Singers of the Baul folk tradition in Bangladesh are struggling to survive after more than a decade of physical and legal attacks by Islamic hardliners who consider these artists apostates and heretics.

Bauls – as these wandering minstrels are called in Bangladesh and West Bengal in India – are neither of those things, but they are nonconformists whose songs boldly showcase their syncretic mystical roots.

Rita Dewan, an acclaimed Bangladeshi Baul singer, says she was forced into hiding for most of last year after religious zealots in the Muslim-majority nation threatened to kill her. They accused her of defaming Islam “by making vulgar remarks about god” in a performance uploaded online last January.

“I am in trouble and facing death threats by Mullahs,” the singer told BenarNews. “But I will continue to sing because this is not only the source of my income, but also a part of my prayers. I feel the blessings and touch of Allah through my songs, which also teach me to hate no one.”

While the community is not entirely ascetic, most Bauls live frugally, surviving on what they earn from their itinerant performances. That means, when members of the community are killed or tied up in legal challenges for their allegedly anti-Islam performances, their already meagre earnings take a huge hit.

That is what has been happening since 2011, when a surge in Islamic extremism targeted Bauls as well as writers, bloggers, publishers, activists and intellectuals, said Baki Billah, a human rights activist in Dhaka.

“The Baul performers have been increasingly facing death threats and attacks due to the rise of hardline Islamists since then,” Billah told BenarNews.

These attacks on Bauls are also a threat to the survival in Bangladesh of the folk form, which has influenced the likes of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore, American folk icon Bob Dylan, acclaimed beat poet Alan Ginsberg, and others.

In 2005, UNESCO, the cultural arm of the United Nations, proclaimed the Baul artistic genre a “Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.”

“The preservation of the Baul songs and the general context in which they are performed depend mainly on the social and economic situation of their practitioners, the Bauls, who have always been a relatively marginalized group,” UNESCO said in its 2008 inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

‘A new weapon’

According to Billah, Baul artists in recent years have been tied up in cases lodged against them by religious fundamentalists under Bangladesh’s draconian Digital Security Act.

This law punishes those who produce or distribute content that “hurts religious sentiments or religious values” or “destroys communal harmony, or creates unrest or disorder” with 10 years in prison.

It also makes “propaganda” against “the liberation war, the spirit of the liberation war, the nation’s founding father, the national anthem, or national flag” punishable with a maximum of life in prison. The war being referred to is the one in what was then East Pakistan in 1971.

“Physical attacks and killings of Bauls and Sufi researchers have decreased since the government’s crackdown against militants following the Holey Artisan terror attack of July 1, 2016,” Billah said, referring to a massacre of hostages by machete-wielding militants who attacked a Dhaka cafe.

“But now the people belonging to the same ideology are filing cases against Bauls and the people of other faiths. The Digital Security Act has emerged as a new weapon to harass them.”

Dewan, the Baul singer, has four cases against her under the DSA for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

Shariat Sarker, another Baul singer, languished in prison for seven months after he was arrested under the act in January last year.

“How can I stop singing? I have been practicing the Baul path since my childhood,” Sarker told BenarNews.

His wife, Mosammat Shirin Akhter, said the family of five was in desperate financial straits.

“We are in hardship along with our three children. Baul performances have almost stopped, as people now are afraid to organize such events,” Akhter told BenarNews, adding that this had begun before the outbreak of coronavirus.

Dewan’s husband said law enforcement had been ordered not to allow Baul performances.

“Once upon a time, we did not have to seek police permission to organize any event. But now it is a big problem. Police do not want to give permission to organize Baul events they want to avoid unrest,” Muhammad Ashraful Islam told BenarNews.

Md Abdul Mannan Ilias, additional secretary to the Cultural Affairs Ministry, denied Islam’s allegation.

“The government has given no instructions to restrict Baul events. Police might have imposed restrictions due to the pandemic,” Ilias told BenarNews.

In fact, government officials have been promoting various folk heritages, he said.

“We know that folk performers are in trouble as functions are restricted due to COVID 19. Personally, I feel their pain in my heart. We discussed how to promote them in a meeting even today while discussing the budget of 2021-2022 financial year,” Ilias said.

Baul singer Rita Dewan performs during a concert at a shrine in Dohar. Bangladesh, Nov. 2, 2020. [AFP]

‘Such practices need to be stopped’

The Bauls are an unorthodox devotional art form, influenced by Hinduism, Buddhism and Sufi Islam, yet distinctly different from them, UNESCO says.

“Bauls neither identify with any organized religion nor with the caste system, special deities, temples or sacred places. Their emphasis lies on the importance of a person’s physical body as the place where god resides,” according to the U.N. agency.

This explanation cuts no ice with those who believe the Bauls are insulting the religion of Islam through their songs.

Muhammad Imrul Hasan, who filed one of the cases against Dewan, said he planned to continue his legal barrage.

“The Bauls make audacious remarks about Allah. Such practices need to be stopped once and for all. I will file more cases to stop this,” Hassan said.

He was referring to Dewan’s performance, a duet, in which she played the role of an atheist while her co-singer played the role of god. The two characters engaged in a philosophical discussion through their song.

Dewan said she was not insulting any god or religion.

“During Baul performances, we sometimes have a debate. I performed the role of an atheist to raise questions, while my opponent performed the role of god to answer the questions,” Dewan said.

“The aim is to clarify issues and ultimately submit to god. This practice has continued for centuries.”

Another case was filed against Dewan by Rasel Mia, who said he was just doing his religious duty.

“I filed the case, because I thought it my duty as a Muslim to protest the objectionable remarks about Allah,” Mia told BenarNews.

When asked whether it was alright for an actor to play the role of a villain or Satan, he declined to comment.

When playing a role – whether in a film, play or any other performance – artists often have to say unpleasant things, but that is simply a role, said Tapan Bagchi, deputy director of the Bangla Academy, a cultural institute under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs.

“When someone acts as a traitor, he might have to make derogatory comments against Bangladesh and its founding father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. It’s not treason,” Bagchi said.

“An artist has the right.”

(This article was first published in benarnews.org and may be read here.)

The post Baul Singers of Bangladesh Struggle to Survive Amid Onslaught By Muslim Hardliners appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Interior of the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque in Isfahan, Iran. Credit: By Phillip Maiwald (Nikopol) – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

I say ‘Allahu akbar’ dozens of times a day. I say it during prayer. I say it as an expression of reaffirmation and gratitude to God.

I said it when my daughter was born, and there will be someone to say it over me when I am buried.

I say it when I witness beauty.

‘Allahu akbar.’

In 1985, Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl, in defending the building of a Mormon temple by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Stockholm, enunciated “Three Rules of Religious Understanding:”

“When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.”

“Don’t compare your best to their worst,” and:

“Leave room for holy envy.”

Stendahl challenges us to be open to recognizing elements in other religions—even those that may appear foreign or threatening—and to consider how we might wish to support, embrace, emulate or further explore those elements that might help us to deepen our understanding of our own religious traditions and more deeply connect to others: to embrace ‘holy envy.’

Abdullah, a Saudi friend of mine whose family tree traces back to the time of Prophet Mohammad in Mecca, travels to Cairo with his family every Christmas.

He, with children and grandchildren—perhaps even now with great grandchildren—window shop, go to Christmas parties, sing Christmas carols and together celebrate the birth of Jesus, considered by Muslims to be the most revered prophet after Prophet Muhammad.

On Christmas Eve they attend Midnight Mass at the Anglican Church in Zamalek. Abdullah doesn’t take the Eucharist but he loves Jesus—and Christmas pudding (Egyptian friends make him an alcohol-free version).

Before New Year’s Day they return to Saudi Arabia, renewed by their encounter with Christian tradition and re-committed to an ecumenical understanding that the descendants of Abraham share much more through faith than they disagree about politically.

Like Stendahl, Abdullah and I believe that being open to holy envy helps us to connect to others, to ease tensions and build bridges.

I was recently reminded of Stendahl and Abdullah as I listened to the discussion that followed the terrorist attack in New York on October 31 2017 when eight people were killed and 12 injured by a truck driven by Uzbek native Sayfullo Saipov. As the truck plowed into a bicycle path in lower Manhattan, it’s reported that Saipov cried out ‘Allahu Akbar.’

‘Allahu akbar.’

We know, from documents released by the FBI after 9/11, that a letter written by the hijacker Mohamed Atta urged attackers to shout ‘Allahu akbar’ because “this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.” 

We know, from Fort Hood, from New York, London, Paris, Brussels, Mogadishu, Istanbul, Baghdad and Beirut, that terrorists continue to shout ‘Allahu akbar’ even when most of their victims are believers.

To terrorists the non-believers are those who don’t hate as they do—Muslim and non-Muslim.

On the other hand, at the funeral service for Muhammad Ali there were four recitations of ‘Allahu akbar’ along with prayers, readings and blessing in-between.

‘Allahu akbar.’

I believe that ‘Allahu akbar’ will strike fear only if we allow, through ignorance and prejudice, terrorists to define how we approach God. 

To Muslims ‘Allahu akbar’ means ‘the greatest,’ although linguistically, it translates as ‘greater.’

To Muslims it means nothing is greater than God. 

‘Allahu akbar’ isn’t in the Qur’an, but it’s part of daily prayer and worship, embedded in our consciousness. As a term of gratitude to God it’s even used by some Arabic-speaking Christians.

Today, Muslims who pray ‘Allahu akbar’ are caught between terrorists who try to inspire fear and Islamophobes who try to instill ignorance and fear of The Other.

In the US, we are learning not to define all Christians by the practice of the Westboro Baptist Church (“God hates fags”), or the far-right anti-Muslim Judge Roy Moore, or by those who want to ban Harry Potter, Halloween and dancing.

We’ve learned that Christianity is not monolithic.

Today, we must also learn that Islam is not monolithic, and that all Muslims are not defined by Sayfullo Saipov and Mohamed Atta.

We must embrace more holy envy and less unholy ignorance.

A friend of mine, an Episcopal priest who has traveled in the Middle East, has holy envy over the Muslim tradition of saying ‘insha’Allah.’

“I often wish we had something like that in our tradition” she once told me, “the constant reminder—‘insha’ Allah’—that only God knows the future.”

‘Insha’Allah’—if God wills it—is to recognize God’s omnipotence, God’s Grace, presence and authority in our lives.

Can I borrow your snow-blower tomorrow? ‘Insha’Allah.’

Can we have dinner tonight? ‘Insha’Allah.’

Can you meet me tomorrow? ‘Insha’Allah.’

I love Thanksgiving. I like Christmas trees. I love menorahs and the story they tell. I love the call of the shofar, the peeling of church bells and the sound of muezzins calling the faithful to prayer. We need to witness, and we need our children to witness, each others’ religions, traditions, symbols and practices.

We need more holy envy—‘insha’Allah.’

We need to see the world, not as something to be partitioned and feared but as a source of engagement and richness that nourishes all of humanity.

Our challenge today is to refuse to allow terrorists and bigots to hijack, weaponize and appropriate language in order to sow fear, ignorance and division. I believe that our public squares are richer and our nations healthier when we struggle to preserve and enhance the pluralistic experience that defines our societies at their best.

This isn’t just an Abrahamic calling: whether secular, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Quaker—whatever faith tradition we may or may not embrace—I believe that we are all called, by our Constitutions as well as our Prophets, to serve the forgotten and the dispossessed, and to honor conscience and each other’s dignity and humanity.

‘Allahu Akbar.’

Robert Azzi lives in Exeter New Hampshire. An Arab American Muslim, he writes on Islam, identity and conflict. Information on “Ask a Muslim Anything” and an archive of his writing can be found at theotherazzi.wordpress.com. For an interview with Robert on NPR click here.

Courtesy: Open Democracy
 

The post Embracing holy envy: ‘Allahu Akbar’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The paper ended with the following conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was first published on New Age Islam
 

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