Three people were reportedly injured by “ricocheting bullets” when police fired “warning shots” to dissipate a crowd of protesters in the Swedish city of Norrkoping, as protests continued for the fourth straight day against an extreme right-wing group’s plan to burn copies of the Quran. Incidents of violence have so far been reported from Linkoping, Orebro, Norrkoping, Malmo, and even some suburbs of the capital city of Stockholm.

Tension has been rife since the group announced its plans on Thursday. Protests erupted in different cities and the first instances of violence were reported from Linkoping on Sweden’s east coast followed by riots in Orebro city on Friday. According to an Al Jazeera report, while three police officers required hospitalization due to the outbreak of violence in Linkoping, four policemen were injured on Friday in Orebro, apart from one other private individual.

A far-right group called Starm Kurs, that translates into Hard Line, led by Danish-Swedish Rasmas Paludan, announced its intentions of burning copies of the Quran at a demonstration in Linkoping. The group had also received police permission to hold a rally on Friday in Orebro. But police had to disband the rally and withdraw permission after violence broke out when rally participants clashed with those who were protesting the plan to burn the holiest religious text of Muslims. Several vehicles were set on fire, and protesters broke through police cordons.

It is noteworthy that the same Paludan had been arrested and jailed for a month in early 2020 in Denmark because of a similar call to burn copies of the Quran. He had also posted Islamophobic and inflammatory content on his group’s social media platforms. In fact, similar violence had broken out in Malmo in the southern part of Sweden in August 2020 as well. Paludan was deported from France for threatening to burn a copy of the Quran at the Arc de Triomphe on November 11, 2020, and five of his associates were deported from Denmark for similar plans, around the same time.

The international community has condemned the audacity with which the group declared its plans to openly burn copies of the Quran. Taking to Twitter, Saudi Arabian foreign ministry condemned the “deliberate abuse of the Holy Quran, provocations and incitement against Muslims by some extremists in Sweden.”

#Statement | The Kingdom of #Saudi Arabia condemns the deliberate abuse of the Holy Quran by some extremists in #Sweden. pic.twitter.com/uefX0xNzfR

— Foreign Ministry ?? (@KSAmofaEN) April 17, 2022

The foreign ministry of Qatar also issued a statement condemning the “burning of copies of the holy Qurán by extremists in the city of Malmo” and warned that the “populist inflammatory rhetoric is taking a dangerous turn”.

Statement | Qatar Strongly Condemns Burning of Copies of the Holy Qur’an by Extremists in Sweden#MOFAQatar pic.twitter.com/8xlKx6Lwur

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Qatar (@MofaQatar_EN) April 17, 2022

Of course, Indian right-wing trolls could not sit back and had to jump in with their two-bits. Hateful and Islamophobic tweets were shared with much enthusiasm by such individuals and groups:

#swedenriots #DelhiRiots yes terrorism have religion , pic.twitter.com/7kxXWtctjZ

— Shailesh Tewarie #HinduLivesMatter (@shaileshbrahm) April 17, 2022

Divided by nation United By Ola Hu Uber..!

#swedenriots #जहांगीरपुरी #DelhiRiots #jahagirpuri #HanumanJayanti pic.twitter.com/FHTsx3Mx2L

— The Hermit (@imashutosh007) April 17, 2022

#SwedenRiots ? sorry but India was shouting for this for last few decades when Europe was preaching us Restrain.
All this countries were blaming Modi & Yogi. Now they will understand the nuisance of Radicalism. ??

— Malabika Parasar?? (@MalabikaParasar) April 16, 2022

Delhi to Sweden to Israel…

Same weapon !!

Just desert cult things !! #swedenriots pic.twitter.com/Ys5fzwB6fc

— Kenden Tshering ?? (@kendentshering) April 17, 2022

Related:

Twitter vs Hate Speech battle now in France, court issues strict directions 
Amnesty for Afghans: Can the world walk the talk?
Swiss Vote for Burqa Ban and Its Reaction among Indian Muslims

The post Sweden: Three injured as protests continue against right-wing group’s plan to burn copies of the Quran appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a press conference addressed in Mumbai today, a civil society group of Indian Muslims has condemned the retrograde stand of the AIMPLB on triple talag, nikah halala and polygamy.
They have said:
 

• The ulema claim to be defending Islam. In fact, they are perpetuating patriarchy. In the process, they are helping in the demonising of Islam and Muslims. 
• Nikah halala demeans women; must be banned.
• What justice will Darul Qazas (‘sharia courts’) run by patriarchal ulema bring to Muslim women?

 
The Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) fully supports the pending petitions in the Supreme Court calling for a ban on nikah halala, polygamy, muta (temporary marriage) and misyar (traveller’s stop-gap marriages).  IMSD proposes to intervene in the Supreme Court in support of the petitions filed by Sameena Begum and Naish Hasan demanding the outlawing of such unconstitutional practices.
 
It rejects the claim of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that the perverse practice of nikah halala as prevalent today cannot be questioned because it is Qur’anic.
 
The defence of a practice which is demeaning to women is shameful and totally contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an. What’s more, such blatantly discriminatory, unjust, anti-women and unconstitutional views contribute to the sangh parivar’s brazen ongoing agenda of demonising all Muslims even as it sheds crocodile tears out of pretended concern for “our Muslim sisters”.
 
Read together, verses 2:229 and 2:230 of the Qur’an state: “A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness (2:229); So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), He cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and He has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite (2:230).”
 
As has been conclusively established in the Shayara Bano case, as the Quran prescribes an elaborate procedure which must precede a divorce, triple talaq (instant divorce) is un-Qur’anic.
 
As many an Islamic scholar has pointed out, before the birth of Islam it was common practice for some men to treat their wives as playthings. They resorted to the practice of frequent divorce to torment their wives, keep them hanging, prevent them from marrying another man. Verses 2:229 and 2:230 were aimed at protecting women from such exploitative and unjust treatment. This is what may be called nikah halala in the Qur’anic sense.
 
In sharp contrast to this, and notwithstanding the Supreme Court order of August 2017 invalidating triple talaq, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board continues to maintain that though repugnant in theology, the practice remains valid in Islamic law. In keeping with this worldview, the current-day practice of nikah halala is nothing but a “one-night marriage” wherein a Muslim woman victim of triple talaq is forced to have sex with another man who then promptly divorces her to facilitate her re-marriage to her former husband.
 
Thus a Qur’anic methodology aimed at protecting women from being treated as a plaything has been perverted by the ulema and turned into its very opposite: an arrangement that effectively reduces a woman to a sex toy.
 
Nikah halala as practised today is nothing short of a shameful sex-racket, and that of a particularly obnoxious kind. Not only does it demean and degrade a woman, she or her family is obliged to pay for the “service” provided by a man for a fee that runs into tens of thousands of rupees. The said “service” is often provided by a molvi or a mufti himself. IMSD condemns the current-day nikah halala practice and anyone who endorses it.
 
For similar reasons, IMSD supports the outlawing of polygamy, muta (temporary marriage) misyar (traveller’s stop-gap marriage).
 
IMSD also has serious issues with the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s recently declared intent to create ‘Darul Qazas’ all over the country. The Board’s announcement fuels the sangh parivar and its lapdog media’s communal propaganda that Muslims owe no allegiance to the law of the land and are setting up their own parallel “sharia courts”.
 
Some legal luminaries among Muslims claim that Darul Qazas are in fact only a kind of  alternative dispute redressal (ADR) mechanisms which are sprouting all over the world as the “new norm”.  For the Board, however, it is but evident that they propose to resolve marital disputes in accordance with their idea of the sharia or Islamic law.
 
The question before IMSD is this: what justice can Muslim women victims of triple talaq, nikah halala, polygamy, muta and misyar marriages expect from a clergy that proclaims such blatantly discriminatory, anti-women practices are in keeping with “Allah’s laws”?  
 
The press conference held in Mumbai on July 19, 2018 was addressed by Javed Anand (Convener, IMSD), Feroze Mithiborwala (Co-convener), Hasan Kamaal (Member, Working Committee) and Zeenat Shaukatali (Member, Working Committee).
 

The post AIMPLB’s anti-women & unconstitutional views aid Sangh’s Communal Agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This article follows up on Syeda Hameed’s article, ‘A Woman Can Lead Friday Prayers….’ dated Feb. 01 and provides exegetic basis to its claim.

The Qur’an does not connect gender with faith (33:35), offers both men and women a level playing field in earning divine approval (4:124), does not describe menstruation as any lacking in spirituality (2:222), appoints, men and women as protectors (wali) of each other (9:71). The relevant Qur’anic verses based on Yusuf Ali’s translation are listed below:

“For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.” (33:35).

“If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them” (4:124) .

“They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean” (2:221)

Note: The reference to purity only relates to physical cleaning and hygiene [1]. Accordingly the Prophet allowed Asma, the wife of Abu Bakr to participate in the farewell hajj less than a fortnight after her delivery that occurred when she was on way to Mecca (from Medina) in the hajj caravan that the Prophet was leading himself. She was obviously in state of menstruation. [2] The Prophet is also reported to have told Aisha when she got into her period before entering Mecca that God had decreed it for all women, so she could perform all the ceremonies like the rest except for the Tawaf around the Kaba”[3]. He used to lean on Aisha’s lap and recite the Qur’an while she was in menses [4].

“The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise” (9:71).
The Qur’an rules out any notion of spiritual or cognitive inferiority of women to men through its following illustrations:

·         The episode of Adam’s exit from the paradise (2:30-38) has no mention of an Eve emerging from his rib, or, prompting him to eat of the Forbidden tree, or earning divine curse for a treacherous role as in the Bible.
·         In the context of the revelation, it empowered Meccan women to take oath of allegiance with the Prophet (60:12) without having their husbands or any male guardians standing by as witnesses.
•      It calls for Muslim women as well as men taking an oath, along with their Christian counterparts, over an issue of utmost spiritual significance: the birth of Jesus (3:61).
•      Women, like men, can act as a witness in equal capacity as men except for commercial contracts, owing obviously to the harsh trading realities of the era that was even harsher for the women (2:282).
•      Women, like men, can have independent income and possess properties (4:32).
•      Women, like men, can pursue universal knowledge and develop their potentials as God’s deputy (Khalifah) on earth (2:30, 6:165, 27:62, 35:39) – created in the finest model and favoured above much of God’s creation (95:4, 17:70).
•      The Qur’an cites the example of a woman (not named) ruling over a land (Sheba) in consultation with her chieftains, and later embracing the true faith (27:32/33, 27:44).

It is clear from the foregoing review of relevant Qur’anic verses and Qur’anic illustrations that it puts no bar against women to leading prayers, including Friday Prayer. Whether the prayer will be attended by only women or both men and women will obviously depend on gender dynamics of the era, but the Qur’an does not prescribe any gender based segregation in public place or place of worship.

It is true that the classical Sharia Law of Islam does not permit a woman to lead men in prayer such as the Friday prayer. This is corroborated by the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in his following response [6] to a question raised on the subject:

 “Throughout Muslim history it has never been heard of a woman leading the Friday Prayer or delivering the Friday sermon, even during the era when a woman, Shagarat Ad-Durr, was ruling the Muslims in Egypt during the Mamluk period.

It is established that leadership in Prayer in Islam is to be for men. People praying behind an imam are to follow him in the movements of prayer—bowing, prostrating, etc., and listen attentively to him reciting the Qur’an in Prayer.”

But it is equally true classical Shariah Law of Islam only represents the cumulative opinion or consensus of the jurists of Islam, and is neither divine nor binding on the Muslims until eternity [5]. Thus, with passing of generations, the learned jurists and scholars of Islam can always come up with new insights, interpretations and opinions on religious issues that are not expressly or implicitly covered in the Qur’an. Accordingly, answering a question on the permissibility of a woman leading Friday Prayer, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Alfi Distinguished Professor of Islamic Law, UCLA School of Law, writes [7]:
“It seems to me that if a female possesses greater knowledge than a male–if a female is more capable of setting a good example in terms of how she recites the Qur’an and also in terms of teaching the community more about the Islamic faith, a female ought not be precluded from leading Jum’ah simply on the grounds of being female.”

In sum, as Muslim women in many parts of the world including University campuses never enjoyed such level of security and prospects of learning about Islamic message as in this era, they must not be barred from leading Friday Prayer merely on gender ground.
1.     Sahih al-Bukhari, English translation by Mohsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, Vol.1, The Book of Menses, Chapter 1.
2.     Lings, Martin (Abu Bakar Siraj al-Din), Muhammad, George Allen and Unwin, U.K. 1983.p.332.
3.     Sahih al-Bukhari, English translation by Mohsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, Vol.1, Acc. 302.
4.     Ibid, Acc. 296.
5.     AN EPILOGUE TO THE RECENT ANTI-SHARIA LAW RALLIES ACROSS AMERICAN CITIES: The Dichotomy between Sharia Law of Islam (Islamic Law) and the Sharia of Islam
http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/an-epilogue-to-the-recent-anti-sharia-law-rallies-across-american-cities–the-dichotomy-between-sharia-law-of-islam-(islamic-law)-and-the-sharia-of-islam/d/111595
6.     https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=1230
7.     https://www.searchforbeauty.org/2010/04/05/fatwa-on-women-leading-prayer/

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post The Qur’an Puts No Bar Against a Woman Imam from Leading Mixed Gender Prayer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: New Age Islam

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

Oral Statement by Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam, on behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum; UNHRC, Item 9, General Debate, September 26, 2017

Mr. President,
Sixteen years after 9/11, the issue of Jihadi terrorism has become even more complex and widespread.

First, though Jihadism is a violent offshoot of Wahhabism and Salafism, the international community has allowed the fountainhead of Wahhabi/Salafi ideology to continue to spend tens of billions of dollars to Wahhabise the world Muslim community.

Second, we recently saw with horror, but without any protest from the international community, the sight of a UN-designated terrorist, with a ten-million-dollar bounty on his head, launch a political party and nominate another US-designated terrorist to contest democratic elections in Pakistan. Apparently, some countries can ignore UN directives with impunity.

 Third, the Muslim community has failed to grasp that Jihadism spread so rapidly around the world because at its core it is not very different from the theology of consensus that informs the religious beliefs and practices of all Muslim sects. That is why Jihadis are not impressed when we Muslims either proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and pluralism or when we try to wash our hands off Jihadism by claiming that it has nothing to do with Islam. If we Muslims want to live as honourable citizens in the 21st century’s globalised world, we must rethink our consensus theology in all its dimensions and make revolutionary changes to bring it in line with the needs of present times.

Let me elaborate a little on the similarities in the core theologies of Jihadism and mainstream Islam as well as suggest the contours of an alternative theology of peace and pluralism, inclusion and acceptance of diversity, respect for human rights and gender justice. What are the fundamental elements of theologies of all sects including Jihadism that are the same and what can be done about them. Let us discuss a few here briefly.

1.   Infallibility, universality and uncreatedness of all verses of Quran, regardless of the context in which some of these instructions came from God to guide the Prophet and his followers on matters that needed to be urgently taken care of then, but are no longer relevant in the vastly different circumstances today.

This belief is common to all sects and sub-sects of Islam today. There is a consensus around it. So Jihadis are not inventing a new theology if they say that those Muslims who do not follow the war-time verses of Quran literally by fighting the kuffar constantly or staying away from all non-Muslims in day-to-day matters are hypocritical, and that a good, honest Muslim is one who is perpetually engaged in offensive Jihad against non-Muslims. After all, this is what is taught in all religious schools or madrasas, regardless of the sect. We are told in our theological books that the only relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is that of war, and that it is the religious duty of all Muslims to bring Islam to power in all corners of the world, either by persuasion or force.

A new theology would seek to break this consensus and try to convince Muslims that war-time verses of the Prophet’s time maybe important as a historical account of the near insurmountable difficulties the Prophet had to face to establish Islam but do not apply to us today in the 21st century. We cannot possibly be fighting similar wars. Muslims were fighting existential battles in the early seventh century. Islam was in its infancy and infants do need to be taken special care of. Now the seed that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) planted in the inhospitable terrain of the Arabian desert has grown into a giant tree with branches across the world. There is no need for us to be fighting offensive Jihad “at least once a year” as Imam Ghazali advised in late 11th and early 12th century CE.

2.   There is a consensus among ulema (religious scholars) of all sects that Hadith narrations (the alleged sayings of the Prophet) are akin to revelation, even though these were collected up to 300 years after the demise of the Prophet and contradict many of the core teachings of the Quran, the exhortations of God whose messenger the Prophet was. This theology of consensus implies that the Prophet spent the better part of his prophetic career preaching against the messages revealed to him in the holy Quran.

What has actually happened is that in the 48th year of the demise of the Prophet, his entire family was massacred and reins of power taken over by scions of the inveterate enemies of Islam who had fought battles against the Prophet and joined Islam only after his victory at Mecca, in a clear bid to subvert Islam from within when they failed to destroy it from outside. But they had to rule Muslims for whom Quran was the only holy scripture, which they understood, as well as had mostly memorized and written down. To undermine Quran, and create a distance between Muslims and the Quran, they evolved over the coming decades and centuries two institutions that remain very powerful until today. One was Hadith, that was called akin to revelation, and the other was that of Ulema or clerics who were proclaimed to be of the status of heirs to the Prophet, much better able to explain religion to Muslims than they themselves could.

The new theology will have to bring the focus back to Quran, and seek to dislodge both Hadith and Ulema from their present position of pre-eminence. These institutions evolved in the era of dynastic, despotic rulers, called Khalifas. It was natural for them to look for scriptural justifications for their exploitative, tyrannical, imperialist, expansionist, and supremacist policies. Not able to find justification for their policies in the Quran, which essentially guided Muslims on a spiritual path to salvation, they naturally created another scripture and put that on the same pedestal as Quran. The ulema were also deployed to subvert the meaning of Quran’s verses of war and make contextual verses into universally applicable instructions for permanent war.

3.   Sharia Laws were first codified 120 years after the demise of the Prophet and have been changing since from time to time and place to place. It is only marginally based on Quran, most of it has been borrowed from pre-Islamic Arab practices. But the theology of consensus insists on calling it divine.
The new theology will go strictly by the spirit of Quran and allow Muslims to formulate their laws according to the needs of their time and place. Laws are and should remain dynamic and just.

4.   The theology of consensus propounds a Doctrine of Abrogation, whereby earlier Meccan verses preaching peace and pluralism, patience and perseverance, religious freedom for all, etc., have been abrogated by later Medinan verses of war, asking Muslims to fight, and talking about virtues and rewards of contributing to war efforts in the way of God.  It is said that the so-called sword verse (9: 5) alone has abrogated 114 verses of peace and pluralism revealed in early Islam at Mecca.

The new theology of peace should emphasise that the Meccan verses are the foundational and constitutive verses of Islam. They cannot be abrogated by any later verses of war. The Doctrine of Abrogation will need to be rejected in toto. It is the latter Medinan verses of war that have lost their relevance not the original Islam preaching peace and pluralism as revealed at Mecca.

5.   The concept of Caliphate has no basis in Quran, but our theology considers it almost mandatory. This consensus view needs to be corrected in the new theology.

6.   The theology of consensus is of the view that Muslims should migrate from Land of Conflict (Darul Harb) which is dominated by non-Muslims to Darul Islam (land of Islam). This has no basis in Quran. This is not even practical in contemporary world, though ulema keep using these terms. Even individuals have great difficulty getting visas to visit any country, these days, what to speak of millions of Muslims settling down in, say, Saudi Arabia, the pre-eminent Darul Islam. Saudis did not take even one Syrian refugee despite their horrible situation, though Germany (so-called Darul Harb) took a million Muslim refugees out of compassion for the suffering humanity. The new theology will have to reject such medieval ideas as completely irrelevant and un-Quranic.

Clearly Muslims have much hard work to do. We will need to bring about revolutionary changes in our theology to make it compatible with the holy Quran as well as the needs of modern times.

Republished with permission from NewAge Islam.
 

The post The core theologies of mainstream Islam are no different from Jihadism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Of course, “says the Muslim. “We’ve got plenty! Let me get you one from my library.”

A week later, the non Muslim returns.

“Thanks so much,” she says. “Fascinating. But I wonder, could you give me a copy of the other Qur’an?”

“Um, you’re holding it,” says the Muslim.

“Yeah, I read this,” replies the non Muslim. “But I need a copy of the Qur’an that’s followed by Muslims.”

The joke is right.  All this talk about discriminating oppression women is not what the Qur’an says!”

In recent years, on account of   the global socio-political climate, the phrase ‘Muslim woman’ might conjure an image of stubborn stereotypes: supposedly powerless and oppressed, behind walls and veils, demure, voiceless and silent figures, discriminated and bereft of even basic rights. This picture keeps reinforcing itself, largely because this is how the Western media caricatures women in Islam.

Contrary to the Eurocentric viewpoint, Muslim women are not a blank slate. When they are given the opportunity, Muslim women are integrating, participating in civic, economic and social life while raising children who are productive members of society. Muslim women across South Asia are slowly getting empowered to stand up to patriarchal practices that undermine their dignity. They believe that rights have been accorded to them in foundational Islamic texts but that cultural interpretations of these same texts disallow what is rightfully theirs. They do not call this a feminist struggle but describe it as reclamation of their faith.

 What prevailed in the early centuries of Islam was a radically different version of Islamic tradition. Its luminaries included women like Ummal-Darda, a seventh-century jurist and scholar who taught jurisprudence in the mosques of Damascus and Jerusalem.

Her students were men, women, and even the caliph. The fourteenth- century Syrian scholar Fatimah al- Bataihiyyah, who taught both men and women in the Prophet’s mosque in Medina, drawing students from as far away as Fez.

Al-Muhaddithat:

The Women Scholars in Islam, a seminal work by Sheikh Mohammad Akram Nadwi, stands as a riposte to the notion, peddled from Jakarta l to Morocco, that Islamic knowledge is men’s work and always has been. “I do not know of another religious tradition in which women were so central, so present, and so active in its formative history,” Akram wrote.

Women scholars taught judges and imams, issued Fatwas, and travelled to distant cities. Some made lecture tours across the Middle East.

Qur’an’s message of equality resonated in the teaching that women and men have been created from a single self and is each other’s guides who have the mutual obligation to enjoin what is right and to forbid what is wrong.

A lot of inspirational women, who were strong, vocal, and fighting for their rights, none of them felt that their faith was at odds with their conviction that they, as women, should be equal citizens.

Muslim women’s activism around education and equal opportunities are often underpinned by their emancipatory readings of foundational Islamic texts. They are now also challenging patriarchy   around unequal power hierarchies in society and the objectification of women’s bodies in some sections of the media .In this regard they stand with their sisters of all hues and stripes.

Part of the dilemma of women’s positions in Muslim society stems not so much from the principles of Islam itself but from extremely conservative interpretations of Islam or from the practice of traditional customs considered to be “Islamic”. A new breed of Islamist femininists is emerging that is making a strong pitch for “real” Islam, not tradition. Women are studying the Quran and Islamic law in order to challenge conservative male-dominated interpretations rejects tradition and demand application of true Islamic norms. Muslim women are boldly challenging traditions in many parts of the Muslim world provoking a split between Islamic modernists and traditionalists on their place in society.

The debate over women’s rights within Islam is not a new one. For centuries, Islamic scholars, thinkers, and activists have been pondering this question of women’s rights, and reaching very different answers. In today’s increasingly global world, however, the stakes are higher than ever—for everyone. In Islam, a woman is seen as an individual in her own right, an independent entity, and not as a shadow or adjunct to her husband or any other male. Muslim women are entitled to education, work, business ownership, and inheritance the same way as men are.

Although traditionally excluded from the public male domain, Muslim women have been privately involved in study and oral transmission of Islamic source texts (Qur’an and Hadith). In modern times, they have entered into both secular and religious forms of education with enthusiasm. Central to Islamic belief is the importance and high value placed on education. From the true Islamic point of view, education should be freely and equally available to women as much as men.

 A closer look at and evaluation of the roles Muslim women have played in many fields including literature, law, art, Islamic studies, the humanities, social sciences and administration — reveals that women, past and present, have achieved and made a rich contribution to the intellectual and cultural life in the Islamic world, despite the ways in which they have been caught in the problematic intersections of thought and patriarchal politics. From the first centuries of Islam, women were respected – and held authority – as religious scholars, teachers and leaders, for example as narrators and teachers of Hadith.

The modern Muslim woman draws her inspiration from the example of Sukayna, the brilliant, beautiful great-granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad who was married several times and, at least in one of her marriages, stipulated in writing that her husband was forbidden to disagree with her about anything.

Islamic feminists insist that Islam, at its core, is progressive for women and supports equal opportunities for men and women alike. Deeply religious, profoundly determined and modern in every way, they are challenging not only the unjust restrictions placed on them by their own societies, but also the tired stereotypes and empty generalizations placed on them by the West. Some of the leading proponents are actually men—distinguished scholars who contend that Islam was radically egalitarian for its time and remains so in many of its texts.

Women are chipping away at those customs that they consider oppressive. To the reactionaries who accuse them of  deviating from Islam, Islamic feminists argue there is a difference between Islamic jurisprudence—a man-made legal scaffolding developed for the specific conditions of medieval Muslim life—and the divine law itself, which is eternal,  immutable and calls for justice. It’s not the Quran they question, but how particular and skewed interpretations of it have solidified into truth.

Islam may not always be the sole factor in the repression of women. Local, social, political, economic   and educational forces as well as the prevalence of pre-Islamic customs must also be taken into consideration.  In some societies they are a pervasive influence. But in many cases    proper application of the Sharia, Islamic law, remains a major obstacle to the evolution of the position of women.

Women are now elbowing their way into political and civil society, and universities. Despite present cultural and political obstacles, they are finding opportunities to rise up — and to bring their societies up with them. They recognize   the key is to do so from within the Islamic realm.

 Across the Muslim world, Islamic feminists are combing through centuries of Islamic jurisprudence to cull out and highlight the more progressive aspects of their religion. They are seeking accommodation between a modern role for women and the Islamic values that more than a billion people in the world follow.

Western women should be respectful of other paths to social change. it is ridiculous to parameterize  social norms for universal contexts .The western feminists cannot appropriate to themselves the wisdom or competence to hand out certificates on the correctness or otherwise of female social norms. The dominant western feminism has now become somewhat synonymous with a strong sense of individualism. It has also contributed to creating a sense of rivalry between men and women, which has a bearing upon child development and is not conducive to a healthy family or society.

Few Muslim women outside the urban areas may want to behave like western women. The high rate of divorce and sexual disease are common consequences of the reckless drive to equate the sexes and ‘free’ sexual relationships. Comparison may mean little outside the cultural context but it is important to point out that, until 100 years ago, western women had virtually no rights in law or practice.

It  is for women  of the respective societies ,and not even their men, to   best evolve norms suited and appropriate to their cultural and social values . First, there are multiple causes of discrimination against women, and religion is but one. Second, it is futile to focus on misery elsewhere as an escape from the realities of our own lives. Third gender relations influence and determine women’s options in all societies. And fourth, the issue of power remains crucial for understanding gender inequality in any society.

Few Muslim women   may want to behave like western women. The high rate of divorce and sexual disease are common consequences of the reckless drive to equate the sexes and ‘free’ sexual relationships. Muslim women believe that rights have been accorded to them in foundational Islamic texts but that cultural interpretations of these texts disallow what is rightfully theirs. They do not call this a feminist struggle but describe it as reclamation of their faith.

Comparison may mean little outside the cultural context but it is important to point out that, until 100 years ago, western women had virtually no rights in law or practice. Over 1,000 years before the first European suffragette, Islam gave far-reaching rights and a defined status to women. It smacks of shallowness of western female scholarship that they are not aware of the richness of Islamic discourse on women .Islam anticipates the demands of western feminists by more than 1,000 years. A stay-at-home wife can specify that she expects to receive a regular stipend, which is not that far from the goals of the Wages for Housework campaign of the 1970s.

Western thinkers and practitioners must reconsider their assumptions about the role of Islam in women’s rights and approach this topic with a more nuanced lens. They must understand the necessity of recognizing and consciously accepting the broad cultural differences between western and non-western conceptions of autonomy as well as respecting social standards that reflect non-western values.

For empowering women, men have to be properly sensitized so that women are allowed both time and freedom and opportunity to chart out a path of social and economic independence. Treating women with the inherent dignity that they were created with, ensuring that   they are given equitable opportunities to succeed is necessary to uphold the Qur’an’s vision,

It is clear that Muslim women’s empowerment, like many things, cannot be imposed on a country or a culture from the outside. Men and women within these conservative communities must first find their own reasons and their own justifications to allow women a fuller role in society. Increasingly, they are finding those reasons within Islam.  . Like men, women deserve to be free. Empowering women should be as much a man’s responsibility, as it is a woman’s aspiration. As Rumi says in the Masnawi, “This woman, who is your beloved, is in fact a ray of His light. She is not a mere creature. She is like a creator”.

 In today’s increasingly global world, the stakes are higher than ever—for everyone. Societies that limit women’s educational and employment opportunities and their political voice get stuck in a downward spiral. They are poorer, more fragile, have higher levels of corruption, and are more prone to extremism.  

To those opposed to reformist ideals, let us remind them of Iqbal’s assertion: “[t]he teaching of the Qur’an that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.”  

Moin Qazi is the author of the bestselling book, Village Diary of a Heretic Banker. He has worked in the development finance sector for almost four decades .

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/moin-qazi,-new-age-islam/men-deny-women-equality,-not-the-qur’an/d/111957

The post Its men, not the Qu’ran, that denies equality to women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image courtesy: Huffington Post

The question “Is Islamic reform possible?” pre-supposes that reform is necessary. Many Muslims would say it is not.

Even many liberal and progressive Muslims insist Islam is perfect and it is only Muslims themselves that need to be reformed. It is Muslims who are misguided and hold erroneous interpretations – the Qur’an is the perfect word of God. It can never be wrong.

They argue extremists like al-Qaeda and ISIS are not “true” Muslims and are only using Islam for their own power and political ends. They dismiss countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan as not following Islam correctly and they go to great lengths to come up with all sorts of apologetics to distance Islam from real-life practices of Muslim countries and groups around the world.

Yet it has to be asked if Islam is perfect and has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of extremists like ISIS or regimes like Saudi Arabia – then why is it that these Muslims have so grossly misunderstood their religion? When one points out actions such as execution of apostates and gays they tell us this is completely against Islam and Islam is very clear about it. But then why don’t these groups and regimes realise they are going completely against Islam? Don’t they realise the terrible mistake they are making when it is all so clear and obvious? The truth is that it is not as clear and obvious as they claim.

If the message [of the Qu’ran] has been so badly misunderstood by so many Muslims what does that say about the message?

If it is true that they have completely misunderstood Islam – what does that say about Islam and the Qur’an – the clear book Kitabun Mubeen – the final and complete revelation to man? If the message has been so badly misunderstood by so many Muslims what does that say about the message?

My view is that the Qur’an is not perfect and I believe it’s time we Muslims admitted that the Quran and Sunna can indeed lend itself to very harsh and violent – yet perfectly valid interpretations. The solution is not to try and twist the texts to come up with a counter-interpretation but to simply accept the fact that the Quran is not perfect. It is not infallible. It can be wrong.

Muslim reformers, such as there have been throughout Islamic History have never challenged this idea that the Qur’an is perfect. In fact the usual word for reformer in the context of Islam does not actually mean reform – the word used is Mujaddid which means “renewer”. Reform in the Islamic context means calls to return to “true, pure and unadulterated” Islam of the Qur’an and Sunna. Their “reforms” have been about halting change rather than bringing about change.

Many puritanical groups have arisen throughout Islamic History such as the al-Muwahideen, Almurabiteen, and the Khawarij – all with the same aim of bringing Islam back to its pure unadulterated roots. As such the Wahhabis and Salafis of today can be seen in this tradition of Tajdeed – renewing Islam and ridding it of corruptions and innovations. Most if not all Muslim reformers have been restricted within this paradigm.

Even liberal and progressive Muslims of today who seek to bring about a more peaceful and inclusive form of Islam never claim they are reforming Islam. Instead they claim they are bringing Islam back to it’s true message… in my view there is no such thing as “True Islam”.

Even liberal and progressive Muslims of today who seek to bring about a more peaceful and inclusive form of Islam never claim they are reforming Islam. Instead they claim they are bringing Islam back to it’s true message. They accept the same starting point of a perfect divine Qur’an and so instead of simply rejecting problematic verses they are forced into absurd linguistic gymnastics in order to claim that God’s perfect word never actually said what it appears to have said – and what 1400 years of scholarship believed it said. Liberal and progressive arguments depend on tenuous nuanced readings of the Qur’an and forcing new meanings out of ancient words. They scrape the barrel of the ancient texts to find something that will support a more progressive view.

But by playing this game within the rules of a perfect divine Qur’an they only hand victory to the traditionalists and fundamentalists because it is the traditionalists who have by far the greater evidence to support their views. Any theological workarounds a liberal can come up with can be easily countered by traditionalists with a vast array of Qur’an and Hadith at their disposal.

Now I’m not saying the traditionalist and fundamentalists represent the true Islam, because in my view there is no such thing as “True Islam”. Islam is not and never has been a single homogenous entity. Of course many Muslims argue that there is a True Islam, but that is because they believe the Qur’an is perfect and is the carefully planned work of an Omniscient and Omnipotent God. They are compelled to defend it’s integrity and consistency against all reason.

Ironically many far-right anti-Muslim bigots also insist there is only one “True Islam” and they say it is the Islam of ISIS and the extremists.

Ironically many far-right anti-Muslim bigots also insist there is only one “True Islam” and they say it is the Islam of ISIS and the extremists. They want to convince everyone – including Muslims themselves – that moderate forms of Islam are wrong and that real Islam is the terrorists’ version. Muslims who deny this are practicing Taqiyya or are ignorant. They do this because they want to justify their hatred and violence towards Muslims.

But those of us who take the view that the Qur’an is the rather less carefully planned work of a human mind, should not make the mistake of expecting a perfectly consistent and non-contradictory message over 23 years from a 7th century human being reacting to events as they happened. There are certainly interpretations that can be argued to be closer to what Muhammad brought in 7th century Arabia. But one cannot claim they all constitute a single consistent view. When liberal and progressive Muslims accuse the Salafis of being selective in how they interpret Islam, choosing to overlook the more peaceful and tolerant verses, they are right. But what they forget to mention is that they are just as selective when they choose to overlook the more harsh and rigid verses.

When liberal and progressive Muslims accuse the Salafis of being selective in how they interpret Islam, choosing to overlook the more peaceful and tolerant verses, they are right. But what they forget to mention is that they are just as selective when they choose to overlook the more harsh and rigid verses.

What Muhammad did and said varied at different points over the 23 years of his Prophethood. His message changed shape and direction as events did and with the need to please and attract differing tribes and individuals. From the early days in Mecca to the position of power he found himself in Madina. The Qur’an contains contradictions, ambiguity and vagueness leaving the door open to a multitude of interpretations.

Some argue that the principle of abrogation means that the more peaceful and conciliatory verses are no-longer valid. This is a favourite argument of the far-right anti-Muslim bigots who again want to insist that more liberal versions of Islam are wrong and “true Islam” is the violent forms. However the doctrine of abrogation is largely a creation of later scholars who were compelled to reconcile the contradictions in the Qur’an – which of course cannot exist since it is the perfect word of God. They took their cue from two similar but rather ambiguous verses in the Qur’an. For example verse 106 of al-Baqara says:

“Any revelation We cause to be abrogated or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar.”

They used this to argue that any verses that contradicted each other could be explained by the later one abrogating the earlier one which usually meant Medinan verses abrogating Meccan ones. However they didn’t agree on which verses abrogate which since there is not always agreement on when verses were revealed or even the reasons they were revealed (Asbab Nuzul). Some scholars even went as far to argue that a verse that was revealed in Mecca was then revealed again in Medina in order to make it fit their view.

Many modern Muslims reject the whole idea of abrogation which of course gives them a little more scope to argue that early peaceful and conciliatory verses are in fact more valid than later violent ones since the violent ones are tied to the specific context of Muhammad’s struggle with the Meccan while the earlier ones are of a universal and general in nature. This was the argument of the Sudanese scholar Mahmoud Taha and his student Abdullahi Al-Naeem.

Mahmoud Taha was executed for apostasy in Sudan which shows how dangerous and difficult it is for liberal and progressive Muslims to challenge the status quo.

Even when they are listened to they cannot decisively defeat the fundamentalists using scriptural arguments as long as they concede the Qur’an is perfect. Because the harsh literalist interpretations of the fundamentalists will always have the greater weight of classical scholarship on their side. Their hands will never be free to simply pick and choose using reason, since God’s divine words trumps flawed human reason every time.

The belief that the Qur’an is the perfect word of God shuts down all argument and sidelines human reason and conscience. There can be no stronger motivation than “God said it”. One can’t argue with God.

The belief that the Qur’an is the perfect word of God shuts down all argument and sidelines human reason and conscience. There can be no stronger motivation than “God said it”. One can’t argue with God. Few Muslims have the courage to challenge the idea that the Qur’an is God’s word. Those that do are immediately labelled apostates and they are either executed or forced to leave Islam thereby silencing all dissent from within Islam.

Contrary to popular belief all the Arabs at the time of Muhammad did not swoon at the words of the Qur’an, believing it to be of divine origin. The Qur’an itself testifies that many Arabs rejected the Qur’an’s claim to being the word of God.

However contrary to popular belief all the Arabs at the time of Muhammad did not swoon at the words of the Qur’an, believing it to be of divine origin. The Qur’an itself testifies that many Arabs rejected the Qur’an’s claim to being the word of God. Muhammad was accused of being a soothsayer and a poet. He was accused of recounting nothing but myths and fairytales and it took a long and violent struggle to win over Arabia – not an intellectual one.

Even after Islam there were Muslims who rejected the Qur’an’s claim to be inimitable. For example Al-Jaʿd ibn Dirham, tutor to the Umayyad Caliph Marwan, said, “The Qur’an’s eloquence is not a miracle and people can do the like of it and better.” The Mu’tazilite scholar Abu Musa said, “People are able to produce the like of the Qurʾān as regards eloquence, and composition and rhetorical beauty.” The Sunni scholar Abu al-Qushairy said: “We do not claim that everything in the Qurʾān is in the highest rank of eloquence.” Ibn al-Rawandi a Mu’tazilite scholar – who was accused of being a Zindiq (heretic) – said, “Indeed the Qurʾān is not the speech of a wise god. In it are contradictions and mistakes and passages that are in the realms of the absurd.”

During the Islamic Golden Age this movement of dissent grew and was labelled al-Zanadiqa (The Heretics) by its opponents. But it nevertheless boasted some great scholars and poets in its ranks including the Muslim physician al-Razi, the poets Omar al-Khayyam and Abu Ala’ al Ma’arri (whose statue was destroyed by ISIS fighters when they took his home town of Ma’arrat al-Nu’maan near Aleppo in Syria). All these scholars and poets openly questioned the view that the Qur’an was of divine origin and it’s ironic that for a period at least during the Islamic Golden Age such bold expression was tolerated to a greater extent than it is today.

 Al-Razi was particularly scathing about the Qur’an saying:

“You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: ‘Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one.’ Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. … By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: ‘Produce something like it’‽”

However with the rise of Europe during the Renaissance came the decline and stagnation in the Islamic world and what little free-thought had existed during the Islamic Golden Age came to an end. The doors of Ijtihad were closed and scholars no longer braved new frontiers. Instead they concentrated on preserving and imitating the past.

Today however there are signs that there is a new awakening of free-thought despite the rise and alarming spread of Islamic neo-conservatism – in fact it may be in part a reaction to such regressive movements that are in such stark contrast to reason and reality in the 21st century and are a never ending source of cognitive dissonance for many rational and educated Muslims.

For example the modern Iranian scholar Abdul Karim Soroush writes:

“According to the traditional account, the Prophet was only an instrument; he merely conveyed a message passed to him by Jibril. In my view, however, the Prophet played a pivotal role in the production of the Koran… Like a poet, the Prophet feels that he is captured by an external force. But in fact the Prophet himself is the creator and the producer. The question whether the inspiration comes from outside or from inside is really not relevant, because at the level of revelation there is no difference between outside and inside. The inspiration comes from the Self of the Prophet.”

In Iraq the scholar Ahmad Al-Qabbanji states quite openly in his lectures that the Qur’an is not perfect nor flawless and has compared it to human texts in which he highlights passages that are superior to passages of the Qur’an. (For this who speak Arabic you can find plenty of his lectures on YouTube.)

The Moroccan scholar Saeed Nasheed published a book in Arabic last year titled: Modernity & the Qur’an. In it he says:

“The Qur’an is not the speech of God, just as the loaf of bread is not the work of the farmer. God produced the raw material, which was inspiration, just as the farmer produces the raw material, which is wheat. But it is the baker who turns the wheat or flour into bread according to his own unique way, artistic expertise and creative ability. Thus it is the Prophet who was responsible for interpreting the inspiration and turning it into actual phrases and words according to his own unique view.”

My own view is perhaps even more radical. I am both Agnostic and Muslim. I don’t know if God exists or not – though I do believe in “something” – something I cannot define nor quantify but I call it God. I enjoy many aspects of the Islamic traditions that I have been brought up in and practiced for over 50 years of my life. However when I went through a period of doubts and became convinced that the Qur’an was not the perfect word of God but very much the product of a human being from the 7th century – I left Islam for a while. I thought I had no choice. I had always been led to believe that if you don’t believe in the divinity and perfection of the Qur’an you can’t be a Muslim. But I never felt entirely comfortable identifying as an ex-Muslim and still found myself attending prayers and Islamic events with my family and friends.

I am both Agnostic and Muslim. I don’t know if God exists or not – though I do believe in “something” – something I cannot define nor quantify but I call it God. I enjoy many aspects of the Islamic traditions that I have been brought up in and practiced for over 50 years of my life.

All the things that I had loved and drew comfort from during my 50 years as a practicing Muslim were still there. I still enjoyed prayer and connecting with that something beyond this material existence I call God and I was surprised to find that having doubts as to whether there was anyone actually listening didn’t take away the comfort, hope and relief I gained from sharing my thoughts and feelings. I still enjoyed the verses and Hadith I had always loved and treasured. Seeing the Qur’an as fallible didn’t change all that. So why should I be forced to leave Islam? Particularly when Islam so badly needs voices of dissent and change from within. And when Muslims – including loved ones – are being bullied and oppressed by religious authorities who rely on our silent compliance.

So yes I am a Muslim who believes the Qur’an is not the word of God. Plain and simple. Like all human books it contains good and bad. It is inextricably tied to its context and environment. I openly and unashamedly pick and choose the good parts and reject the bad parts based on my conscience, human reason and our 21st century context.

I see no reason to abide by the definition of the very fundamentalist authorities I oppose and who are the cause of our problems and I propose a new definition for a Muslim. One who is freely able to place reason above revelation. Who does not have to apologise for picking and choosing – for “cherry picking” as our detractors like to scoff at. Selecting the good and leaving the bad according to human reason is the eminently rational and reasonable thing to do. It is the “All or Nothing” approach that is irrational and leads to the suppression of one’s humanity.

Why should being honest and admitting what is patently obvious mean you can’t be a Muslim? Why should we have to keep on defending (or dishonestly wriggle out of) passages that are simply wrong?

Why should being honest and admitting what is patently obvious mean you can’t be a Muslim? Why should we have to keep on defending (or dishonestly wriggle out of) passages that are simply wrong. Let’s reject them and move on. It really is as simple as that.

Though of course the journey getting to that point is not simple. Embracing doubt while retaining faith is not an easy process but it is possible and enlightening. Doubt can accommodate faith, but crucially it eliminates extremism. Fanaticism cannot occupy the same space as doubt and reason. As Voltaire said: “Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.”

The irony is that most Muslims already pick and choose – the only difference is that I’m simply proposing they do this openly and unashamedly without the ridiculously tenuous and disingenuous apologetics that are ultimately self-defeating.

Perhaps the irony is that most Muslims already pick and choose – the only difference is that I’m simply proposing they do this openly and unashamedly without the ridiculously tenuous and disingenuous apologetics that are ultimately self-defeating.

I will give you an example from verse 34 of Sura al Nisa which in microcosm reflects the dilemma Muslims face and how belief in a perfect Qur’an prevents us from reform. The verse says:

“As for those women from whom you fear rebellion (first) admonish them (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) hit them.” (4:34)

This has been the cause of endless problems and cognitive dissonance for rational and liberal Muslims in this day and age where humanity has evolved beyond such a barbaric mentality and where the relationships and roles of men and women have changed drastically from 7th century Arabia.

However the insistence on a perfect divine Qur’an has meant that Muslims must either defend wife beating against their very conscience and rational mind, or they are forced to invent dishonest and ridiculous apologetics to try to make the verse mean something completely different. Apologetics which fool none but a tiny minority of Muslims who have retreated to an ivory tower of the absurd – a make-believe land where up means down and left means right and anything can be as you wish it to be.

Muslims are as yet unable to simply say. “The Qur’an is wrong.” They can’t say this because of the insistence that the Qur’an is perfect and infallible.

Reform can only come once we get over this hurdle of an infallible Qur’an. It is not infallible. It is not perfect and it is not the word of God. That doesn’t mean it is all bad. There are many beautiful and mystical verses such as Ayat u Nur, Ayat ul Kursi, verses about giving charity, helping others, seeking comfort and strength from prayer, helping the poor, good behaviour and character, honesty, personal responsibility, kindness, humbleness and so on…

But there are also verses about eternal torture in Hell, chopping hands off thieves, flogging fornicators, and keeping slaves. As for Hadith I won’t even go there as they have already begun to be seriously doubted and jettisoned by many Muslims, due to cruel, barbaric as well as absurd and comical nature of some of their content.

It’s time we Muslims realise that recognising the human origins of the Qur’an do not mean we have to lose comfort and solace Islam gives us. It means we will have the dual benefit of eradicating extremism while preserving that which is worthwhile.

To those who say that is impossible to combine faith with doubt and scepticism I would say, firstly, I myself have reached that point. Secondly, why should such a pragmatic realism be harder than the massive efforts most believers put into struggling with cognitive dissonance?

To those who say that is impossible to combine faith with doubt and scepticism I would say, firstly, I myself have reached that point. Secondly, why should such a pragmatic realism be harder than the massive efforts most believers put into struggling with cognitive dissonance?

And as someone who was born and brought up in the UK I am surrounded by plenty of examples of secular Christians, Jews, Hindus and others who pray in church or temple, christen their children, have religious weddings, attend festivals and services. Who draw comfort and identity with their faith and yet can still embrace doubt and maintain a healthy scepticism. Muslims are not a different species. They are human beings like everyone else and have the same capacities and possibilities as everyone else and I consider it racist to think otherwise.

As for those who say we are better off without religion, perhaps that’s right. But regardless of what one thinks about religion the fact is it has and continues to provide a great many people with meaning, comfort and motivation in a world that is often confusing, cruel and full of conflict. The fact that all these religions are man-made does not negate their effectiveness as a vehicle to ease the anxiety of life and to reach out to the unknown.

Recognising the Qur’an’s human nature does not have to mean the end of Islam, but it will mean the end of unreasonable defence of tenets that belong to an earlier stage of human evolution.

Recognising the Qur’an’s human nature does not have to mean the end of Islam, but it will mean the end of unreasonable defence of tenets that belong to an earlier stage of human evolution. It will mean freeing human reason and conscience and allow Islam to evolve as humans evolve. It will mean the end of religion poking its nose into every facet of our lives by self-appointed moral busybodies. It will free us to make our own decisions and life choices and leave judgment to God not man. Religion is between you and God. Believe as you wish but do not impose it on others.

Muslims must take the bold and essential step of challenging the belief that Qur’an is infallible. It is an essential step, because once you stop protecting ideas on the basis that “God said it”, you create a level playing field where good ideas can battle it out with bad ideas on an equal footing – without some being protected on the false basis that “God said it.” It allows reason to be the deciding factor for whether something is accepted or rejected, rather than: “Because it’s written!” No more searching for tenuous interpretations or changing the meaning of words into something else, just so we can avoid the problematic and uncomfortable meanings.

As long as we refuse to appreciate that the Qur’an is human-authored, we will be forced to continue playing the game within the traditional paradigm that the fundamentalists are best at. We will disarm ourselves of the only weapon that can defeat them – reason. Only when we recognise that the Qur’an and Sunna are fallible can we free Islam from the prison of dogma we placed it in.

Islam is far more than the Qur’an and Sunna. Like any major religion, it is the amassed wisdom, practice, cultures and beliefs of millions of believers in different parts of the world over many centuries. Religion at its most fundamental level is a way of seeking comfort, solace, strength and meaning in a harsh world where man finds himself alone and vulnerable, an aid to help us get by, a way to reach out to the heavens. But it must never be allowed to replace reason and humanity.

It is the fundamentalists who are destroying Islam by stripping it of the very things that has made religion relevant to human beings.

It is the fundamentalists who are destroying Islam by stripping it of the very things that has made religion relevant to human beings. They want to reduce Islam to a blind following of ancient texts and strip away any semblance of progress, human reason and humanity. They want to take us back 1,400 years to a harsh and barbaric context and place that has no place in the 21st century.

Accepting that the Qur’an is fallible will not destroy Islam. It will destroy the fundamentalists. For the rest of us it will free us and free our reason so we can take what is useful and reject what is not.

———

I want to finish with some quotes from an Egyptian author who goes by the pen name of Abbas Abdu-Noor. He wrote a book called “My Ordeal with the Qur’an” which I have translated from Arabic to English. It is a unique book in that he comes from a very devout Islamic background and was a preacher and Islamic teacher and yet in later life came to believe the Qur’an is not the word of God but human and flawed. He says:

“We must storm this lion’s lair that guards the text of the Qur’ān. We must tear away the layer of sanctity and holiness that surrounds this text. Without doing so, it will be impossible to properly study the text. We must disrobe the text, see it naked, and question its sanctity. We must apply the methodology of reason. It is only through this process that new horizons will open themselves up to us.

We must reconsider the distinction we have created between the sacred and the profane… for there is nothing sacred but humanity”.

(Belief in the divinity of the Qur’an) has confiscated our reason, isolating it from reality and from the life of man. Because of this confiscation of reason and the knowledge that reason produces, (Muslim) culture appears as though it has nothing to do with life, except that which concerns the next life and all it contains of heaven and hell, houris, and fruit from that which they desire. The time has come for us to climb over the walls built around us as a result of the confiscation of reason. There is no other way to do this other than by starting a revolution of understanding, a revolution in our perceptions and most basic assumptions of the texts and readings. It must be a revolution that will come from seeing the texts in a new way, and treating them as we would treat any object that is subject to analysis and reason.

We must not remain imprisoned in this dark, cramped room while the world around us marches on, growing and evolving without us. We must throw open the curtains and go out into the light. We must rediscover the spirit of dynamism and enterprise that we had before retreating to this time capsule and locking the door behind us.

The tyranny of the text has prevailed over every attempt at a renaissance — even the dream of a renaissance — so that all efforts to produce one came to nothing, and all of our hopes of achieving a plan for a renaissance are dashed. Instead, we have seen that the Salafis, the fundamentalists, the bloodthirsty and the regressive have all conspired to throttle the tentative breaths of any renaissance, and disabled all initiatives that might lead to one.

It is a pity that the march of history never sleeps or stands still, except in our countries. And what can I say? Even in many Third World countries, we see the march of progress and movement. Almost the whole world is moving forward like a surging river, even if, at times, with choppy waters. The exceptions are our countries, where there is a still lake, stagnant and unmoving. I have no other objective or motive in this book other than to throw a stone into this lake so that, perhaps, it might make it stir, disrupting its calmness and composure”.

Hassan Radwan graduated with 1st class honours in Classical Arabic from SOAS University of London in 1984, his specialist subjects being Quranic commentary and Pre-Islamic poetry. For 3 years he served as president of SOAS Students Islamic Society. He spent 15 years as a teacher at Islamia Primary School in London and has written four books for Muslim children as well as leading an Islamic circle. After going through a period of questioning and doubting his faith he first identified as an ex-Muslim but eventually came to identify as an Agnostic Muslim and campaigns for radical reform within Islam – in particular the need to recognise the Quran’s human origin. He recently translated the book, “My Ordeal with the Quran” , from Arabic to English and founded the Agnostic Muslims and Friends Facebook group. He also runs the Agnostic Muslim Khutbahs blog. Hassan is also an active member of the Inclusive Mosque Initiative in London.

(Republished with permission from New Age Islam.)

The post To fight fundamentalists and extremists, Muslims should radically reinterpret their faith appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Certain universal truths/ customs about Islam are above debate and cannot be dismissed by law, nor need to be authenticated by the so-called clergy whether they are essential or non-essential components of faith.

The Qur’an preaches that there is One God. Muslims recite from the Qur’an in their daily prayers. Muslims are required to do ablution (wet or dry) before commencing the prayer. The Qur’an prohibits flesh of swine as food. The Qur’an abolished the custom of burying alive of new born girls. The Qur’an abolished the custom of instant divorce and introduced a time frame for divorce. The Qur’an abolished incestuous relation between clearly identified close relations.

Now if a clergy or even a secular person says no to any of the above propositions, he is simply telling a lie against the Qur’an or is stark ignorant of what is written in the Qur’an.

This leads up to the tricky question embedded in this statement in the article in the context of instant divorce: It [The Court] does not have the expertise to decide which practice/ritual is essential/non-essential. These are purely religious questions, which is best left to clergy.”

The flaw in the stateent is that i) it does not define ‘clergy.’ ii) it fails to recognize that the Qur’an does not recognize any clergy class or any other authority entrusted with the interpretation of its message.

The question around which this writer’s consistently advocated argument of constitutionally invalidating triple Talaq rests, is its enduringly devastating impact on a poor Muslim woman who receives the triple talaq at a fatal moment.

In the blink of an eye, she loses her husband, her children, her home and hearth, her status, her livelihood. She is barred from all her Qur'anic rights; her fundamental human rights are violated. She is abjectly dehumanized, and is struck with such overwhelming shock, trauma, and mental agony, that may be no less tormenting than if she were about to be buried alive. Also unlike a wife who is, so to say, buried alive (instead of getting instant triple divorce) she will suffer stigma, disgrace and deprivation all her life. So a woman from a poor family who is handed a triple divorce suffers more grievously than if she was buried alive – a parallel that India’s ex-Union Minister Mohammed Arif Mohammed Khan aptly gave in a recent court hearing.

Bearing the above in mind, it is simply ridiculous to suggest that the ‘court’ does not have the expertise to decide the essentiality or otherwise of triple Talaq. The Judges are no robots. They are human beings. Regardless of what Muslim clergy say on a matter that is expressly repugnant to Qur’an (the holy book of Muslims), to universal human values and opposed to the noble notions of justice, mercy, compassion that distinguish man from beast, the court can surely say that such practice/ ritual cannot be ‘essential ‘to Islamic faith or for that matter any faith.

Let us not forget the case of Imrana [June 06, 2005]. Raped by her father-in-law, the local clerics invoked Hanafi law to turn the rapist father-in-law into lawful husband of the rape victim. The Supreme Court did not leave the matter with the clergy. It intervened and handed due punishment to the rapist father in law.

Think of the case of so many un-known sisters of Imrana, whom their husbands instantly divorce in a state of drunkenness or anger and then force to marry a friend and have intercourse with him and get his friend to divorce her for him to remarry her back – all within just a few days – what a colossal violation of human rights under the ambit of MPL. Is the court going to leave the mater in the hands of the clergy, which, in any case, is not recognized in Islam.

As to the learned Professor’s [reference to the article by Faizan Mustafa in the Tribune] repetitive suggestion of incorporating a clause in the Nikahnama ‘that triple divorce shall not be given’, this writer will reiterate that “this will purport to imply imposing some limitations on the prerogatives of the male spouse, who may in practical terms, violate the contract and take recourse to this practice. … In other words, instant triple divorce must be declared constitutionally invalid and culpable in the eye of Law, and not included in Nikahnama as a condition of prenuptial contract.”[5]

This writer, who is keeping a close tab on the arguments of those who are bent on retaining ‘triple Talaq’ either in MPL or in the Nikahnama as a prohibitive clause, and is consistently tabling counter-arguments is now compelled to say this:

Having failed to establish its case by telling lies upon lies about the Qur'an in their recent submission as reported by the media and exposed by this writer in his last two articles [3-5], the advocates of triple Talaqs an Islamic custom, have taken to a labyrinthine legal argument to support their case. It is reminiscent of labyrinthine Fatwas by terror groups who will cite opinions of different scholars of different era and overwhelm the lay reader into accepting their views but the world knows they are terrorists and so are those who advocated instant triple Talaq as expounded in one of my articles referenced below:

AIMPLB Advocates Of Instant Triple Talaq Are Gender Terrorists And Traitors Of Islam And May Be Sued For Human Rights Violation Under Cover Of Religion
http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/advocates-of-instant-triple-talaq-are-gender-terrorists-and-traitors-of-islam-and-may-be-sued-for-human-rights-violation-under-cover-of-religion/d/110871

This is this writer’s 7th article on the subject consistently advocating constitutional invalidation of triple Talaq:

[1]  Qur’anic Sharia (Laws) On Divorce: Triple Divorce, Temporary Marriage, Halala Stand Forbidden (Haram)
http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/the-qur’anic-sharia-(laws)-on-divorce.–triple-divorce,-temporary-marriage,-halala-stand-forbidden-(haram)/d/6391

 [2 ] The Medieval-Era-Rooted, Qur’an-Conflicting Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law) Must Be Reformed To Avoid Injustices to Muslim Women – An SOS to the Indian Ulema Fraternity
http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-medieval-era-rooted,-qur’an-conflicting-muslim-personal-law-(sharia-law)-must-be-reformed-to-avoid-injustices-to-muslim-women-–-an-sos-to-the-indian-ulema-fraternity/d/97692

[3]  Indian Muslim Ulema Who Insist On Retaining the Anti-Qur’anic Triple Talaq (Instant Divorce) In Muslim Personal Law Are Sinners, Haters of Their Women-Folk and Criminals and Must Be Resisted
http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/indian-muslim-ulama-who-insist-on-retaining-the-anti-qur’anic-triple-talaq-(instant-divorce)-in-muslim-personal-law-are-sinners,-haters-of-their-women-folk-and-criminals-and-must-be-resisted/d/104483

 [4] Supreme Court Has Already Declared Triple Talaq Invalid – So What Is the Need for the Recent Petition to the Supreme Court
http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/supreme-court-has-already-declared-triple-talaq-invalid-–-so-what-is-the-need-for-the-recent-petition-to-the-supreme-court/d/111090

 [5]  Triple Talaq Must Be Invalidated Constitutionally and Criminalized – Inclusion of Prohibitive Clause in Nikahnama Could Allow Its Perpetuation by Defaulters
http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/triple-talaq-must-be-invalidated-constitutionally-and-criminalized-–-inclusion-of-prohibitive-clause-in-nikahnama-could-allow-its-perpetuation-by-defaulters/d/111139

Having stretched his vocabulary in protesting against AIMPLB and its sympathizer’s insistence to keep triple Talaq in MPL – at least as an express prohibition (thus tacitly acknowledging its religious bearing, the author would now like to end this article with the following quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero – an iconic figure of the Roman era, remembered for his political and juristic erudition:

“The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.”

Triple Talaq must not be confused with Polygamy that i) is permitted in Islam in exceptional cases – though the Qur’an’s holistic message stands for monogamy [2]  and ii) cannot be paralleled with triple divorce by any stretch of imagination on human rights violations and traumatic impact to a wife (existing versus divorced).

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

This article was first publoshed on New Age Islam.

The post “The ‘no triple talaq’ clause in nikahnama is no use. SC must declare it unconstitutional” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Triple Talaq Row: Social Boycott as Punishment Is Juvenile; AIMPLB Must Follow Quran and Accept Inevitability of Change appeared first on SabrangIndia.