be a sham rather than the product of mutual love and respect.

The marital contract is after all premised on a meeting of hearts and when that no longer holds true what is left is a spiritless, physical proximity. In such circumstances both parties need to consider the worth of continuing such a relationship merely on the strength of a court decree although emotionally they are already distant from each other. Under such circumstances it is best that they part ways by mutual consent.

As to the question: who has been/should be given this right? In my opinion, if hostility between husband and wife is the reason for divorce, no matter who is bestowed with the right the result will be the same. It is not generally the case that a man says to his wife that he does not want her any longer, but the wife is still full of love for the husband and reluctant to end the relationship. We are of the opinion that in such a situation they should part ways irrespective of whether the man demands it or the woman.

No one can deny the fact that women are imbued with greater modesty, decency and desire to protect their dignity and honor as compared to men. It seems as if modesty and decorum are part of their genetic makeup and all those elements that bring out the gentleness which nature has conferred upon women, are apparent in abundant measure. Kindness, compassion, God-fear, empathy and love are innate qualities in women. A separation through divorce no matter how genuine the reasons would understandably be far more painful for one whose basic nature is constituted of love and kindness. Divorce for women – the personification of love – who’s every fiber is imbued with sincerity, would obviously be a most undesirable thing.

That is why God has protected women against precipitating an act. The Prophet declared divorce as being the worst act amongst all acts acceptable to God. Protect women, he preached to his followers. What an irony that something which has been termed the worst practice by God is touted as an argument for male superiority. In any case, we need to examine whether in fact men alone have the right to divorce. It is quite possible that men having lost interest in their wives refuse to divorce with the sole purpose of torturing them. In such situations, women have been given the right to unilaterally seek divorce through a court of law. This right of the women is called ‘khula’. In this way, she has the right to initiative separation proceedings. But even in such situations God protects her from any blame because on the face of it she is merely asking the court for justice.

Women can choose to terminate a marriage for other reasons too. It is reported in Akhbar-e-Sahiha that a very beautiful woman, Hafza binte Sahal, lived in Medina during the time of the Prophet. Her husband who was ugly loved his wife very much but the woman hated him. They would quarrel every day. At last, Hafza told the Prophet that she hated her husband very much and feared that she might be held accountable by God for not fulfilling her responsibilities as a wife. Therefore, she requested the Prophet to separate her from her husband. The Prophet tried to convince the woman but when he saw that harmony between the two was difficult, he asked the man to divorce her.

The husband told the Prophet that he had gifted precious land to his wife. Since she now wanted a divorce for no fault of his, his land should be returned to him. Hafza said he was welcome to the estate and anything else he may want as long as he let her go. In the end, the Prophet asked the land to be returned and ended their marriage.

What better right could be granted to women to protect them from the excesses of their husbands than the rights which have already been given to them under the Islamic law?

For men, houris in paradise

When all worldly logic fails to prove man’s superiority over women, he turns to the Hereafter to establish his case. It is claimed that men have been promised very beautiful women — houris — in paradise. But this claim is as shameful and worthless as are the rest of them. The words of the Quran on which this imaginary superiority is based are: “Walahum feeha azwaaj motaharra” (“For them there will be virtuous partners in paradise”). They conclude from this verse that “hum” which is a masculine pronoun means men and azwaaj refers to the virgin maidens of paradise. However, this interpretation of the verse shows total ignorance of the special Quranic style of discourse.

The Quran has a distinctive style. Wherever the reference is to humanity at large, the masculine gender is used to convey its message. Look at the very first surah (chapter of the Quran) of the Quran, where God says: “Hudayyil muttaqeenallazina youmenoona bil ghaibe wa yaqeemun al salawath”) (“Believers who have faith in the Day of Judgment and the unseen and who establish prayers”). Here only the masculine pronoun has been used but that surely does not mean that the Quran is only for the guidance of those pious men who have faith in the unseen and who pray regularly. Obviously women too are being addressed. In hundreds of places, the Quran refers to “aqueemul salwatah wa utu al zakaah” (those who pray regularly and pay the religious tax) using the masculine pronoun. Would it be right then to believe that the edict regarding prayers and payment of the obligatory tax is only for men while women have been exempted from these obligations? Certainly not!

Similarly, the Quranic edict concerning prayers and fasting, “mun shahada minkum al shahada faleesummha”, read literally means: “Those (men) among you who have cited the moon must start fasting”. Were we to believe that here women are excluded from fasting during Ramzaan, women will be altogether free of this obligation since we do not find any separate mention of this obligation for women elsewhere in the Quran. To repeat, in numerous places in the Quran though the masculine pronoun is used, the reference is obviously to both men and women. Incidentally, such usage is not uncommon in Urdu. For example, Bura karnay wale ka anjaam bura hota hai (“those who commit evil deeds will be meet their just ends”). As we all know, “wale” is masculine and walee feminine. Obviously it does not mean that “bura karne walee” women have nothing to worry about.

Similarly, it is not correct to take the word zouj to mean ‘a woman’. In Arabic, zouj means “partner”. A woman is zouj of a man while a man is zouj of a woman. The expression “huqooq zoujain” (“the rights of partners”) well illustrates the point of gender equality. Thus, the verse simply means that those who carry out righteous deeds will enter paradise and will have virtuous partners for companionship. That is, for men there will be women and for women there will be men.

This interpretation might seem surprising and elicit the question: we know, men will have houris, but who will be women’s partners? This confusion arises only because to pamper their own egos, men have decided to read certain passages of the Quran in a way that suits them and have convinced themselves that they have the right interpretation. Though they seem to accept the right interpretation when it is pointed out to them and claim to have jettisoned their earlier understanding, the fact is that they unconsciously stick to old ideas which linger in the mind. Old habits die hard and they find it difficult to internalize the new understanding even after apparently having come around to accepting them.

Muslim men have for long held the firm conviction that come the Day of Reckoning and there will be houris lying in wait for them in paradise. We explain to them that this is a mistaken view, so dislodge it from your mind and understand the real meaning of the Quran. Alright, they say, we accept what you say. But tell us: men will have houris as partners, but who will be women’s partners? Clearly with the thought of houris still has a strong hold on their imagination. They have not really accepted what they claim to have and this is a big folly.

The fact is that there is not a single verse in the Quran to indicate that the houris of paradise are a separate creation intended as reward for pious men. In the Arabic language all fair-complexioned woman with black eyes are called “hoor” (houri). The Quran clearly states that on the day of reckoning all human beings will be resurrected, all young in age. There is no further detail concerning men. But about women God specifically states that when resurrected all women be virgin and of marriageable age just like the resurrected men.

It is these very women who are variously described in the Quran as “houris” (black-eyed), “qaaserat ul fitrat” (of modest disposition), “khairaat” (good wives), “azwaaj” (wives). Referring to certain verses in the Quran and sayings of the Prophet, some of his Companions (Ibn Abbas for example,) have clearly taken the view that all the words in the Quran which are taken to imply that houris are a species apart from human beings in fact refer to none other than the women inhabitants of planet earth. When it is said that they are virgins it only means that this is so since their resurrection.

It is clear then that the beautiful women who are being referred to in the Quran are the very wives who once inhabited the earth but who will be resurrected as very beautiful and loving companions. In paradise where no one will ever age the pious women will provide companionship forever to their pious husbands. In Surah Hadd, Allah says that those who are rewarded with life eternal in paradise will get to meet their near and dear ones: parents, wives, children. In Surah Toor also it is mentioned that Allah will bring together in paradise those who are virtuous and whose children too are virtuous. In Surah Zakhraf it is stated: enter paradise with your wives and roam about freely. There are several other verses where it is reiterated that the virtuous who enter paradise will meet their virtuous relations there.

From all that has been said above it should be evident that it is neither the case that men have special mental faculties nor has the Quran given any elevated status to men because of which they should be considered superior. A close study of Shariah clearly establishes that men and women have equal rights. Surah Nisa, the one that contains many verses concerning women begins as follows: “O people, fear your Creator who has created you all of the same kind and created your partners from the same”. The surah spells out the rights of heirs, orphans and women and anyone who might do injustice towards them is dealt a severe warning. It is asserted that men and women are created from a single nafs (self), with similar thoughts and feelings. Be it men or women, anyone who is oppressed or victimized feels pain just like you would in their place because you have all been made alike. So fear Allah and beware of committing any injustice against anyone.

In this surah, even though the husband has been given the responsibility of looking after all his wife’s needs, she has been granted a share in her father’s property equal to half of the man’s share. What’s more, in certain situations a woman’s share has been made the same as that of man’s. For example, if the deceased leaves behind parents and children, each parent is entitled to a sixth of the total property, that is, the mother and the father get the same amount. In a situation where the deceased leaves behind neither parents nor children but only brothers and sisters, the share of the sisters are to be equal to that of the brothers.

In addition to the above, the wife is entitled to mehr (dower) from the husband at the time of marriage. In the event of divorce, however large the amount, the husband is not entitled to demand the return of even a penny. Before Islam there was a cruel practice in Arabia whereby when a husband lost interest in the wife he would mistreat her to the point that she would ask for divorce and return the dower amount. Declaring this to be an evil practice, Allah has warned Muslim men from misbehaving with their wives with the intent of recovering the dower amount from her.

At the same time, men have been commanded to behave decently with their wives. The Quran goes on to say that even if you dislike your wife for some reason you must still treat her well for it is possible that Allah may intend some good for you from the very thing you dislike. The principle of gender parity is reiterated, saying that men have a right to a portion of what they earn and women have a right to a portion of what they earn. In other words, both are equal, neither is superior to the other. To each there is a reward for his or her good deeds.

The woman’s right to divorce through the khula system has been stated as follows: “If a woman fears misbehavior on the part of her husband, there is no harm if the two of them resolved matters amicably. But if they decide to separate, Allah will be equally generous with both”. In the event of domestic conflict, the way prescribed for attempting resolution is equally gender just: If there is a misunderstanding between husband and wife, appoint two arbitrators, one from the man’s family, the other from the woman’s. No doubt, the more you reflect on the verses of the Quran, the more you will realize that the gender justice principle comes through clear and consistent.

The only difference between men and women has to do with their reproductive organs and there is no physical or mental prowess involved here. That woman are the “weaker sex” has only one implication: women give birth to children and bring them up, so men should perform arduous tasks and earn for the upkeep of the entire family.

Some medical experts claim to have recently detected a small disparity in the brain capacity of men and women. It is claimed that men have the capacity for totalizing, comprehensive thought, for analyzing things in intricate detail while women find it difficult to move conceptually from the particular to the general. Firstly, this proposition appears to be hypothetical and whimsical, and the same has yet to be established scientifically. If per chance, it were to be conclusively proved in the future, it would at best mean that men have a capacity that women lack relatively speaking and vice versa. For the moment the fact remains that until the present there has never arisen an issue, problem or challenge in the intellectual domain which men are able to address or comprehend but not women.

In fact, as far as some of my friends’ and my own experience are concerned, we find that compared to boys girls are sharper, more intelligent, more conscientious. I have been very pleasantly surprised to learn of many girls who never got to attend a madrasa and yet have learnt to read and write on their own. In most cases, they neither had access to formal education, nor to anyone at home who assumed the responsibility of tutoring them. They simply picked up some words from a sister, some from a brother, a few things now and then from the mother. They learnt to write by simply watching their siblings do the same. Gradually, through such self-learning they became educated enough to start teaching their younger brothers. But we have yet to come across a single example of a boy who is self-taught in similar fashion. Parents or elder brothers, who have taught a boy and a girl of the same age, would know that boys are relatively speaking dense and dim-witted, a dead loss as compared to girls.

As far as moral values are concerned, women are by far in the lead. Modesty, humility and decency are virtues you find in abundance in women; you won’t find even a tenth of the same in men. Some men are so prejudiced against women that if a widow opts for a second marriage after the death of her husband, it becomes a proof of their supposed treachery. But the same men have no qualms practicing polygamy and ignoring their obligations towards any of the wives – both contrary to the teachings of Islam. They remarry no sooner than the death of the wife, with not a moment’s thought on how the step-mother will behave with the children from the earlier marriage. None of this ever invokes the betrayal charge against men while poor helpless, God-fearing widows who, to escape their desperate circumstances, look for succor through remarriage in keeping with the teachings of Allah and his prophet are immediately rendered unfaithful.

If remarriage per se is proof of treachery why are men, who practice polygamy merely to satisfy their lust, who violate Shariah laws, who sow thorns in the path of their children not declared the worst betrayers the most untrustworthy of all? Should not such hypocrites who pour scorn over widows who remarry have some shame?

It is not a practice among Muslims but consider the extraordinary devotion and commitment of Hindu women to their husbands. Granted, the sati system a repugnant practice. But think of what it involves and ask yourself honestly: is there an example anywhere in the world, from men of any race or religion, that could come even remotely close to such an example, of men are prepared to unhesitatingly sacrifice their life for the love of their wives?

Apart from all that has been said above which goes to show that women are superior beings, it is also worth noting that though God has no visage or features, yet for believers from all spiritual traditions Beauty is among His attributes. Muslims believe that God is the bestower of beauty and all beauty is dear to Him. Who can doubt that He has blessed women with a greater share of this divine attribute, that in every nation and country women are more beautiful than men? Does this not indicate that God is more well-disposed towards women?

Quite understandably, women blessed with this radiant gift, this amazing magnetic quality are more than able to hold their own against the most powerful, the mightiest and the most sagely amongst men. Who does not know that the most lion-hearted among men who never yielded before the world’s greatest misfortunes or calamities, who never cowered before the deadliest of weapons get mesmerized by one darting glance from a beautiful woman? Which is that lightning power whose single spark can ignite the senses of the bravest and the self-control of the most sagely amongst the hermits? Who does not know that one alluring feminine look is sufficient to melt the resolve of many a sage, or bring the iron-willed to their knees?

Who can deny that the beauty that so entrances is but a speck of divine splendor, a spark of the sun that illuminates the world? Why then should women not proclaim with pride:

“Garche khurdeem nisbate sat buzurg

zarra aftaab ta baaneem“

(A speck of dust Sire, to you may be

The sun is where I am coming from).

(See edit on page 3 for more on the writer. )

(Translated for Urdu by Javed Anand).

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2009 Year 16    No.144, The Superiority Myth, Cover Story 1

The post The Supremacy Myth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many Reformists And Thinkers Were Assassinated By Extremists.

Main Points:

1. Extremist interpretation of Quranic verses turn young Muslims into terrorists.

2. Secularists and liberal thinkers are branded apostates and enemies of Islam.

3.Muslims have a very rigid notion of religion that prevents them from reform.

The stagnation in Muslim thought across the Muslim world has always been a cause of concern for Muslim intellectuals, liberal Islamic scholars and reformers. But their attempts have always faced fierce resistance from the fundamentalists who are so much obsessed with the puritanical Islam that they think that any reform in the Muslim thought will corrupt the faith. Therefore, these reformers were either assassinated or declared apostates and had to go into self-exile. Moreover, every such attempt is believed to be a conspiracy of the West and the reformers are considered agents of the enemies of Islam. The result is that all such attempts to bring reform among Muslims have failed in the past and will fail in future as well.

These were the observations of a renowned Iraqi writer Mahdi Qassem which he made in his article published in Sawt-al-Iraq on March 10, 2021.

His observations reflect the frustration of a large number of Muslim intellectuals and liberal Islamic scholars, especially of the Arab world. The stagnation in the religious thought has reached such a degree that any attempt at reform is seen with suspicion.

This stagnation in Islamic thought of the modern age has caused immense and irreparable damage to Muslims. The two major problems facing Muslims today —Sectarianism and Terrorism — are the result of this intellectual stagnation and the refusal to adapt to needs and requirements of the modern age.

Mahdi Qassem cites the examples of some prominent Muslim academicians, scholars and thinkers who were declared apostates or assassinated or there were attempts at their life. He cites the example of Husayn Muruwa (1910-1987) who was assassinated at his home in Beirut. Muruwa was a Lebanese philosopher and a senior member of Lebanese Communist Party. He wrote a number of books. His most outstanding work was Materialist Tendencies in Arabic Islamic Philosophy. In this book he interpreted traditional Arabic texts from the Marxist point of view.

Another writer and thinker who was assassinated because of his reformist thought was Faragh Foda (1946-1992). He was a prominent writer and human rights activist of Egypt. Foda became an eyesore for the radical Islamists of Egypt for his critical writings on Muslim religious thought. The titles of his books give a hint of his critical attitude. Some of his books are Pleasure Marriage, Sectarianism to Where?, Dialogue about Shariah etc. Obviously he was critical of Sectarianism in Islam, the general concept of Sharia and corrupt practices in the name of temporary marriages. Al Azhar declared him and other secularist writers enemies of Islam. Foda advocated separation of religion from state. The Gama’a Islamiyya accused him of blasphemy and declared him an apostate. The members of Gama’a Islamiyya assassinated him on June 8, 1992.

However, Faragh Foda’s daughter Samar refuted the allegation that her father was an apostate . She said that he was a thinker and defended moderate Islam. She claimed that not a single text in his father’s writings was against Islam.

Another prominent writer of Egypt who became the target of the extremists was the Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz. He was also critical of cultural censorship and advocated freedom of expression. He denounced what he called cultural terrorism. The Islamists regarded Naguib Mahfouz’s novels as blasphemous and Al Azhar had banned his novel “Children of Gabalawi”. In 1992, he along with hundreds of Egyptian intellectuals had signed a letter denouncing cultural terrorism. In October 1994, an extremist attacked him with a knife and severely injured his neck. But he survived the attack.

Apart from these thinkers and liberal scholars there are dozens of other philosophers and thinkers who were victimised for their unconventional views on Islam and the Quran.

One such thinker was Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd who was also a victim of intolerant religious attitude. He was the Professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies in Cairo University. He was an advocate of freedom of thought and scientific research and a critic of contemporary Islamic discourse. He had his own views on the Quran. He accepted Quran as a divine book but was of the view that the Quran was a cultural product which had to be read and interpreted in context of the language and culture of the seventh century Arabs and could be interpreted in many ways.

For his views, a court of Egypt declared him apostate and ordered his separation from his wife. He went into self-exile in Europe but later returned to Egypt and died a natural death.

Mahdi Qassem also blames the growth of terrorism and extremism among the third generation of Muslims born and brought up in Europe on the extremist interpretation of certain verses of the Quran. He wonders how the young Muslims who were born in liberal European society and were educated in the colleges and universities of Europe turned terrorists and joined Al Qaida and ISIS. He blames this on the refusal of Muslims to bring any kind of reform. He writes:

“Many third generation descendants of Muslim (immigrants) were born in western welfare states and studied in their best schools and universities. Moreover, they grew up in real democracies and open societies that promote the values of tolerance and of giving every individual a chance to develop his personal skills and abilities and that punish every kind of racism and hate-mongering. But it is young men and women of third generation of all people who joined terrorist organisations like Al Qaida and ISIS and others… and perpetrated horrible and barbaric crimes of murder, massacre and burning people alive.”

He also observes that any reform in Muslim thought and behaviour is not possible because Muslims have developed a very rigid concept of religion. He writes:

“I believe that any future attempt ( at reform) will fail as well, for Islam is the only religion in the world that resists reform and will never be reformed neither by force nor through a flexible (approach). Not only because it requires changing or omitting many Quranic verses that call for violent jihad and for forceful coercion, but also because the Salafis and their sheikhs believe that any enlightened reform of this kind will empty Islam of its content and essence, and lead to its distortion and annulment, turning it into what they see as a fake religion like Christianity and Judaism.”(English translation by MEMRI)

The irony is that many old and new Islamic scholars believe in the theory of abrogation that calls for abrogation of certain verses of the Quran but only those verses that advocate peace and harmony with non-Muslims. They call the war verses that ask believers to keep fighting all non-Muslims in all times and in all circumstances universally applicable.

Therefore, sectarianism and terrorism cannot be fought and eliminated as long as Quranic verses are not interpreted in the light of modern social and political requirements.

This article was first published on New Age Islam

The post Attempts to reform Muslim thought have always met with fierce resistance appeared first on SabrangIndia.