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.

Arrests of protesters having agitated in the June 10, 2022 protests continue to grow. By June 13, the news reports talked of more arrests in Uttarakhand and Karnataka. Meanwhile, more people are being booked for the Friday protests.

According to the Hindustan Times on Monday, the Uttarakhand police arrested 12 people in connection with the Friday protests that flared across India. On that day, Muslims condemned suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Spokesperson Nupur Sharma for her derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammad and Islam. They demanded her immediate arrest for insulting the community during a Times Now debate on May 26.

According to recent reports Maharashtra police also booked the debate anchor Navika Kumar on June 13 for allegedly “maliciously intending to outrage religious feelings”. However, Muslims still demand Sharma’s immediate arrest along with that of recently-expelled BJP leader Naveen Kumar Jindal.

Protesters in Rudrapur and Jaspur of Udham Singh Nagar and Bhagwanpur of Haridwar districts were arrested for participating in these “illegal and unauthorised” protests. Further on June 11, three persons were arrested in Karnataka’s Belagavi for hanging Sharma’s effigy from cable wires. According to Siasat Daily, these individuals are Mahmad Soheb, Aman Mokashi, Arbaj Mokash. Further, two arrests were made in Delhi on June 12, reported the Indian Express.

These 17 arrests now add to the already over-400 arrests made across India over the weekend. Particularly in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj, 92 people were arrested for charges ranging from rioting and hurting religious sentiments to sections under the Explosive Substances Act. Overall, at least 325 arrests were made in Uttar Pradesh, 100 arrests in West Bengal, and 25 FIRs were filed against thousands in Jharkhand.

Aside from arrests, more people are being booked for the Friday protests. On Tuesday, the Indian Express reported that 10 people were booked in Jamalpur region of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The police charged them for allegedly violating Section 144 and 188 dealing with unlawful assembly and disobeying orders from a public servant.

The city police on Sunday detained 48 persons in Juhapura locality in Vejalpur to keep them from taking out a protest rally against Sharma. Meanwhile, the cyber-crime cell of Ahmedabad Police on Sunday arrested Rakhial resident Irshad Ansari, 36 under sections of the Information Technology Amendment Act for allegedly uploading multiple instigating posts against Sharma on social media.

By Monday, the number of arrests only grew with five men in Surat released on bail after a one-day police remand. The accused allegedly stuck posters of Sharma on the road and circulated videos of the same. Other than these two cities, protests also broke out in Kalupur, Khadia, Shahpur, Mirzapur. Like in other cities on Friday, shops and markets were shut at Teen Darwaza, Kalupur and Relief Road. Police identified demonstrators using video footage and said the people did not have permission for such a protest.

In Maharashtra, over 100 demonstrators were booked in Aurangabad, said Newsclick. Muslims gathered near the Divisional Commissioner’s office in the Delhi gate area of Aurangabad on Friday. People were charged for unlawful assembly and other relevant provisions of the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act against the protestors.

Near simultaneous with these arrests come the demolitions of various Muslim activists in UP. Already Prayagraj activist Javed Mohammad’s house was destroyed after authorities claimed the property was on encroached land.

This tactic of targeting communities in mass protests was first employed in 2019 when students across India rose in protest of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). In 2022, these demolition attacks spread to Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka and Assam.

Related:

Why is Jharkhand governor in favour of doxing alleged riot participants’ names?
Friday protests: At least 325 arrests in UP alone!
Spontaneous pan-India protests against Nupur Sharma
Ranchi: 2 dead and Muslim boy terrorised for Friday protests
Right-wing calls Ranchi boy’s ordeal a “victim card” tactic
Evolution of Bulldozer Injustice

The post Friday protests: More people booked for unlawful assembly appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Kuwaiti government has decided to arrest and deport an unspecified number of expats who participated in a protest against the controversial remarks by two former functionaries of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against Prophet Mohammad, reported a newswire service. This is because the Gulf nation’s laws do not allow expats to organise or participate in such demonstrations.

“The detectives are in the process of arresting them and referring to the deportation centre to be deported to their countries and will be banned from entering Kuwait again,” reported Al Rai, a Kuwaiti newspaper. The report did not mention the nationalities of those expatriates who took part in the demonstration. The newspaper that is published from Kuwait also states that instructions have been issued to arrest expats from the Fahaheel area who organised a demonstration after Friday prayers in support of Prophet Muhammad.

Arab News, an English-language daily newspaper published in Saudi Arabia, quoted sources as saying that the protesters will be deported to their respective countries as they violated the laws and regulations of the country which prohibit sit-ins or demonstrations by expats.

Kuwait was one of the several Gulf countries that had summoned the Indian envoy over the remarks of the former BJP functionaries. A week ago, the Kuwait Foreign Ministry had publicly announced that that the Indian Ambassador to Kuwait Sibi George was summoned and handed over an official protest note by the Assistant Secretary of State for Asia Affairs expressing Kuwait’s “categorical rejection and condemnation” of the statements issued by an official of the ruling party against the Prophet.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that has almost never backtracked on a slew of hate speeches made by elected officials and party members, made an exception this time after the widespread condemnation of Gulf nations. It was quick to suspend and expel party spokesperson Nupur Sharma and Delhi media head Naveen Kumar Jindal, both of whom had used offensive language against Prophet Mohammed, as it sought to defuse a row over the issue.

Thereafter, the ministry had welcomed the statement issued by the ruling party in India, in which it announced the suspension of Sharma.

Close to a dozen Islamic countries had condemned the controversial remarks uttered on a television debate on May 26. Times Now has since removed the video of the show from public viewing. 

Back in New Delhi, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said the government has made it clear that the remarks do not reflect the views of the government. “We have made it pretty clear that tweets and comments do not reflect views of the government,” MEA Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi had said at a media briefing soon after the diplomatic fiasco. 

“This has been conveyed to our interlocutors as also the fact that action has been taken by the concerned quarters against those who made the comments and tweets. I do not think I have anything additional to say on this,” he had said.

Related:

Bulldozer Injustice: How far is the regime planning to go?

Right-wing calls Ranchi boy’s ordeal a “victim card” tactic

Ranchi: 2 dead, Muslim boy terrorised for Friday protests

Spontaneous pan-India protests against Nupur Sharma

After Times Now debate Nupur Sharma gets online threats from trolls

The post Kuwait government to deport expats who protested over remarks against Prophet Mohammed? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Soon after Samuel Paty incident in France, something similar is happening in the UK. A school teacher, in a Religious Education class, decided to show the cartoons of prophet Muhammad. The incident has led to protests from Muslim parents, who mobilized other Muslims, gheraoed the school and are now demanding the dismissal of the teacher. In the wake of these protests, the Batley Grammar School has suspended the teacher, instituted an enquiry and even apologized to Muslim parents. While such Muslim outrage and mobilization led to the murder of Samuel Paty; in this case fortunately it has not come to such a pass. The teacher is currently in hiding and in police protection. But just like in France, Muslims in the UK are accusing schools of deliberate Islamophobia and being insensitive to their religious feelings. The underlying issues therefore, in both France and UK are the same: the Muslim community seems to be arguing from the position of being the victim but at the same time demanding a special and privileged treatment of their religion. In both places, there is a renewed focus about the place of Islam in modern democracies. And there is a wider concern about liberal democracy and how Islamic exceptionalism is in the process of whittling that away.

If the Muslim (or any other) mob gets the power to define what is taught in schools and how teachers should conduct themselves in class, then it is perhaps time to write the epitaph of liberal schooling itself. Muslims have argued against the use of such materials in class. But then, if one is teaching about blasphemy and free speech, one of the most important materials to do so would be the cartoons which have generated so much debate and violence worldwide. And in that sense, the use of such cartoons is legitimate and there is nothing wrong in what the concerned teacher did. Teachers often use challenging materials in lessons to explore ideas and provoke discussion amongst students. The freedom to use certain materials should always be with the teacher and should never be dictated from outside. But then, some Muslims, who might not even know the basics of the craft of teaching, become super charged and think it is within their domain to tell schools and teachers what should be taught and what should be avoided. 

If such things cannot be discussed in a classroom, then where else can they be discussed? The boundaries of free speech cannot be circumscribed by the normative demands of a particular religion, in this case the Islamic blasphemy taboo. Moreover, if there is such reverence for one religion, then why should the sensitivities of other religions not be taken into account? And if there is an agreement that religious sensitivities should not be hurt at all, then what happens to the promise of liberal education? Because surely, even teaching evolution and heliocentrism is against the tenets of most religions.

One can certainly argue that the whole issue should have been handled sensitively. Those students who do not want to see such cartoons must be given the option of not being part of such a pedagogical exercise. But it goes without saying that teachers must have the freedom to explore hot button issues and enable students to think critically about them. Not doing so would amount to a religious veto over children’s mind. If this religious veto continues, then centuries of intellectual progress will be negated. There was a time when Christianity had this veto and now it is increasingly looking like Islam is exercising that veto even though it is no where as powerful as the Church once was. Muslims need to think if, in the name of ‘protecting’ their religion, they want their children to become unfit in negotiating the structures of modernity.

Parents can certainly protest about the content of education but then there are appropriate forums to do so. They cannot march on the school and force the school to suspend a teacher, which is what happened in this case. The response of the school in this case has been timid, to say the least. Instead of fronting this as an attack of the freedom of a teacher, it has miserably succumbed to the Islamist mob. Similar incidents have taught us that appeasing the fanatics only emboldens them. The only way to fight such tendencies is to call out this act of religious bullying and confront them. If the primary concern of the school is the feeling of the protestors, then certainly its priorities are misplaced. The real issue should have been the intimidation of the teacher rather than posing super sensitive to fanatical Muslims in order to be politically correct. If the school has withdrawn the lesson altogether, as appears to be the case, then it has already lost the right to be called as a center of learning.

Those who are siding with the protestors in the name of combating Islamophobia and showing sensitiveness towards such Muslims are making a grave error of judgment. Such actions will only fuel a climate of censorship and exceptionalism around Islam which certainly does not do any favour to ordinary Muslims. It is rather patronizing to assume that all Muslims will take offense over the use of cartoons, no matter how insensitive they might be. It is gross to assume that such protestors are the representatives of Muslim community. And playing along any such assumption would only amount to strengthening the unhealthy stereotypes about Muslims. Mollycoddling to such protestors is nothing but trying to appease the most fanatical section within the Muslim community. The incident is perhaps the clearest example of how the school and the left-wing eco-system is privileging orthodox Muslims over the moderate ones. 

It is heartening to note that some Muslimshave protested against this caricaturing of their community by the school. They have condemned the protestors who are demanding the sacking of the school teacher and have argued that as Muslims, they have nothing against the particular teacher. The school will do itself and others a favour if it listens to such saner voices within the community.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

This article was first published in New Age Islam and may be read here

The post Why Islamic Exceptionalism Does not Serve the Muslim Cause appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was precisely  on the ninth day of Dhu al-Hijjah (12th and last month of the Islamic year -6 March 632) in the tenth year of hijrah (migration from Mecca to Medina)  that  the Prophet addressed 1,44,000 pilgrims.  The sermon, though seemingly addressed to a Muslim gathering, had a universal message. It    consists of summarized exhortations based on some core teachings of the Qur’an and sunnah (Prophetic practices).

It captures the ethos of Islam and provides a great lens to view the religion through. Some of his advices have become the fundamental touchstones of the Islamic faith.

Muslims use the occasion a propitious time to rededicate themselves to the universal human values such as sacredness of life and property, equality, justice, peace, forgiveness, non-violence, women’s rights, the pillars of Islam and more. Upon these lofty principles, the religion of Islam was built. The Prophet died after unifying Arabia and his lifelong declared love of learning protected and contributed to classical knowledge and continued the tradition of Persian scholarship during the dark ages of Christendom.

For centuries, the Prophet inspired the Muslim world to thrive economically, culturally, scientifically and artistically. More than 1,400 years on, the   divine providence of his philosophy, among myriad other socio-economic and political factors continue to anchor Muslim civilization.
We still have so much to learn from this 1,400-plus-year-old cry and we are so much in need of this message of Prophet Muhammad to soothe and heal our broken times where we continue to struggle with almost identical issues in our global human community.

The content of the message was powerful and intense and was redolent with Islam’s lofty values such as    individual liberty, respect for the rule of law, social responsibility, mutual respect, and tolerance of those of different faiths and   are inherently Islamic. The teachings of the Qur’an are unambiguous on being inclusive, and treating others with equality and   justice.

The Prophet began by stating that he did not know whether he would meet the pilgrims again ‘in this place after this year’. After praising God and declaring the basic creed, ‘There is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’, he went on to speak on various themes. He then reminded them of the sacred character of the place and month, as well as of that of their lives, their honour, and their belongings.

He explained that the period of ignorance had come to an end, and so had its practices, its rivalries, and its conflicts based on power and profit. Henceforth, all Muslims were united by faith, fraternity and love, which were to transform them into witnesses of Islam’s message. They must under no circumstances accept being ‘either oppressors or oppressed’. They were to learn of the equality of all people in front of God and the desired humility because, he said: “You all descend from Adam and Adam was created from dirt. The most noble in the sight of God is the most pious. No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, except by their intimate consciousness of God [piety].”

He reiterated the need for tolerance to people of all denominations: An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.
The Prophet reminded all Muslims to treat their wives gently and added: “Be intimately conscious of God as regards women, and strive to be good to them.” He then added, as if to show the way and its conditions to all the faithful present and all those who were to follow his teachings through the ages: “I have left among you what will, if you keep to it firmly, preserve you from error: clear guidance, the Book of God and His Prophet’s tradition.” After each teaching that he reminded them of, the Prophet added: ‘Have I conveyed the Message? O God, be my witness!” At the end of the sermon, the pilgrims answered: “We bear witness that you have faithfully conveyed the message, that you have fulfilled your mission, and that you have given your community good advice.”

Concluding the sermon, the Prophet said, “You will be questioned about me (on the Day of Judgment). What answer will you give?” They replied, “We will bear witness that you conveyed to us what you were entrusted with….” The Prophet then pointed towards the people and said, thrice: “O Lord bear witness!” O God, be my witness! …. And let whoever is present convey this message to whoever is absent.”

A few hours later,   near the summit of Arafat, the final revelation came down: “…This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion…” (Quran 5:3).

The last cycle of prophethood was drawing to its close, and the Messenger was to return to the place of his election, his home beyond this life, in proximity to the One.

Here is his sermon

“O People, listen well to my words, for I do not know whether, after this year, I shall ever be among you again. Therefore, listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

“O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Treat others justly so that no one would be unjust to you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (riba), therefore all riba obligations shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer inequity. God has judged that there shall be no riba and that all the riba due to `Abbas ibn `Abd al Muttalib shall henceforth be waived.

“Every right arising out of homicide and blood-killing in pre-Islamic days is henceforth waived and the first such right that I waive is that arising from the murder of Rabi`ah ibn al Harith ibn `Abd al Muttalib.

“O people, the Unbelievers indulge in tampering with the calendar in order to make permissible that which God forbade, and to forbid that which God has made permissible. With God the months are 12 in number. Four of them are sacred, three of these are successive and one occurs singly between the months of Jumada and Sha`ban. Beware of the devil, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

“O People, it is true that you have certain rights over your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. It is your right and they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

“O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God (The One Creator of the Universe), perform your five daily prayers (salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your financial obligation (zakah) of your wealth. Perform hajj if you can afford to.

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

“Remember, one day you will appear before God (The Creator) and you will answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

“O People, no prophet or messenger will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words, which I convey to you. I am leaving you with the Book of God (the Quran) and my sunnah (the sayings and   practices as evidenced in the   behavioural mode of the Prophet). If you follow them you will never go astray.

“All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people.”

(Reference: See Al-Bukhari, Hadith 1623, 1626, 6361) Sahih of Imam Muslim also refers to this sermon in Hadith number 98. Imam al-Tirmidhi has mentioned this sermon in Hadith nos. 1628, 2046, 2085. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has given us the longest and perhaps the most complete version of this sermon in his Masnud, Hadith no. 19774.)

Courtesy: Counterview.org

The post ‘An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

People assembling outside Paikar police station in Birbhum, West Bengal

Birbhum/Kolkata: Sunday, which witnessed a massive hashtag movement trending against Islam and Prophet Muhammad on Twitter. A similar model was perhaps being replicated in West Bengal to disturb the communal harmony, during the Maharashtra and Haryana assembly elections. Jharkhand too will have assembly polls in November-December.

However, this time around the efforts of the divisive forces was averted by West Bengal Police and local residents. Learning from  past mistakes  (Bashirhat), the police officials of Paikar Police station in Birbhum district were effective enough to pick up on Sanjay Kumar (name changed) for posting an offensive post in connection with Prophet Muhammad.

But given the inflammatory content on the post (a snapshot of which lies with eNewsroom) the Muslims from the adjoining area began assembling outside the police station demanding for immediate action against the arrested person.
 

When contacted Purnendu Bikash Das, officer-in-charge of Paikar Police Station. He said, “Yes, there was a cybercrime case, we have arrested him, and he shall be punished.” On being asked about the tension that gripped the area, he without divulging much details said, “The situation is under control.”

Speaking to eNewsroom, MD Ripon, one of the members of Bangla Sanskriti Mancha (BSM), an NGO, which has been working towards bridging the differences between the two Hindus and Muslims said, “I have been on the spot since the issue began, which was when a boy from Ammudda village began protesting outside the police station. Soon many more joined in. Also, we spotted some boys affiliated with the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) lurking around. However, on being confronted they disappeared from the spot.”

He further said, “The police along with us was able to handle the first batch of protesters, by explaining them the technicality and assuring that the boy would be punished for his offence. However, post-lunch, some local boys in a deliberated state began to create a ruckus once again. This time they even pelted stones. To stop the mob from attacking the police station, the officials had to resort to tear gas and lathi-charge to disperse the mob. The situation is now under control.”
 

The post Like Bashirhat, boy circulates derogatory content on Prophet Muhammad but Birbhum saved from burning appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is now obvious that Islam itself has to be re-thought, idea by idea. We need to begin with the simple fact that Muslims have no monopoly on truth, on what is right, on what is good, on justice, nor the intellectual and moral reflexes that promote these necessities. Like the rest of humanity, we have to struggle to achieve them using our own sacred notions and concepts as tools for understanding and reshaping contemporary reality.

Serious rethinking within  Islam is long overdue. Muslims have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for much too long. 
 

This is why we feel so painful in the contemporary world, so uncomfortable with modernity. Scholars and thinkers have been suggesting for well over a century that we need to make a serious attempt at ijtihad, at reasoned struggle and rethinking, to reform Islam. At the beginning of the last century, Jamaluddin Afghani and Mohammad Abduh led the call for a new ijtihad; and along the way many notable intellectuals, academics and sages have added to this plea — not least Mohammad Iqbal, Malik bin Nabbi and Abdul Qadir Audah. Yet, ijtihad is one thing Muslim societies have singularly failed to undertake. Why?
 

The why has now acquired an added urgency. Just look around the Muslim world and see how far we have travelled away from the ideals and spirit of Islam. Far from being a liberating force, a kinetic social, cultural and intellectual dynamic for equality, justice and humane values, Islam seems to have acquired a pathological strain. Indeed, it seems to me that we have internalised all those historic and contemporary western representations of Islam and Muslims that have been demonising us for centuries. We now actually wear the garb, I have to confess, of the very demons that the West has been projecting on our collective personality.
 

But to blame the West, or a notion of instrumental modernity that is all but alien to us, would be a lazy option. True, the West, and particularly America, has a great deal to answer for. And Muslims are quick to point a finger at the injustices committed by American and European foreign policies and hegemonic tendencies. However, that is only a part, and in my opinion not an insurmountable part, of the malaise. Hegemony is not always imposed; sometimes, it is invited. The internal situation within Islam is an open invitation.
 

We have failed to respond to the summons to ijtihad for some very profound reasons. Prime amongst these is the fact that the context of our sacred texts — the Qur’an and the examples of the Prophet Muhammad, our absolute frame of reference — has been frozen in history. One can only have an interpretative relationship with a text — even more so if the text is perceived to be eternal. But if the interpretative context of the text is never our context, not our own time, then its interpretation can hardly have any real meaning or significance for us as we are now.
 

Historic interpretations constantly drag us back to history, to frozen and ossified contexts of long ago; worse, to perceived and romanticised contexts that have not even existed in history. This is why while Muslims have a strong emotional attachment to Islam, Islam per se, as a worldview and system of ethics, has little or no direct relevance to their daily lives apart from the obvious concerns of rituals and worship. ijtihad and fresh thinking have not been possible because there is no context within which they can actually take place.
 

The freezing of interpretation, the closure of ‘the gates of ijtihad’, has had a devastating effect on Muslim thought and action. In particular, it has produced what I can only describe as three metaphysical catastrophes: the elevation of the Shari`ah to the level of the Divine, with the consequent removal of agency from the believers, and the equation of Islam with the State. Let me elaborate.
 

Most Muslims consider the Shari‘ah, commonly translated as ‘Islamic law’, to be divine. Yet, there is nothing divine about the Shari‘ah. The only thing that can legitimately be described as divine in Islam is the Qur’an. The Shari‘ah is a human construction; an attempt to understand the divine will in a particular context. This is why the bulk of the Shari‘ah actually consists of fiqh or jurisprudence, which is nothing more than legal opinion of classical jurists. The very term fiqh was not in vogue before the Abbasid period when it was actually formulated and codified. But when fiqh assumed its systematic legal form, it incorporated three vital aspects of Muslim society of the Abbasid period.
 

At that juncture, Muslim history was in its expansionist phase, and fiqh incorporated the logic of Muslim imperialism of that time. The fiqh rulings on apostasy, for example, derive not from the Qur’an but from this logic. Moreover, the world was simple and could easily be divided into black and white: hence, the division of the world into Daral Islam and Daral Harb.
 

Furthermore, as the framers of law were not by this stage managers of society, the law became merely theory which could not be modified – the framers of the law were unable to see where the faults lay and what aspect of the law needed fresh thinking and reformulation. Thus fiqh, as we know it today, evolved on the basis of a division between those who were governing and set themselves apart from society and those who were framing the law; the epistemological assumptions of a ‘golden’ phase of Muslim history also came into play. When we describe the Shari`ah as divine, we actually provide divine sanctions for the rulings of by-gone fiqh.
 

What this means in reality is that when Muslim countries apply or impose the Shari‘ah — the demands of Muslims from Indonesia to Nigeria – the contradictions that were inherent in the formulation and evolution of fiqh come to the fore. That is why wherever the Shari‘ah is imposed – that is, fiqhi legislation is applied, out of context from the time when it was formulated and out of step with ours — Muslim societies acquire a medieval feel.
 

We can see that in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and the Taliban of Afghanistan. When narrow adherence to fiqh, to the dictates of this or that school of thought, whether it has any relevance to the real world or not, becomes the norm, ossification sets in. The Shari‘ah will solve all our problems becomes the common sentiment; and it becomes necessary for a group with vested interest in this notion of the Shari‘ah to preserve its territory, the source of its power and prestige, at all costs. An outmoded body of law is thus equated with the Shari‘ah, and criticism is shunned and outlawed by appealing to its divine nature.
 

The elevation of the Shari‘ah to the divine level also means the believers themselves have no agency: since The Law is a priori given, people themselves have nothing to do except to follow it. Believers thus become passive receivers rather than active seekers of truth. In reality, the Shari‘ah is nothing more than a set of principles, a framework of values, that provide Muslim societies with guidance. But these sets of principles and values are not a static given but are dynamically derived within changing contexts.
 

As such, the Shari‘ah is a problem-solving methodology rather than law. It requires the believers to exert themselves and constantly reinterpret the Qur’an and look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad with ever changing fresh eyes. Indeed, the Qur’an has to be reinterpreted from epoch to epoch — which means the Shari‘ah, and by extension Islam itself, has to be reformulated with changing contexts. The only thing that remains constant in Islam is the text of the Qur’an itself — its concepts providing the anchor for ever changing interpretations.
 

Islam is not so much a religion but an integrative worldview: that is to say, it integrates all aspects of reality by providing a moral perspective on every aspect of human endeavour. Islam does not provide ready–made answers to all human problems; it provides a moral and just perspective within which Muslims must endeavour to find answers to all human problems. But if everything is a priori given, in the shape of a divine Shari‘ah, then Islam is reduced to a totalistic ideology. Indeed, this is exactly what the Islamic movements — in particular Jamaat-e-Islami (both the Pakistani and Indian varieties) and the Muslim Brotherhood — have reduced Islam to.
 

Which brings me to the third metaphysical catastrophe. Place this ideology within a nation state, with the divinely attributed Shari‘ah at its centre, and you have an ‘Islamic state’. All contemporary ‘Islamic states’, from Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan to aspiring Pakistan, are based on this ridiculous assumption. But once Islam, as an ideology, becomes a programme of action of a vested group, it looses its humanity and becomes a battlefield where morality, reason and justice are readily sacrificed at the altar of emotions.
 

Moreover, the step from a totalistic ideology to a totalitarian order where every human situation is open to state arbitration is a small one. The transformation of Islam into a state-based political ideology not only deprives it of all its moral and ethical content, it also debunks most of Muslim history as un–Islamic. Invariably, when Islamists rediscover a ‘golden’ past, they do so only in order to disdain the present and mock the future. All we are left with is messianic chaos, as we saw so vividly in the Taliban regime, where all politics as the domain of action is paralysed and meaningless pieties become the foundational truth of the state.
 

The totalitarian vision of Islam as a State thus transforms Muslim politics into a metaphysics: in such an enterprise, every action can be justified as ‘Islamic’ by the dictates of political expediency as we witnessed in revolutionary Iran.
 

The three metaphysical catastrophes are accentuated by an overall process of reduction that has become the norm in Muslim societies. The reductive process itself is also not new; but now it has reached such an absurd state that the very ideas that are supposed to take Muslim societies towards humane values now actually take them in the opposite direction.
 

From the subtle beauty of a perennial challenge to construct justice through mercy and compassion, we get mechanistic formulae fixated with the extremes repeated by people convinced they have no duty to think for themselves because all questions have been answered for them by the classical ‘ulema, far better men long dead. And because everything carries the brand name of Islam, to question it, or argue against it, is tantamount to voting for sin.
 

The process of reduction started with the very notion of ‘alim (scholar) itself. Just who is an ‘alim; what makes him an authority? In early Islam, an ‘alim was anyone who acquired ‘ilm, or knowledge, which was itself described in a broad sense. We can see that in the early classifications of knowledge by such scholars as al–Kindi, al–Farabi, Ibn Sina, al–Ghazali and Ibn Khuldun. Indeed, both the definition of knowledge and its classification was a major intellectual activity in classical Islam.
 

So all learned men, scientists as well as philosophers, scholars as well as theologians, constituted the ‘ulama. But after the ‘gates of ijtihad’ were closed during the Abbasid era, ilm was increasingly reduced to religious knowledge and the ‘ulema came to constitute only religious scholars.
 

Similarly, the idea of ijma, the central notion of communal life in Islam, has been reduced to the consensus of a select few. Ijma literally means consensus of the people. The concept dates back to the practice of Prophet Muhammad himself as leader of the original polity of Muslims. When the Prophet Muhammad wanted to reach a decision, he would call the whole Muslim community – then, admittedly not very large — to the mosque. A discussion would ensue; arguments for and against would be presented. Finally, the entire gathering would reach a consensus.
 

Thus, a democratic spirit was central to communal and political life in early Islam. But over time the clerics and religious scholars have removed the people from the equation – and reduced ijma to ‘the consensus of the religious scholars’. Not surprisingly, authoritarianism, theocracy and despotism reign supreme in the Muslim world. The political domain finds its model in what has become the accepted practice and metier of the authoritatively ‘religious’ adepts, those who claim the monopoly of exposition of Islam. Obscurantist mullahs, in the guise of the ‘ulema, dominate Muslim societies and circumscribe them with fanaticism and absurdly reductive logic.
 

Numerous other concepts have gone through a similar process of reduction. The concept of ummah, the global spiritual community of Muslims, has been reduced to the ideals of a nation state: ‘my country right or wrong’ has been transposed to read ‘my ummah right or wrong’. So even despots like Saddam Hussein are now defended on the basis of ‘ummah consciousness’ and ‘unity of the ummah’.
 

Jihad has now been reduced to the single meaning of ‘Holy War’. This translation is perverse not only because the concept’s spiritual, intellectual and social components have been stripped away, but it has been reduced to war by any means, including terrorism. So anyone can now declare jihad on anyone, without any ethical or moral rhyme or reason. Nothing could be more perverted, or pathologically more distant from the initial meaning of jihad. It’s other connotations, including personal struggle, intellectual endeavour and social construction have all but evaporated.
 

Istislah, normally rendered as ‘public interest’ and a major source of Islamic law, has all but disappeared from Muslim consciousness. And ijtihad, as I have suggested, has now been reduced to little more than a pious desire.
 

But the violence performed to sacred Muslim concepts is insignificant compared to the reductive way the Qur’an and the sayings and examples of the Prophet Muhammad are bandied about. What the late Muslim scholar, Fazlur Rahman called the ‘atomistic’ treatment of the Qur’an is now the norm: almost anything and everything is justified by quoting individual bits of verse out of context.
 

After the September 11 event, for example, a number of Taliban supporters, including a few in Britain, justified their actions by quoting the following verse: ‘We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They serve other gods for whom no sanction has been revealed. Hell shall be their home’ (3: 149). Yet, the apparent meaning attributed to this verse could not be further from the true spirit of the Qur’an.
 

In this particular verse, the Qur’an is addressing Prophet Muhammad himself. It was revealed during the battle of Uhud, when the small and ill–equipped army of the Prophet, faced a much larger and well–equipped enemy. He was concerned about the outcome of the battle. The Qur’an reassures him and promises the enemy will be terrified with the Prophet’s unprofessional army. Seen in its context, it is not a general instruction to all Muslims; but a commentary on what was happening at that time.
 

Similarly hadiths are quoted to justify the most extreme of behaviour. And the Prophet’s own appearance, his beard and clothes, have been turned into a fetish: so now it is not just obligatory for a ‘good Muslim’ to have a beard, but its length and shape must also conform to dictates! The Prophet has been reduced to signs and symbols — the spirit of his behaviour, the moral and ethical dimensions of his actions, his humility and compassion, the general principles he advocated have all been subsumed by the logic of absurd reduction.
 

The accumulative effect of the metaphysical catastrophes and endless reduction has transformed the cherished tenets of Islam into instruments of militant expediency and moral bankruptcy. For over two decades, in books like, The Future of Muslim Civilisation (1979) and Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come (1985), I have been arguing that Muslim civilisation is now so fragmented and shattered that we have to rebuild it, ‘brick by brick’.
 

It is now obvious that Islam itself has to be rethought, idea by idea. We need to begin with the simple fact that Muslims have no monopoly on truth, on what is right, on what is good, on justice, nor the intellectual and moral reflexes that promote these necessities. Like the rest of humanity, we have to struggle to achieve them using our own sacred notions and concepts as tools for understanding and reshaping contemporary reality.
 

The way to a fresh, contemporary appreciation of Islam requires confronting the metaphysical catastrophes and moving away from reduction to synthesis. Primarily, this requires Muslims, as individuals and communities, to reclaim agency: to insist on their right and duty, as believers and knowledgeable people, to interpret and reinterpret the basic sources of Islam: to question what now goes under the general rubric of Shari‘ah, to declare that much of fiqh is now dangerously obsolete, to stand up to the absurd notion of an Islam confined by a geographically bound state.
 

We cannot, if we really value our faith, leave its exposition in the hands of under educated elites, religious scholars whose lack of comprehension of the contemporary world is usually matched only by their disdain and contempt for all its ideas and cultural products. Islam has been permitted to languish as the professional domain of people more familiar with the world of the eleventh century than the twenty–first century we now inhabit. And we cannot allow this class to bury the noble idea of ijtihad into frozen and distant history.
 

Ordinary Muslims around the world who have concerns, questions and considerable moral dilemmas about the current state of affairs of Islam must reclaim the basic concepts of Islam and reframe them in a broader context. Ijma must mean consensus of all citizens leading to participatory and accountable governance. Jihad must be understood in its complete spiritual meaning as the struggle for peace and justice as a lived reality for all people, everywhere. And the notion of the ummah must be refined so it becomes something more than a mere reductive abstraction.
 

As Anwar Ibrahim has argued, the ummah is not "merely the community of all those who profess to be Muslims"; rather, it is a "moral conception of how Muslims should become a community in relation to each other, other communities and the natural world". Which means ummah incorporates not just the Muslims, but justice–seeking and oppressed people everywhere.
 

In a sense, the movement towards synthesis is an advance towards the primary meaning and message of Islam — as a moral and ethical way of looking at and shaping the world, as a domain of peaceful civic culture, a participatory endeavour, and a holistic mode of knowing, being and doing. (June 2002). 
 

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 9  No, 84, Forum

The post Rethinking Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tuesday’s terrorist attacks have saddened and maddened millions — and raised questions for many about Islam. Speculation abounds that the hijackers were inspired by terrorists like Osama bin Laden, who teach that violent acts can pave the way to paradise. But what does Islam really say about such matters? About jihad and martyrdom?

We asked Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar in the East Bay, who said the attackers were "enemies of Islam.’’ Not martyrs, but "mass murderers, pure and simple.’’

Yusuf, whose articles about Islam are published internationally, talked about the attacks, the hysteria that he fears could grip the United States, and the role that Muslims and others must play in opposing violence. "We’ve got to get to some deeper core values that are commonly shared," he said.

Why would anyone do what the hijackers did?

Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they’re obviously very sick people and I can’t even look at it in religious terms. It’s politics, tragic politics. There’s no Islamic justification for any of it. It’s like some misguided Irish using Catholicism as an excuse for blowing up English people.

They’re not martyrs, it’s as simple as that.

Because?

You can’t kill innocent people. There’s no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country.

In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, "Do not kill women or children or non–combatants and do not kill old people or religious people," and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, "Do not cut down fruit–bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies." The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the Lord of fire. It’s prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.

What role should American Muslims have in opposing this brand of violent Islam?

I think that the Muslims — and I really feel this strongly — have to reject the discourse of anger. Because there is a lot of anger in the Muslim communities around the world about the oppressive conditions that many Muslims find themselves in. But we have to reject the discourse of anger and we have to move to a higher moral ground, recognizing that the desire to blame others leads to anger and eventually to wrath, neither of which are rungs on a spiritual ladder to God. It’s times like these that we really need to become introspective.

The fact that there are any Muslims — no matter how statistically insignificant their numbers — who consider these acts to be religious acts is in and of itself shocking. And therefore we as Muslims have to ask the question, "How is it that our religious leadership has failed to reach these people with the true message of Islam?" Because the acts of these criminals have indicted an entire religion in the hearts and minds of millions. Ultimately, this is a result of the bankruptcy of these type of people who claim to be adherents to the Islamic religion. These people are so bankrupt that all they have to offer is destruction.

If there are any martyrs in this affair it would certainly be those brave firefighters and police that went in there to save human lives and in that process lost their own.

Why do some people regard the hijackers as martyrs?

That’s an abomination. These are mass murderers, pure and simple. It’s like Christians in this country who blow up abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. I don’t think anyone in the Christian community, except a very extreme fringe, would condone that as an acceptable Christian response. In the same way, there’s no Muslim who understands his religion at all who would condone this. One of the worst crimes in Islam is brigandry — highway robbery, or today we’d say armed robbery — because it disrupts the sense of well-being and security among civilians.

Suicide bombers have cited a Qoranic verse that says, "Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."

That is meant for people who are legitimately defending the lands of Islam or fighting under legitimate state authority against a tyrannical leader. There is no vigilantism in Islam. Muslims believe in the authority of government.

Imam Malik, an early Islamic legal authority, said that 60 years of oppression under an unjust ruler is better than one hour of anarchy.

Then why is there such strong support in parts of the world for the attacks?

Because we’re dealing in an age of ignorance and an age of anomie, the loss of social order. And people are very confused and they’re impoverished. What Americans are feeling now, this has been business as usual for Lebanese people, Palestinian people, Bosnian people.

What about Israeli people?

Certainly the fear element is there for Israeli people — that’s true, and the terror that they’ve felt. And there are still a lot of Jewish people alive who remember the fear and terror of what happened in Europe, so that’s not far from people’s memories.

It seems at some point, the cycles of violence have to stop. It’s a type of insanity, especially when we’re dealing with nuclear power. People are saying that this was an attack on civilization and that is exactly the point. And I think the question we all have to ask is whether indiscriminate retaliation is going to help preserve civilization.

The perpetrators of this and, really, all acts of terror are people who hate too much. There’s a verse in the Koran that says do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Being just is closer to piety. The evil of wrath is that justice and mercy are lost.

How do you explain Palestinians and others celebrating the attacks in the streets?

When you see ignorant people in the streets, rejoicing — the Prophet condemned it. It’s rejoicing at the calamities of your enemies, and Islam prohibits that. They do have a lot of anger toward America, because America produces much of Israel’s military hardware and so many American tax dollars go to support Israel. You have a lot of animosity in the Arab world. But the vast majority of Arabs are horrified by what’s happened. There’s animosity in the Muslim world toward American foreign policy. This is the unfortunate price of power and its exercise in the world, that you incur the resentment and animosity of a lot of people. But the majority of Muslims who I know don’t have anger toward individuals or the American people.

The concept of jihad has been widely used to justify violence.

Jihad means struggle. The Prophet said the greatest jihad is the struggle of a man against his own evil influences. It also refers to what Christians call a "just war," which is fought against tyranny or oppression — but under a legitimate state authority.

What is the Arabic word for martyr?

Shaheed. It means witness. The martyr is the one who witnesses the truth and gives his life for it. There are people in this country like Martin Luther King who would be considered a martyr for his cause. Also, if your home, your family, your property or your land or religion is threatened, then you may defend it with your life. That person is a martyr. But so is anybody who dies of terminal illness; it’s a martyr’s death. Because it’s such a purification that whatever wrongs they once did, they’re now in a state of purity.

And the greatest martyr in the eyes of God is the one who stands in the presence of a tyrant and speaks the truth and is killed for it. He is martyred for his tongue.

What does Islam say about suicide?

Suicide is haraam in Islam. It’s prohibited, like a mortal sin. And murder is haram. And to kill civilians is murder.

What is a martyr’s reward?

The Prophet said that a martyr who dies doesn’t have a reckoning on the Day of Judgment. It’s an act through which he is forgiven. But the Prophet also said that there are people who kill in the name of Islam and go to hell. And when he was asked why, he said, "Because they weren’t fighting truly for the sake of God."

If there are any martyrs in this affair it would certainly be those brave firefighters and police that went in there to save human lives and in that process lost their own. 

(Imam Hamza’s interview by the San Jose Mercury News was posted on the latter’s website, http://ww.mercurycenter.com/local/center/isl0916.htm on Sept. 15, 2001)

(Hamza Yusuf, 42, started life as Mark Hanson, son of two US academics, only converting at 17. Thirty years ago, he seemed destined not for Islamic scholarship, but for the Greek Orthodox priesthood. Then, a near-death experience in a car accident and reading the Koran diverted him towards Mecca).

Islam and the enlightenment tradition

"I came out of the enlightenment tradition and I still believe in the best of the enlightenment tradition and I think that Islam confirms and enhances
that tradition and really doesn’t detract from it".

"In some ways the Muslim world is undergoing a protestant reformation right now and unfortunately because people don’t know about colonialism, about the shutting down of traditional Muslim universities all over the Muslim world with rare exception, and the fact that Islam has very few scholars at very high levels. Most of the brilliant students in the Middle East now go into medicine and engineering, they go into other things, they don’t go into philosophy. One of the interesting things you should think about, almost every one of these terrorists that are identified — and I will guarantee you that you will not find amongst them anyone who did his degree in philosophy, in literature, in the humanities, in theology — you’ll find that almost all are technically trained. And one of the tragedies in the Muslim world is that technical schools now, from an early age they identify students that are very brilliant in mathematics and they direct them towards only studying the physical sciences to the neglect of what makes us human, which is humanity, is poetry, it’s literature, as well as philosophy and theology, so these things are absent now".

(From transcript of CBC interview with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf aired on September 23, 2001)

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2001 Year 8  No. 72, Cover Story 3

The post ‘Muslims have to reject the discourse of anger’ — Hamza Yusuf appeared first on SabrangIndia.

( Hamza Yusuf, during his interview to the Guardian, London):

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2001 Year 8  No. 72, Cover Story 4

The post ‘If you hate the West, emigrate to a Muslim country’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.