Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Conflict Theory and Biosphere Annihilation

By Robert J. Burrowes, New Age Islam

30 May 2018

In a recent article titled Challenges for Resolving Complex Conflicts’, I pointed out that existing conflict theory pays little attention to the extinction-causing conflict being ongoingly generated by human over-consumption in the finite planetary biosphere (and, among other outcomes, currently resulting in 200 species extinctions daily). I also mentioned that this conflict is sometimes inadequately identified as a conflict caused by capitalism’s drive for unending economic growth in a finite environment.

I would like to explain the psychological origin of this biosphere-annihilating conflict and how this origin has nurtured the incredibly destructive aspects of capitalism (and socialism, for that matter) from the beginning. I would also like to explain what we can do about it.

Before I do, however, let me briefly illustrate why this particular conflict configuration is so important by offering you a taste of the most recent research evidence in relation to the climate catastrophe and biosphere annihilation and why the time to resolve this conflict is rapidly running out (assuming, problematically, that we can avert nuclear war in the meantime).

In an article reporting a recent speech by Professor James G. Anderson of Harvard University, whose research led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to mitigate CFC damage to the Ozone Layer, environmental journalist Robert Hunizker summarizes Anderson’s position as follows: ‘the chance of permanent ice remaining in the Arctic after 2022 is zero. Already, 80% is gone. The problem: Without an ice shield to protect frozen methane hydrates in place for millennia, the Arctic turns into a methane nightmare.’ See ‘There Is No Time Left’.

But if you think that sounds drastic, other recent research has drawn attention to the fact that the ‘alarming loss of insects will likely take down humanity before global warming hits maximum velocity.... The worldwide loss of insects is simply staggering with some reports of 75% up to 90%, happening much faster than the paleoclimate record rate of the past five major extinction events’. Without insects ‘burrowing, forming new soil, aerating soil, pollinating food crops...’ and providing food for many bird species, the biosphere simply collapses. See Insect Decimation Upstages Global Warming’.

So, if we are in the process of annihilating Earth’s biosphere, which will precipitate human extinction in the near term, why aren’t we paying much more attention to the origin of this fundamental conflict? And then developing a precisely focused strategy for transcending it?

The answer to these two questions is simply this: the origin of this conflict is particularly unpalatable and, from my careful observation, most people, including conflict theorists, aren’t anxious to focus on it.

So why are human beings over-consuming in the finite planetary biosphere? Or more accurately, why are human beings who have the opportunity to do so (which doesn’t include those impoverished people living in Africa, Asia, Central/South America or anywhere else) over-consuming in the finite planetary biosphere?

They are doing so because they were terrorized into unconsciously equating consumption with a meaningful life by parents and other adults who had already internalized this same ‘learning’.

Let me explain how this happens.

At the moment of birth, a baby is genetically programmed to feel and express their feelings in response to the stimuli, both internal and external, that the baby registers. For example, as soon after birth as a baby feels hungry, they will signal that need, usually by crying or screaming. An attentive parent (or other suitable adult) will usually respond to this need by feeding the baby and the baby will express their satisfaction with this outcome, perhaps with a facial expression, in a way that most aware parents and adults will have no difficulty identifying. Similarly, if the baby is cold, in pain or experiencing any other stimulus, the baby will express their need, probably by making a loud noise. Given that babies cannot immediately use a cultural language, they use the language that was given to them by evolution: particularly audibly expressed noise of various types that an aware adult will quickly learn to interpret.

Of course, from the initial moments after birth and throughout the next few months, a baby will experience an increasing range of stimuli – including internal stimuli such as the needs for listening, understanding and love, as well as external stimuli ranging from a wet nappy to a diverse set of parental, social, climate and environmental stimuli – and will develop a diverse and expanding range of ways, now including a wider range of emotional expression but eventually starting to include spoken language, of expressing their responses, including satisfaction and enjoyment if appropriate, to these stimuli.

At some vital point, however, and certainly within the child’s first eighteen months, the child’s parents and the other significant adults in the child’s life, will start to routinely and actively interfere with the child’s emotional expression (and thus deny them satisfaction of the unique needs being expressed in each case) in order to compel the child to do as the parent/adult wishes. Of course, this is essential if you want the child to be obedient – a socially compliant slave – rather than to follow their own Self-will.

One of the critically important ways in which this denial of emotional expression occurs seems benign enough: Children who are crying angry or frightened are scared into not expressing their feelings and offered material items – such as food or a toy – to distract them instead. Unfortunately, the distractive items become addictive drugs. Unable to have their emotional needs met, the child learns to seek relief by acquiring the material substitutes offered by the parent. But as this emotional deprivation endlessly expands because the child has been denied the listening, understanding and love to develop the capacity to listen to, love and understand themselves, so too does the ‘need’ for material acquisition endlessly expand.

As an aside, this explains why most violence is overtly directed at gaining control of material, rather than emotional, resources. The material resource becomes a dysfunctional and quite inadequate replacement for satisfaction of the emotional need. And, because the material resource cannot ‘work’ to meet an emotional need, the individual is most likely to keep using direct and/or structural violence to gain control of more material resources in an unconscious and utterly futile attempt to meet unidentified emotional needs. In essence, no amount of money and other assets can replace the love denied a child that would allow them to feel and act on their feelings.

Of course, the individual who consumes more than they need and uses direct violence, or simply takes advantage of structural violence, to do so is never aware of their deeply suppressed emotional needs and of the functional ways of having these needs met. Although, I admit, this is not easy to do given that listening, understanding and love are not readily available from others who have themselves been denied these needs. Consequently, with their emotional needs now unconsciously ‘hidden’ from the individual, they will endlessly project that the needs they want met are, in fact, material.

This is the reason why members of the Rothschild family, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Amancio Ortega, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim, the Walton family and the Koch brothers, as well as the world’s other billionaires and millionaires, seek material wealth and are willing to do so by taking advantage of structures of exploitation held in place by the US military. They are certainly wealthy in the material sense; unfortunately, they are emotional voids who were never loved and do not know how to love themself or others now.

Tragically, however, this fate is not exclusive to the world’s wealthy even if they illustrate the point most graphically. As indicated above, virtually all people who live in material cultures have suffered this fate and this is readily illustrated by their ongoing excessive consumption – especially their meat-eating, fossil-fueled travel and acquisition of an endless stream of assets – in a planetary biosphere that has long been signaling ‘Enough!’

As an aside, governments that use military violence to gain control of material resources are simply governments composed of many individuals with this dysfunctionality, which is very common in industrialized countries that promote materialism. Thus, cultures that unconsciously allow and encourage this dysfunctional projection (that an emotional need is met by material acquisition) are the most violent both domestically and internationally. This also explains why industrialized (material) countries use military violence to maintain political and economic structures that allow ongoing exploitation of non-industrialized countries in Africa, Asia and Central/South America.

In summary, the individual who has all of their emotional needs met requires only the intellectual and few material resources necessary to maintain this fulfilling life: anything beyond this is not only useless, it is a burden.

If you want to read (a great deal) more detail of the explanation presented above, you will find it in Why Violence?’ and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

So what can we do?

Well, I would start by profoundly changing our conception of sound parenting by emphasizing the importance of nisteling to children – see Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’ – and making ‘My Promise to Children’.

For those adults who feel incapable of nisteling or living out such a promise, I encourage you to consider doing the emotional healing necessary by ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If you already feel capable of responding powerfully to this extinction-threatening conflict between human consumption and the Earth’s biosphere, you are welcome to consider joining those who are participating in the fifteen-year strategy to reduce consumption and achieve self-reliance explained in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ and/or to consider using sound nonviolent strategy to conduct your climate or environment campaign. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

You are also welcome to consider signing the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

As the material simplicity of Mohandas K. Gandhi demonstrated: Consumption is not life.

If you are not able to emulate Gandhi (at least ‘in spirit’) by living modestly, it is your own emotional dysfunctionality – particularly unconscious fear – that is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is and his website is here.

I Am a More Committed Christian Today Because Of My Genuine Friendships with Muslims

By Jeff
30 May 2018
Prior to 2005 I hated Muslims. I would not have admitted that openly, but my deepest feelings toward them were resentment, distrust and bitterness. Now, ten years later, I love them and see them as my brothers, sisters and dear friends. What brought about such a radical change of heart? It took place one afternoon in a Starbucks when I had an encounter with a Muslim boy named Omar.
Three months before I met Omar, I had been invited to attend a class at a church on Muslim/Christian relationships. I laughed at the invitation when I received it. My wife, Oceana, told me she felt like I should attend the class because I had a deep prejudice against Muslims, especially Arabs. I had always prided myself on being a progressive pastor who promoted racial reconciliation in the churches that I had lead, but when it came to Muslims I just could not see them the same way. After some prodding and prayer on the part of my wife I finally decided to take the class.
As I read books on Islam and attended the class, I began to realize that I was judging and condemning a group of people that I really knew little about. I read Muslim, Christian, and secular authors on Islam. I made a point to hear all sides. I did this to ensure that my conclusions concerning Islam would not be romantic in nature, but would be based on a sense of honesty, realism, and empathy.
I was not naïve in processing this information. I am concerned about the radical extremists who are committing horrible acts in the name of Islam, but I am equally concerned that the U.S. foreign policies toward the Muslim world have helped create much of the resentment that the Muslim world and other nations have toward us. Suffice it to say, I believe I am a more committed Christian today because of my genuine friendships with Muslims.
Although the class and the books I was reading were impacting my view of Muslims, it would take a small child named Omar to completely turn my heart around.
One day I was sitting in a Starbucks reading a book about Muslims and their culture. The more I read the book the more frustrated I became. I decided to pray for guidance on this issue. I closed my book and prayed: “God, surely you are not calling me to reach out to Muslims in friendship and to build bridges between Christians and Muslims. I want you to know that I have no desire to do this because it would stretch me way beyond my comfort zone. But if you are, I need you to give me a sign so clear I will never doubt it.”
I went back to drinking my coffee and felt a sense of relief. I did not believe He would answer that prayer. Within a couple of minutes, a little boy walked over and asked if he could borrow one of the highlighters that I was using to mark my book. I said, “Sure.” He got in a chair and said, “By the way, my name is Omar. I am five years old and I am here to teach you Arabic.” I was stunned. Omar’s mother called to him to leave me alone, but I told her that Omar was fine.
God Had My Complete Attention.
Omar began writing in Arabic and coaching me on how to do it. Afterwards, I approached his mother and told her that I believed Omar would be a great teacher one day. She told me that Omar was a shy child and he did not typically approach strangers. She was trying to figure out what compelled him to come over to me. As I left Starbucks that day, I began my journey of walking with Muslims as a genuine friend.
I have never doubted that God sent Omar to soften the heart of this Christian who had forgotten the words of Jesus. He said that His followers must love their neighbours as much as they love themselves, and that we even love, forgive and pray for our enemies.
I no longer see Muslims as my enemies and I can say that I have a deep love and genuine friendship with many of them. I encourage Muslims and Christians to form friendship groups and to eat together; to discuss the Bible and the Qur’an, not to debate, but to find out what they have in common and to gain understanding about how they are different; and I encourage churches, mosques and synagogues to partner together on humanitarian projects.
Some will say that I am compromising my faith by what I am doing. I believe such endeavours of mercy are at the core of the teachings of Jesus the Messiah.

Refutation of Kashmiri Militant Zakir Musa’s Recent Statement Threatening To Hang Moderate Muslims Supporting Secularism - Part 2

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam
30 May 2018
The first part of the article displayed the destructive agenda of Zakir Musa and refuted his ideas of establishing so-called Islamic rule on the land of Kashmir. It first analyzed Zakir Musa’s threatening message in which he warned Hurriyat leaders about chopping off their heads if they continue to term the Kashmir freedom struggle as a political one instead of a religious one to establish Islamic rule. Then it theologically refuted his threatening message. Now in this second part, we will theologically refute Zakir Musa’s another threatening message directed to the Kashmir’s separatists in which he says he will “hang those moderates who support a secular state” and that “If we get freedom for secularism, we will have to start another battle against them”.
The main objective of this refutation is to reform Zakir Musa and his likes who are unfortunately brainwashed by the growing influence of Al-Qaeda network. The recurring motif of this refutation specifically revolves around moderation, secularism and Islam, as Zakir Musa says, “He will hang those moderates who support a secular state”. It is therefore necessary for the gullible Muslims to understand the notion of coexistence between secularism and Islam and the relation of moderation to Islam.
Coexistence between Indian Secularism and Religions Including Islam
The definition of secularism varies from country to country. Secularism is often used to describe the separation of public life and government matters from religions or simply the separation of religion and politics. Most of the so-called developed countries do not recognize religions, thus granting no special value to any particular religion. The beauty of India’s secularism lies in its taking a completely different course from them. India’s secularism means equal treatment of all religions by the state. With the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. Though neither the constitution of India nor its laws define the relationship between religion and state, India recognizes each and every religion and ensures to give them equal respect. The citizens of India are allowed to enjoy their respective religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. with full freedom.
Secular fundamentalist Mani Shankar Aiyar writes in his book, “Indian secularism cannot be anti-religious or irreligious, for the bulk of our people are deeply religious. Unlike in Christendom, where the word originated, secularism in India is not about pitting the state against the religious authority but about keeping matters of faith in the personal realm and matters of the state in the public realm” (Aiyar 2004: Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist).
Since Indian secularism gives every citizen to enjoy his or her respective religious obligations, it will be futile to view this secularism as anti-religious or anti-Islamic. Zakir Musa must acknowledge this fact that Indian secularism does not prevent Muslims from fulfilling their basic religious obligation as mentioned in the Quranic verse which reads, “And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me”(51:56). Indian secularism gives him and other Muslims including Kashmiri Muslims full freedom to worship Allah Almighty. Yes they can fulfil all the religious obligations such as adopting Taqwa and achieving spiritual development. There is no one to stop Indian Muslims including Kashmiris from performing acts of worship—five-time prayers, fasting, Hajj, Zakat, spiritual meditations, doing Zikr [remembrance] of Allah and attaining spiritual perfection? Then why to view Indian secularism as anti-religious or anti-Islamic? Why not to remain Kashmir as the part of India? It is also the point of consideration for the Kashmiri separatists.
A number of Islamic scholars and clerics regard secularism as compatible with Islam. For example, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, a professor of law at Emory University the author of ‘Islam and the secular state: negotiating the Future of Sharia’ says, “enforcing [sharia] through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims” [Islam and the Secular State…Cambridge Harvard University press 2008]
From the above-mentioned discussion, Zakir Musa’s statement about hanging “those moderates who support a secular state” proves to be anti-Islamic. His act of hanging will be unjust for which he will have to be accountable to Allah Almighty on the Day of Judgment.
Moderation and Islam
From the threatening message of Zakir Musa, two questions appear; 1) Is the supporter of a secular state liable to be hanged? 2) What does Islam say about moderation? In the above mentioned discussion, we have acknowledged that the one who supports a secular state that gives religious freedom is not liable to be hanged and thus Zakir Musa’s statement is tantamount to imposing lie on Shariat. Now we will see the relation of moderation to Islam.
Kaniz Fatma, an Islamic scholar [Aalima and Fazila] in her article “Teachings of Moderation and Balance in Islam” posted on writes,
“Moderation means to adopt a middle path between two extremes in all walks of life. Islam stresses moderation and balance in all aspects of life; in beliefs, worship, conduct, relationships, ideas, customs, transactions, daily activities and human desires. Principled moderation has been reiterated in the Quran whether explicitly or implicitly as a good character in Islam.
Allah Almighty said:
“Thus, We have made you a justly balanced community” (2:143).
The Arabic words “Ummataw Wasata” have been used in praise of this Ummah. The word ‘Wasata’ is commonly translated as moderate. Therefore the characteristic of this Ummah is moderate behaviour in all aspects, whether of character or action. They are people who do not sway to extremes; neither are they negligent in acts of worship nor extremely ascetic like those who discard the world to live in mountains.
Imam Razi comments on this verse 2:143, saying: The justly balanced (Wasat) in reality is the furthest point between two extremes. There is no doubt that the two poles of excess and extravagance are destructive, so to be moderate in character is to be furthest from them, which is to be just and virtuous. (Tafsir-e-Kabir by Imam Razi 2:143)
In his classical Arabic dictionary Ibn Manzur writes;
“Every praiseworthy characteristic has two blameworthy poles. Generosity is the middle between miserliness and extravagance. Courage is the middle between cowardice and recklessness. Humanity has been commanded to avoid every such blameworthy trait.” (Lisan al-Arab 15/209)
Wahb ibn Munnabih, a Yemenite Muslim traditionalist of Dhimar in Yemen, said, “Verily, everything has two ends and a middle path. If you hold one of the ends, the other will be skewed. If you hold the middle, the two ends will be balanced. You must seek the middle ground in all things. (Hilyat Al-Awliya 4818)
It is reported that Hadrat Hudhaifa (May Allah be pleased with him) said, “O people, remain straight upon the path and you will have taken a great lead, but if you swerve right or left then you will be led far astray.” (Sahih Bukhari 6853, Grade: Sahih)
Hadrat Ibn Mas’ud reported: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) drew a line with his hand and said, “This is the straight path of Allah”. Then the Prophet drew lines to the right and left and said, “These are other paths and there is not a path among them but that a devil is upon it calling to its way.” Then the Prophet recited the [Quranic] verse, “Verily, this is the straight path, so follow it and do not follow other paths. (6:153) (Musnad Ahmad 4423, Grade: Sahih)
We should implement the teachings of moderation and balance in all walks of life, whether with regard to duties of faith or the duties of worldly life.
Allah Almighty said,
“Seek the home of the Hereafter by that which Allah has given you, but do not forget your share of the world.” (28:77)
Hanzalah Al-Usayyidi reported, I said,
“O Messenger of Allah, when we are in your presence and are reminded of Hellfire and Paradise, we feel as if we are seeing them with our very eyes, but when we leave you and attend to our wives, our children, and our business, most of these things slip from our minds.”
The Prophet said,
“By Him in whose hand is my soul, if your state of mind remains the same as it is in my presence and you are always occupied with the remembrance of Allah, the angels will shake your hands in your beds and roads. O Hanzalah, rather time should be devoted to this and time should be devoted to that.” (Sahih Muslim 2750, Grade: Sahih)
Therefore in accordance with this teaching, we should be moderate in our acts of worship such as prayer, fasting, and even charity. For instance, our prayers should be recited in a moderate voice, neither too loud nor too soft.
Allah Almighty said,
“Do not recite too loudly in your prayer nor too softly, but seek a way between them” (17:110)
It is reported on the authority of Hadrat Abu Musa that he said, “We were with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, during a journey when the people began to exalt Allah loudly. The Prophet said:
“O people, be gentle with yourselves for you are not calling upon one who is deaf or absent. Rather, you are calling upon the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Sahih Bukhari 3910)
Hadrat Jabir ibn Samurah reported saying,
 “I was praying with the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and his prayer was of moderate length and his sermon was of moderate length.” (Sahih Muslim 866, Grade: Sahih)
With regard to voluntary acts of worship, the Prophet [peace be upon him] asked his companions on many occasions to limit their extra worship so that they could perform their duties towards their families as well as maintain their health.
It is reported that Abdullah ibn Amr said, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to me, “O Abdullah, I am told you fast all day and pray all night.” I said, “Of course, O Messenger of Allah.” The Prophet said, “Do not do so. Fast and break your fast, pray in the night and sleep. Verily, your body has a right over you, your eyes have a right over you, and your wife has a right over you.” (Sahih Bukhari 4903, Grade: Sahih)
Hadrat Salman Al-Farisi, (may Allah have mercy upon him) said,
 “You have a duty to your Lord, you have a duty to your body, and you have a duty to your family, so you should give each one its rights.” (Sahih Bukhari 1867, Grade: Sahih)
The similar message is found in this Hadith which says,
 “The best of your religion is the easiest.” [Ahmad]
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
“He who desires that his life be prolonged and he be granted more provisions and to be protected from the evil end, then let him fear Allah and maintain good ties with kinship”. (Al-Haakim)
He also said,
 “O’ people spread greetings, feed people, keep kinship ties and pray at night while people are sleeping and you will enter paradise safely” (al-Hakim)
Islam teaches Muslims to be moderate even when are doing charity. It calls Muslims to spend enough to help the needy; but it also asks them to retain enough to take care of their families and ourselves.
Allah Almighty said:
“They are those who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor miserly, but follow a middle way between them.” (25:67)
Thus we should also be moderate in our relationships with others. We should love for people what we love for ourselves but we should not exceed the limits so much that we endorse their wrong activities.
Hadrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said,
“Let not your love be infatuation and let not your hatred be destruction.” It was said, “How is this?” Hadrat Umar said, “When you love someone, you become infatuated like a child. When you hate someone, you love destruction for your companion.” (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 1322, Grade: Sahih)
Ibn Hibban suggested Muslims to have a middle path when dealing with non-Muslims and said, “Do not exceed the limits in seeking nearness to them, nor be excessive in seeking distance from them.” (Tafsir al-Mawardi 60:8)
Ibn Hibban wants to say that Muslims should not adopt what is against Islam while seeking nearness to non-Muslims and similarly they should not seek distance so much that they develop any sort of hatred or insecurity.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
“By Allah, he is not a believer, he is not a believer, he is not a believer,” It was said, "Who is that, O Allah's Apostle?” the one who could not provide peace and security to his neighbours." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Number 45)
In this Hadith the word “neighbours” include both Muslims and non-Muslims.
Some more Ahadith which encourage good relationship with Muslims and non-Muslims are as follows;
“Do you know what is better than charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind.” (Al-Bukhari & Muslim)
“Whoever is kind, Allah will be kind to him; therefore be kind to man on the earth and He Who is in heaven will show mercy on you.” (Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi)
Islam has taught Muslims to be moderate in all activities of their daily life. They should avoid any type of extremism pleasing to Satan that leads them astray from the right path. With this teaching of moderation and balance, Muslims can counter the growing tides of extremism that threaten both Muslims and non-Muslims.” [End of quote]
[The above excerpts have been taken from Kaniz Fatma’s article “Teachings of Moderation and Balance in Islam”-]
To sum up, this article calls hardliners like Zakir Musa to acknowledge the fact that Indian secularism guarantees religious freedom and equal treatment of all religious people. In other words, Indian secularism is not anti-religious, but rather it is compatible with religions including Islam. They should also learn that moderation is integral part of Islamic teachings. Therefore Zakir Musa’s threatening statement that “He will hang those moderates who support a secular state” stands as an unjust and extremely anti-Islamic statement.
May Allah Almighty save the gullible Muslims from such brainwashing ideas!
A regular Columnist with, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar) with a Sufi background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator.
Part One of the Article:

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Sufi Theologians Too Need To Introspect and Cleanse Their Theology of Elements of Supremacism and Political Islam: Sultan Shahin Tells Muslim Nations at UNHRC, Geneva

By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam
March 9, 2018

Full Text of the Oral Statement, 37th regular session of UN Human Rights Council, Geneva
General Debate, Item 3, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development
Delivered By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam
on behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum
Mr. President,
Even17 years after 9/11, terrorism in the name of Islam is nowhere near its end. The so-called Islamic State has been defeated in Iraq and Syria, but it is expanding its presence in Africa and South Asia. Many Taliban terrorists have joined ISIS now and are wreaking havoc in Afghanistan. In one of the deadliest attacks in Egypt’s modern history, ISIS terrorists targeted a Sufi mosque in November 2017, leaving 305 people dead and 128 injured in a town of only 800. The victims were primarily Sufi Muslims. Sufi shrines and its visitors have been targeted by Islamist terrorists around the world, killing thousands and damaging shrines, mosques and libraries, particularly in Pakistan, Libya, Mali and Iran.
Yet, all that one hears from Muslim leaders is rhetoric against Islamist terrorism. No concrete action has been taken to cleanse the Islamic theology of totalitarianism, xenophobia, intolerance and a historical urge to expand the land of Islam through offensive Jihad. One would think that at least Sufi Muslims, who have been for long a victim of Jihadism, an offshoot of neo-Khwarij Salafism, would introspect and look into their own theology and purify it from elements of political Islam.
This may sound strange to some. For, Sufism has been identified as the antidote to Jihadism. It is true that Sufi masters have emphasised pluralism and co-existence in both their sayings and conduct. Their service to humanity and treatment of humans from all caste and creed has been exemplary. No wonder one continues to find people belonging to all religions thronging their shrines. But we must also understand that Sufi scholars and theologians too have been votaries of political Islam.
The strangest thing that is happening now is that rather than cleansing their theology of traces of totalitarianism, large sections of Sufism-oriented Muslims are actually engaged in what can be called a Wahhabisation of Sufism. Enlightening Sufi books of mysticism, ethics and morality have been taken out of the courses of study from Sufi madrasas. The basic Sufi concept of Wahdatul Wujood (Unity of Being) is being replaced in Sufi madrasas with the concept of Wahdatul Shuhood (unity of perception or unity of appearances) invented by Sheikh Sirhindi to counter Ibn-e-Arabi’s ideas that have been described by his followers as Wahdatul Wujood. Some erstwhile Sufism-oriented Muslims are themselves adopting some of the hard-line outlook of Wahhabi-Salafi Muslims on issues of Ziarat-e-Qaboor (grave visitation) and gender segregation, etc.  Women are being barred from visiting shrines in the way they used to do before.
Mr. President,
I would like to appeal to Muslim governments represented in the Council to take the issue of terrorism in the name of Islam more seriously than they have so far and cleanse Islamic theology of totalitarian ideas that support offensive Jihad for world domination. The minds of Muslim students of madrasas should not be poisoned with ideas emanating from the doctrine of al-Wala-wal-Bara (having friendship only with Muslims and enmity with all others), or takfirism (calling other Muslims kafir).
There are ideas and instructions in Islamic scriptures that should not be considered applicable to us today. Instead what even earliest Sufi and Salafi theologians have said is that one so-called sword verse alone has abrogated 124 early verses of Quran preaching peace and pluralism. Any instructions given during a war should be considered void once the war is over. Muslim heads of government who rail against terrorism should first introspect and cleanse Islamic theology of elements of totalitarianism.
Mr. President,
Let me elaborate the issues raised here in some detail.
With its almost two billion followers, Islam has spread throughout the world. Born in the sandy desert of Arabia 1400 years ago, it has naturally acquired a local colour everywhere it has gone, while retaining its basic belief systems. Indeed, Islam itself has encouraged this process. The Holy Quran exhorts its followers to believe in all the prophets of God, by whatever names they may now be known, who preceded Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and preached the message of God in the local languages of their times.
In Islamic traditions the number of such seers, who brought messages from God, is put at 1,24,000, though only 25 names could be mentioned in the Quran in the course of their examples being cited to illustrate various teachings. Thus, while expressing belief in the oneness of God and the prophethood of Mohammad, a Muslim simultaneously expresses belief in all the previous messengers of God as well. It is natural that the Muslims have not felt obliged to distance themselves totally from their previous beliefs and cultural practices even after conversion to Islam, to the extent these did not contravene their new Islamic beliefs.
As in Africa and Far East Asia, in South Asia, too, Islam naturally has its own indigenous flavour. And it finds its best expression in the Sufi way of life prevalent in the Indian sub-continent for centuries. Its vibrancy is evident in tens of thousands of people from different religious backgrounds thronging Sufi shrines across the length and breadth of South Asia, and especially at annual urs events. Sufi music programmes continue to be organised in some shrines either weekly or on some special occasions. Sufi music festivals, with the participation of musicians from different parts of the world, continue to attract an ever-expanding number of fans. From classical cultural events to productions of film industry, South Asia continues to celebrate Sufi art in a variety of ways and in a number of events with wide participation. Soul-stirring music, helping the seeker's quest for the creative infinite, unique to the Indian sub-continent, continues to be produced, particularly in India an Pakistan.
But things have also been changing in the last decades. A determined effort has been made for bringing uniformity in Islamic thoughts and practices, a kind of the Saudi Arabisation of Islam, wiping out local cultural influences from everywhere in the world. Backed by a massive injection of petrodollars, since 1974, the global rise of Salafism has brought about new challenges to the Sufi way of life in the Indian sub-continent as well.  While on a superficial glance, the Sufi culture may still appear to thrive, even finding newer expressions in the film and music industries, there are deeper rumblings within. The continuing footfalls in a Sufi shrine should not lull us into losing sight of the grave challenges facing Sufism.
A serious propaganda campaign was unleashed globally over 4o years ago calling Sufism heresy. Sufism has been at the receiving end of criticism throughout Islamic history but what happened in the last decades was particularly virulent and backed not just by enormous riches but also state power.
Two of the most revered and influential 13th and 14th century Salafi scholars Abdu'r Rahman Ibn al- Jawzi and Taqī ad-Dīn Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya describe Sufism as “heretical” and “a Christianized version of Islam” respectively. These and similar views calling Sufism an innovation have been massively propagated around the world in the last decades.
The fact of the matter is that mystical tendencies have existed in Islam from its very inception, the very first Muslims Hazrat Abru Bakr (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA) being considered the first mystic masters having been taught and trained by the Prophet (pbuh) himself into the secrets of mystical practices. It is important for us to remember in all discussions about Islam that the Prophet (pbuh) himself was first and foremost a mystic, or a Sufi, though this term came into use only later. He used to spend days and weeks in contemplation and meditation in the cave at Hira, as all mystics, Rishis, Munis and Sufis do. 
Mr. President,
Islam had been brought to the Indian sub-continent by Sufi saints. Understandably, the overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims are or at least have been Sufism-oriented. But many Muslims around the country, particularly in the state of Kerala, now proudly proclaim being Salafi Muslims and call their mosques Salafi mosques. Some Muslims have even started calling themselves Taimi, thus describing themselves followers of Ibn-e-Taimiya, though they never described themselves as Wahhabi or follower of Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. While, mercifully, Sufi shrines and its visitors, are not yet coming under attack in India, as is happening in other parts of the sub-continent and the world, the pressure on Sufism is manifesting in various other ways. 
The leitmotif of the present age is terrorism practiced in the name of Islam. Terrorists call it Jihad. Their ideology has come to be known as Jihadism. Jihadism is considered an extremist offshoot of neo-Khwarij-Salafism-Wahhabism, as practised in Saudi Arabia. Sixteen of the nineteen terrorists involved in 9/11 terrorist attack on American institutions were Saudis and the rest Egyptian who had also gone through the Saudi religious education.
The world began to fear Islam. But it saw Sufism as an antidote to Islamist terrorism. While this brought a positive focus on Sufism, the attacks on Sufism also grew from both the Jihadist and Islamophobe camps.
The internet today contains tens of thousands of pages trying to prove that Sufism is not a pacifist, quietist version of Islam as it is supposed to be. Quotations have been dug up from writings of great Sufi theologians like Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani, Imam Ghazali. Ibn-e-Arabi, Sheikh Sirhindi, Shah Waliullah, etc in an effort to prove that they were all as much in support of offensive Jihad against the unbelievers and polytheists to establish Islam’s domination of the world as non-Sufi and traditional orthodox theologians. It would appear that there is a consensus in Islamic theology that the Muslims’ relationship with non-Muslims is that of perpetual war until all world comes under Muslim domination.
So where do Sufis stand on the issue of Offensive or Martial Jihad? From earliest times Sufis have given a textual as well as spiritual exegesis of Quranic exhortations. From earliest Sufi books like Kashf al-Asrar (the Unveiling of the Mysteries) composed by Rashid al-Din al-Maybudi (d. early twelfth century) or al-Qushayri’s Lata’if al-isharat to Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani (ra), Imam Abhu Hamid al-Ghazali (ra), India’s very own Mujaddid Alf-e-Saani Sheikh Ahmad Sarhandi (ra) or Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi (ra), all of them seem to agree with traditional ulema on the necessity for offensive Jihad to help the word of God dominate the world. They say directly or indirectly that Jihad should go on as long as there is kufr and shirk in the world. The humiliations they describe that should be heaped on Jizya paying non-Muslims make a very difficult read for a person with a 21st century sensibility. For them offensive Jihad and spiritual Jihad are two sides of the same coin, spiritual jihad being necessary as a preparation for martial Jihad. (Please see Appendix given below for some of these quotations.)
In his authoritative work “Jihad in pre-modern Sufi writing,” Harry S Neale discovers complementarity of spiritual and martial jihad even in early Sufi writings. He says: “Similar to what Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (book of Quranic exegesis) says over 200 years later (14th century), Maybudi’s (early 12th century) Kashf al-Asrar remarks that some religious scholars hold that verse 9:5 abrogates the 124 earlier verses regarding relations with non-Muslims. The fact that an early twelfth-century Sufi tafsir as well as a non-Sufi tafsir from the fourteenth century both discuss the abrogation of earlier Qur’anic verses dealing with the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims suggests that Qur’anic exegetes considered this opinion legitimate and well established.”
In his Wasaya (Admonitions), Ibn-e-Arabi says: “I counsel you to fear God and uphold the requirements of the outer aspects of the sharia and its statutes. The greater jihad is incumbent upon you, which is the jihad against the passions, and when you wage this jihad against your lower self the other jihad against the enemies will be [easy] for you, for if you should be killed [in the martial jihad] you will be among the living martyrs for whom God provides. The merit of the one who wages jihad (mujahid) in God’s path is like that of the devout one who fasts in God’s signs … strive to participate actively [in jihad] in God’s path … beware … if you do not take part in military campaigns and if you are not resolved to go forth [for this purpose] then you will be among the hypocrites ….” [ Ibn-e-Arabi’s Wasaya (Admonitions) as quoted by Harry S Neale in “Jihad in pre-modern Sufi writing”.]
Similarly, Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani (ra) also deals with he complementarity of martial and spiritual Jihad. He “emphasises adhering to the dictates of Islamic law as an essential aspect of the greater jihad, which contradicts the idea that Sufis are unconcerned with the fundamental outer aspects of Islam. … though Sufi writings have generally considered the spiritual jihad more difficult than the martial jihad, it does not mean that the spiritual jihad supersedes the martial jihad. Likewise, the terms “greater” and “lesser” do not refer to some hierarchy of importance; rather,  … they refer to the greater effort required to subdue the lower self,” says Harry S Neal in “Jihad in pre-modern Sufi writing”.
Growing Opposition To The Practice Of Ziyarat
Strangely, not to speak of Salafi-Wahhabis, even some erstwhile Sufism-oriented Barailvi Muftis in India vehemently oppose the practice of Ziyarat (visiting of Sufi shrines). They come up with outlandish arguments and weak evidences that do not stand up to scrutiny. The maximum they have managed to get to prove their point is some mansukh ahadith (abrogated Prophetic sayings) that forbade the earliest Muslims from visiting the graves. But they turn a blind eye to the nasikh ahadith that came later abolishing the earlier ahadith and allowing and favouring the practice of Ziyarat. In fact, the Prophet (pbuh) had prohibited the Ziyarat temporarily, and later he allowed and encouraged the people to do it regularly for its spiritual benefits.
The reason for the temporary prohibition was that the newly converted Muslims were writing indecent elegies and making offensive statements over the graves of their dead relatives who were predominantly non-Muslims. But later, when Muslims were trained into proper behaviour in graveyards, this prohibition was lifted and a general permission was given by the Prophet (pbuh) for the Muslims, both men and women, to go for Ziyarat and gain spiritual benefits from it. The Prophet (pbuh) addressed his companions and said:
“I had prohibited you from visiting graves. But from now on, you can go for Ziyarat because it will make you feel unattached towards this world and remind you of the hereafter.” (Muslim, Janaiz, 106; Adahi, 37; Abu Dawud janaiz, 77; Ashriba, 7; Tirmidhi, Janaiz, 7; Nasai, Janaiz, 100; Ibn Majah, Janaiz, 47; Ahmad b. Hanbal, I, 147, 452, III, 38, 63, 237, 250, V, 35, 355, 357).
The Prophet (pbuh) himself would go for Ziyarat-e-Qubur especially on the night of mid-Shaabaan (Laylat al-Bara’at). He used to visit the grave of his mother regularly and cry out of his love and remembrance of her, as the following tradition says:
“The Holy Prophet (pbuh) visited the grave of his mother and cried near her grave and also made others around him cry. Thereafter he said: I have taken permission from my Lord to visit the grave of my mother. You too should visit the graves because such a visit will remind you of death.” (Sahih Muslim, vol. 3, p. 65)
Despite this clear Islamic concept of grave-visiting enshrined in the Hadith, the zealot muftis even in Sufi-oriented institutions abhor the women visitors of Sufi shrines on the pretext of intermingling between men and women. They call this age-old traditional Islamic practice haram (forbidden).
The growing Salafi-Wahhabi influence on even the Sufi-oriented Barailvi-Eiteqadi clerics is becoming more and more apparent by the day. The puritanical Barailvi ulema, who call themselves ‘Reformist Sufis’ denounce the spiritually inclined Sufi-minded scholars and ulema for their liberal ideas, declaring them zindiqs (heretics), badmazhab (erroneous in faith) and gumrah (deviant), using exactly the same terms as Salafi ulema do. For instance, on the ground of his interfaith activities like celebration of Christmas and listening to Sufi Music, Pakistani Sufi scholar Dr. Tahirul Qadri has been declared “gumrah” and “badmazhab” by the chief Muftis of Barailvis in India, Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan and Mufti Ziaul Mustafa.
Such retrogressive pronouncements or fatwas of the Sufi-Barailvi maulvis are on the rise. For instance, the Mumbai-based Raza Academy demanded a ban on famous Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi's biopic, "Muhammad: The Messenger of God." They have also issued a fatwa not only against the film, but the entire filmmaking crew, including prominent music composer AR Rahman, who has given music for the film.
Fatwas of Apostasy Emanating From Sufi Shrines
Raza Academy considers all those associated with the film as apostates and wants them to recite the Kalima or confession of faith again, so that they once again come back to the Muslim faith. The fatwa was issued by Mufti Mahmood Akhtar Qadri, a Barailvi cleric appointed as Imam in Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai. He leads prayers in the mosque of Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai and also runs a Darul Ifta and a madrasa in the city. Since he is also an acclaimed Mufti with his own Madrasa (Darul Ulum Amjadia) and Darul Ifta, he clearly misuses his position and influence at the shrine while issuing retrogressive fatwas. His fatwas played a major role in provoking the common Sunni Muslims who protested against Majidi’s movie and AR Rahman’s music in it.
Sufi Shrines Issuing Retrogressive Fatwas
Sufi shrines should have no role to play in issuing fatwas. But the imams appointed in the mosques attached to the shrines often hold positions in certain madrasas with their own Darul Ifta. What has a Sufi shrine got to do with a Darul Ifta? Why are imams of mosques associated with Sufi shrines issuing fatwas now?
Mercifully, and gratifyingly, the Sajjadahnashins of several Sufi shrines, most notably Ajmer Sharif and Hazrat Nizamuddin dargahs, took a different stand on music and portrayal of the Prophet (pbuh). They said that A R Rahman must be lauded for his outstanding response; like a true believer. In a written statement, Rahman had said, "I follow the middle path and am part traditionalist and part rationalist. I live in the Western and Eastern worlds and try to love all people for what they are, without judging them.”
Wahhabisation of Sufism
Another aspect of what can be called the Wahhabisation of Sufism is that Sufism-oriented Barailvi ulema and muftis have not only banned traditional practices such as women visitors’ entry to shrines on the excuse of their intermingling with men but also banned traditional cultural practices such as taking out of tazia (a replica of the tomb of Imam Husain, the martyred son of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) processions during Muharram, in which even Hindus used to and still participate in some places, out of deference for Muslim sentiments.
Sufi Literature Removed From Sufi Madrasas
But more worrisome than all this is that Sufi literature has been removed from many Indian Sufi madrasas.
Sufi shrines and khanqahs are running across the country seminaries (madrasas) of mystical learning, Sufi experience and enlightenment. The curriculums of those madrasas used to be so very broad and inclusive in their worldview until a few decades ago that students from all backgrounds were cordially welcomed. Devotional songs were composed there in different vernacular languages and Sufi music (sima) was considered a manifestation of complete submission to God. 
ï Beautiful Islamic discourses compiled by Sufis and mystics of India that were taught in madrasas a few decades ago, are no more part of their study materials. Not even Sufi-oriented madrasas of today teach books like Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi's Masnawi, Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhs Hijweri's Kashful Mahjub, Shaikh Sa’adi Sherazi's Gulsitan & Bostan, Hazrat Nixzmuddin Aulia's Fawaidul Fuwad, Sheikh Shahabudin Suhrawardi's Awarif ul Ma’arif and historical documents of Islamic mysticism that preach universal values, communal harmony, love for all and hatred for none. Gone are the days when books on reason, wisdom, ethics and morality were part of Madrasa curriculum in India. Far from presenting the broader Islamic notion of Deen and Ummah, present-day madrasa curricula concern the students with the ideological reproduction of works of their own sect (Maslak) and school of law (Fiqhi Mazhab).
Let me be more specific. Some of the Sufi texts previously taught in madrasas were:
ï Kahsful Mahjub by Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhs Hijweri
ï Awariful Ma’arif by Sheikh Shahabudin Suhrawardi
ï Fawaidul Fu’aad by Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia
ï Masnawi of Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi
ï Gulistan & Bostan by Shaikh Sa’adi Sherazi
ï Several Books on Metaphysics by Mullah Sadra
ï Fususul Hikam (Shiakh Ibn ul Arabi)
ï Life and teachings of great Sufis like Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti (ra), Baba Fareed, Ameer Khusro etc.
Some of the Sufi madrasas that have removed these books are:
ï Madrasa Firangi Mahal (Lucknow)
ï Darul Uloom Misbahul Uloom (now known as Jamia Ashrafia) in Mubarak Pur, Azam Garh
ï Jamia Naeemia (Muradaba)
ï Madrasa Alia Qadria (Badaun)
ï Jamia Manzar-e-Islam (Bareilly)
ï Jamia Mazhar-e-Islam (Bareilly)
ï Darul Uloom Warisia (Lucknow)
ï Madrasa Ahsanul Madaris Qadeem (Kanpur)
ï Madrasa Alia, Fatehpuri Masjid, Delhi
These books served as the main stimulus for exhorting great moral and spiritual ideals. They contain basic concepts of Sufism such as Wahdatul Wujood (unity of existence), Sulh-e-Kul (peace with all), Ilmul Yaqeen (knowledge with firm faith), Zikr (incantation), Muraqaba (meditation), observance of Taqwa (God-consciousness), Taubah (repentance of sins), Ikhlas (sincerity), Tawakkul (contentment and trust in God), Sidq (truthfulness), Amanah (trustworthiness), Istiqamah (uprightness) and Shukr (thankfulness). It is only after mastering these higher spiritual disciplines that a student in those madrasas was given the degree of Alim or Fazil.
‘Love for all and hatred for none’ was the legacy of Sufis, as enshrined by the pioneer of Chishti Sufi order in India, Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer, popularly known as Gharib Nawaz (the benefactor of the poor). This legacy greatly impacted their attitude towards other faith traditions. As a matter of fact, Sufi literature helped the madrasa graduates to embrace universal values and essential messages of Islam such as brotherhood of mankind, pluralism, tolerance, religious harmony, moral excellence and service to humanity regardless of faith and creed.
But the Sufi madrasas have removed the portion of Sufi literature that was taught in Indian madrasas, as an integral part of Dars-e-Nizami, for long. No wonder, even the students of Sufi-oriented madrasas have now developed an attitude of intolerance in their character and views.
Essential Sufi Concepts Are Being Misrepresented
Not only has enlightening Sufi literature been removed but also the essential Sufi concepts are being misrepresented now. For instance, Sulh-e-Kul (peace with all), a Sufi term that essentially means: equal respect for all, is now misconstrued. According the Barailvi clerics, Sulh-e-Kul means reconciliation with other Islamic sects. So, anyone who befriends people of all Islamic sects and does not detest them, is a Sulh -e- Kulli and thus misguided in their view. However, this unfavourable development is also being criticised by some Sufi ideologues such as: Shaikh Abu Saeed Ihsanullah Safawi of Khanqah Aarifia, Allahabad and Syed Salman Chishti of Chishtiya Foundation of Ajmer Dargah.
The Barailvi clerics are opposed to these scholars as they are to Dr. Tahirul Qadri because of their openness to music (Sima), acceptance of all faith traditions and sects, and companionship with other religious groups such as Hindus and Sikhs.
Wahdatul Wujood Being Misrepresented As Wahdatul Shuhud
Even in terms of Sufism's spiritual philosophy, Wahdatul Wujood, one notices even in casual discussions with Sufi-Barailvi scholars that it has been practically replaced by Wahdatul Shuhood, probably to make it acceptable in the pro-Salafi-Wahhabi milieu created by the spread of Petrodollar Islam. This process actually started with Mujaddid Alf-e-Saani Sheikh Ahmad Sarhandi in 16th-17th century and later consolidated with Shah Waliullah Dehlavi in 18th century. As defined in 12th-13th century by Sheikh Mohiyuddin Ibn-e-Arabi, an Andalusian Scholar, Sufi mystic, poet, and philosopher, called by many "the genuine saint,” Wahdatul Wujood stresses that "there is no true existence except the Ultimate Truth (God)." This is completely in line with Quranic teaching: “And what is the life of this world except the enjoyment of delusion.” (3:185)
Other ways of explaining Wahdatul Wujood are: "the only truth within the universe is God," and, "all things exist within God only." In still other words, the existence of God is the only truth (haq) and the idea of a separated created universe is falsehood (batil). Sheikh Sarhandi countered this with his concept of Wahdatul Shuhood, "unity of appearance," or "unity of perceptions," also called in English "Apparentism." In his view "any experience of unity between God and the created world is purely subjective and occurs only in the mind of the believer; it has no objective counterpart in the real world." Ibn-e-Arabi's position, Sheikh Ahmad Sarhandi felt led to pantheism, which was contrary to tenets of Islam. He held that God and creation are not identical. In his view the creation is a shadow or reflection of Divine names and attributes. 
Then in an effort to reconcile the vastly different or even contrarian concepts of Wahdatul Wujood and Wahdatul Shuhood, Shah Waliullah dismissed the differences as mere "verbal controversies" and ascribed these to ambiguities of language. Then to further downplay the concept of Wahdatul Wujood, he called it merely a less advanced stage of Wahdatul Shuhood, though the fact is that Wahdatul Shuhood may be considered the first stage of the core of Islamic spiritualism, Wahdatul Wujood.
The result is that today Wahdatul Wujood is taught as if it were Wadhatul Shuhood. You ask an alim from a classical Sufi madrasa to explain Wahdatul Wujood and he will invariably give you the definition of Wahdatul Shuhood. Indeed, he will also dismiss the concept of Wahdatul Wujood in the process quite explicitly, saying this is not meant by Wahdatul Wujood. The actual concept of Wahdatul Wujood is dismissed as heresy as it is considered too close to advaita (non-duality) of Vedic Hinduism.
Gender equality in Islam
Gender segregation and discrimination is rife throughout the country. Practically everywhere, most of the shrines have stopped men and women visiting shrines together. A bizarre ruling came a couple of years ago form the trust of one of Mumbai’s iconic landmarks, the Haji Ali Dargah. It is a “grievous sin” as per Islam, it says, for women to be in close proximity of the grave of a male Muslim saint. It raised this point in the Bombay High Court on 20 October 2015 while defending its ban on women from entering the shrine’s inner sanctum (Mazaar). The “unanimous” stand of all trustees forms part of a resolution passed by the Dargah’s trust. It is strange that while men and women can perform Haj together and go around Kaaba Sharif and pray there together, they can't visit a Sufi shrine together. Sufis were the epitome of kindness to all. Even in orthodox Islam, men and women should not be segregated in the best of Islamic tradition. There is no scripture of Islam superior to the Holy Quran. The Quran talks of men and women in the same breath in its verses in terms of prayer, their rights and rewards and punishments:
[Holy Quran 2:228]" And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women."
[16:97]: (Whoever does righteous acts, whether male or female, while he is a believer, verily, to him We will give a good life, and We shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do.)
[33:35]  (Surely for men who submit to Allah and for women who submit to Allah, for believing men and for believing women, for devout men and devout women, for truthful men and truthful women, for steadfast men and steadfast women, for humble men and humble women, for charitable men and charitable women, for fasting men and fasting women, for men who guard their chastity and women who guard their chastity, for men who remember Allah much and for women who remember Allah much, for all of them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a mighty reward.
There is gender equality in Islam in religious obligations as well. Equal religious duties and rituals are prescribed for both women and men. Testimony of Faith (Shahadah), Prayer (Salah), Obligatory Charity (Zakat), Fasting (Saum), and Pilgrimage (Hajj) are equally required from both genders.
Gender segregation at Sufi Shrines
If God treats men and women equal in all religious obligations as well as rewards and punishments, no clerics should feel entitled to ban her from entering a Sufi shrine. But the fact that this is happening in a SUFI shrine and indeed in most Sufi shrines across the country is truly worrisome. Khanqah Alia Qadria Rizvia of Bareilly, for instance, among many others, does not allow women to enter its shrine premises.
Sufis were the most accepting of all people, but those who claim to be their followers, are certainly not worthy of being called even Sufi-oriented Muslims.
The spirit of Sufism is clearly in decline in India today despite the apparent vibrancy in its practices. The radical Wahhabi-Salafi thoughts appear to have seeped deeply into the veins of the Muslim society. The concept of Islam as a spiritual path to salvation is giving way to xenophobia, intolerance and totalitarianism of political Islam. Unless the concept of total non-duality, advaita, oneness of existence, Wahdatul Wujood is restored to its primacy in Islamic spiritualism, support for a humane version of Islam will continue to dwindle and even Sufi-Barailvi-Eiteqadi Muslim society will keep supporting gender segregation and discrimination in Sufi shrines, or violence in the name of killing apostates, etc. For it is the Wahdat-e-Wujoodi understanding of the universe and God as that gave Sufism its distinction as the most humane understanding of the creative infinite we worship, whether we are followers of the book that was revealed to Prophet Mohammad or the books that were revealed to any of the previous 124,000 prophets of Islam since Adam (AS).
Having discussed what ails us, it’s time to think if there is something we can do to set things right. As I said earlier, terrorism in the name of Islam has become the leitmotif of this new age that started with the biggest terrorist event at the dawn of the 21st century. This has resulted in a growing fear of Islam. A religion that had come as a rahmat (blessing) to mankind has become an object of fear. Some of the Islamophobia is certainly promoted by vested interests, but there is also a genuine fear of Islam among ordinary people around the world. A Muslim lady in Peshawar had voiced this most poignantly after the Peshawar school massacre by Taliban killing 142 children and teachers by asking: Is this Islam? We owe it to our religion that no one has to ask this question again. This is clearly our top priority now. I would like to make just a couple of submissions.
1.    The first step in resolving an issue is to accept that there is an issue. We have to accept that there are issues with our theology, the theology of consensus of all sections of Muslims, not just Salafi-Wahhabis, as we Sufi-oriented Muslims are wont to say very readily. The theology we have now is by and large a theology of violence, exclusion and supremacism, geared to achieving world domination. So, we need a new theology, a new understanding of Islam that is geared to accepting the present situation in which Muslims have to live as weak minorities, deriving our rights entirely from secular constitutions, in more than a hundred countries of the world including India. We must see that Muslim-majority nations, particularly those who claim to be run by Islamic governments, are probably the most corrupt, most inhumane, and also the most dependent on world powers. This also acts as an incentive to Jihadists to bring down these governments and use terrorism based on Islamic theology as a methodology for pursuing that goal. So, we need to evolve a theology of peace, pluralism, coexistence and justice including gender justice, that is internally consistent and coherent.  In order to do so we will have to relook at the core of our theology. Once this is accepted we will need to brainstorm together on how to go about it. But that is the next step.
2.    The very minimum that we mainstream and mystically-inspired Muslims need to do is to reinstate the actual Sufi understanding of Wahdatul Wujood in our hearts. That is true Sufism. If it resembles the concept of advaita in Vedanta, that is all the more reason it should be seen as the genuine understanding of Existence, of Being, and its Oneness (tawhid). This shouldn’t be the reason to discard it.  It only proves the truth of God’s commandments in Quran that we are all one nation, and God sent his emissaries to all societies who taught people in their tongues and the languages of their times, but the message was the same. Let us readopt Wahdatul Wujood fully. The attempt to reconcile Sufism with orthodoxy, seeking to become acceptable to orthodox ulema, has cost Sufism too much. Let us abandon this project and stand for what we believe in, if we do indeed believe in God’s immanence and transcendence rather than His separation from all Existence.
I must present here some of the quotations from Sufi masters and theologians mentioned above to put the issue in perspective, take the discussion forward and try to find a way out of this labyrinth.
Appendix 1
Eleventh century Sufi mystic, theologian, jurist and philosopher Imam Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazali is said to have an understanding of Islam next only to that of Prophet Mohammad (saw). He is quoted ad nauseum in the media to have said about Jihad and relationship with non-Muslims:
“Just as scholastic theology is used with thinking people concerning the truth, the sword is used with the infidels after informing them with the truth…so just as it cannot be said that the sword was Mohammad’s most eloquent argument, neither can it be said that scholastic theology is the ultimate science.”– Ihy’a ‘Uloum ed-Din by al-Ghazali vol. V p. 35
…one must go on jihad at least once a may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...
 …the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] …on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protuberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] … They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. 
“After the death of Muhammad, the man of the miracle [the Qur’an] and the apostle of truth and the companions, fearing the weakening of Islam, the decrease of the number of its followers, and the return of masses to their previous infidelity [This is referring to to hurub al-riddah— the Wars of Apostasy — which were fought during the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr and delayed the Wars of Conquest against the kuffar], saw that holy war and invading other countries for the sake of Allah, smashing the faces of the infidels with the sword and making people enter the religion of Allah as the most worthy of all tasks and better than all sciences.”–Ihy’a ‘Uloum ed-Din by al-Ghazali vol. V p. 35
----- Imam Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazali (1058 –1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]
Appendix 2
Most revered Indian Sufi mystic and theologian, considered Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564—1624), says:
Shariat can be fostered through the sword….
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.
Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co—existence between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable…
The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonours the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honour in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence….
The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs. The real purpose in levying jizya on them [the non—Muslims] is to humiliate then to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam….
Cow—sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jizya but they shall never concede to cow—sacrifice.…
The execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal [a Sikh who lead an uprising against the oppressive Muslim rule of his community] is an important achievement and is the cause of great defeat of the accursed Hindus….
Whatever might have been the motive behind the execution, the dishonour of the kafirs is an act of highest grace for the Muslims. Before the execution of the kafirs I had seen in a vision that the Emperor had destroyed the crown of the head of Shirk. Verily he was the chief of the Mushriks and the leader of the kafirs….
--- Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim revivalist movements in northern India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co, 1965, pp.
Also quoted in Yohanan Friedmann’s Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity pp. 73-74
Appendix 3
Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi (1703—1762), is revered by Muslims as a mystic and theologian of the highest order. Some of the selections of his writings doing the rounds on internet are:
It has become clear to my mind that the kingdom of heaven has predestined that kafirs should be reduced to a state of humiliation and treated with utter contempt…. Should that repository of majesty and dauntless courage [Nizam al—Maluk] gird his loins and direct his attention to such a task he can conquer the world…. Thus, the faith will become more popular and his own power strengthened; a little effort would be profoundly rewarded. Should he make no effort, they [the Marathas] would inevitably be weakened and annihilated through celestial calamities and in such an event he would gain no credit...As I have learnt this unequivocally [from the divine] I spontaneously write to draw your attention to the great opportunity laid before you. You should therefore not be negligent in fighting jihad...Oh Kings! Mala a'la urges you to draw your swords and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebellious kafirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless.'
In his testament to [subsequent Caliph] Umar, [then Caliph] Abu Bakr had informed him that if he feared God, the entire world would be frightened of him ['Umar]. Sages had declared that the world resembled a shadow. If a man ran after his shadow it would pursue him, and if he took flight from the shadow it would still pursue him. God has chosen you as the protector of the Sunnis as there is no—one else to perform this duty, and it is crucial that at all times you consider your role as obligatory. By taking up the sword to make Islam supreme and by subordinating your own personal needs to this cause, you will reap vast benefits.
We beseech you [in a letter to Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali Durrani] in the name of the Prophet to fight a jihad against the infidels of this region. This would entitle you to great rewards before God the Most High and your name would be included in the list of those who fought jihad for His sake. As far as worldly gains are concerned, incalculable booty would fall into the hands of the Islamic ghazis and the Muslims would be liberated from their bonds. The invasion of Nadir Shah who destroyed the Muslims left the Marathas and Jats secure and prosperous. This resulted in the infidels regaining their strength and in the reduction of the Muslim leaders of Delhi to mere puppets.
When the conquering army arrives in an area with a mixed Muslim—Hindu population, the imperial guards should transfer the Muslims from their villages to the towns and at the same time care for their property. Financial assistance should be given by governments to the deprived and the poor as well as to Sayyids and the 'ulama. Their generosity would then become famous with prompt prayers for their victories. Each town would eagerly await the arrival of the Islamic army ('that paragon of bounty'). Moreover, wherever there was even the slightest fear of a Muslim defeat, the Islamic army should be there to disperse infidels to all corners of the earth. Jihad should be their first priority, thereby ensuring the security of every Muslim.
Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi. Shah Wali Allah and his Times. Canberra, Australia, Ma'rifat Publishing House, 1980, pp. 294—296, 299, 301, 305.
Appendix 4
In his analysis of Shah Wali Allah and his times, pp. 285 286. Rizvi writes:
According to Shah Wali Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Shari'a was the performance of jihad. He compared the duties of Muslims in relation to the law to those of a favourite slave who administered bitter medicine to other slaves in a household. If this was done forcefully it was quite legitimate but if someone mixed it with kindness it was even better. However, there were people, said the Shah who indulged in their lower natures by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Muhammad. If one chose to explain Islam to such people like this it was to do then a disservice. Force, said the Shah, was the much better course — Islam should be forced down their throats like bitter medicine to a child. This, however, was only possible if the leaders of the non—Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed; the strength of the community was reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam. The Shah pleaded that the universal domination of Islam was not possible without jihad and by holding on to the tails of cows.
Appendix 5
While these thoughts appear quite out of sync with the circumstances of the present times, one has to remember that all scholars are products of their times grappling with the situations in which they are placed according to their sensibilities. In the 20th and now the 21st century, some new theologians, jurists and exegetes of Quran have taken diametrically opposite positions, although, unfortunately, the consensus of Islamic theology continues to follow the classical theologians and their outrageously bigoted points of view, absolutely out of sync with modern sensibilities.
For instance, in his Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an, Sheikh Mohammed al-Ghazali al-Saqqa (1917–1996) makes every effort to prove that the message of Quran is peaceful and pluralistic. Nothing shows this better than his commentary on Surah Taubah verse 5 (Q 9:5) which is considered even by earliest Sufi commentators like Rashid al-Din al-Maybudi (early 12th century) as a sword verse that has abrogated as many as 124 verses of Quran preaching peace and pluralism as well as patience in times of adversity. A brief quote from his commentary given below will be very illuminating. But a brief introduction of this scholar is needed first.
 Sheikh Mohammed al-Ghazali al-Saqqa was an Islamic cleric and scholar whose writings "have influenced generations of Egyptians". The author of 94 books, Sheikh Ghazali attracted a broad following with works that sought to interpret Islam and its holy book, the Qur'an, in a modern light. He is widely credited with contributing to a revival of Islamic faith in Egypt in recent times. [2] Another source called him "one of the most revered sheikhs in the Muslim world."[3]) -- Wikipedia
Sheikh Mohammed al-Ghazali al-Saqqa writes in his Commentary on Surah Taubah verse 5, (Q.9:5):
“… Muslims are therefore basically opposed to war and are never the ones to start it. By the imperative of their own religion, they are taught not to impose their beliefs on others by force. Their mission is to impart and communicate Allah’s message, leaving people free to decide whether to believe or reject it. Those who refuse to believe are free to pursue their lives in peace as long as they do not pose any obstacle or threat to Islam and the Muslims, who perceive their faith as the strongest and most vital binding relationship between Allah and humankind and that it is their responsibility to make others aware of it and provide them with the opportunity to understand and appreciate it.
"This is the basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic society. Allah says elsewhere in the Qur’an:
“Therefore, if they (the unbelievers) do not trouble you and cease their hostility towards you and offer you peace, God gives you no authority over them” [al-Nisa: 90]. Those who take up arms against a Muslim state or parts of it must be met with force, and if they are overcome, they should be disarmed. Once that is achieved, they are free to lead their own lives and practise their beliefs in peace and security under the protection of the Muslim authorities, in return for which they have to pay a levy.
“This is the background against which prescription of the Jizyah, or exemption tax, came into being. It is not due from those who are neutral and have never taken up arms against the Muslim state. The Qur'anic verse gives ample explanation for the reason behind the establishment of this tax, for it stipulates who should pay it. They are those “who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the true religion, until they pay the exemption tax unreservedly and with humility.”
--- Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali al-Saqqa, “A Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an” [The International Institute of Islamic Thought, Second Printing, 2005]
Appendix 6 
The above pacifist view, however, has not been the dominant view, nor very influential. Probably the most influential of theologians of the 20th century, has been a Shia mystic and Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. His views are no different from that of Sunni Salafi theologians like Syed Qutub of Egypt and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi of India who later shifted to Pakistan. Imam Khomeini says:

Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ...

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! 

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim. 
---- From the book Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East (a collection of source documents and statements from key militant Islamic figures). The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini answers the question, “Is Islam a religion of peace?” 
Appendix 7

Excerpts from writings of Salafi Theologians for a comparative study with the Sufi theologians quoted above: 
 Imam Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328): Most revered Hanbali jurist and scholar among Wahhabi-Salafi Muslims whose influence has recently grown immensely with the propagation of his creed by the Saudi monarchy:
“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought... As for the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians, they are to be fought until they become Muslims or pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tribute from them. Most of them regard it as unlawful...”  (Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1996), pp. 44-54).
 Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): Indian Islamic scholar, Hanafi jurist, considered Mujaddid alf-e-Saani, the renewer of Islam of the second millennium:
“...Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices.”
“Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable.
"The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One, who respects kafirs, dishonours the Muslims.”
"The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling".
"Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.”
(Excerpted from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.)  
Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762): Highly revered Indian scholar, theologian, Muhaddis (Hadith expert) and jurist:
“It is the duty of the prophet to establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or after humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three categories. Lowly kafir (unbelievers), have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting, threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them…. He does not treat them equal to Muslims in the matters of Qisas (Retaliation), Diyat (blood money), marriage and government administration so that these restrictions should ultimately force them to embrace Islam.” (Hujjatullahu al-Balighah, volume – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289)
 Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792): Founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed:

“Even if the Muslims abstain from shirk (polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims (which for him actually includes all non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).
Abul A'la Maududi (1903–1979): Indian ideologue, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami:
 “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. …
"Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.” (Jihad fil Islam).
 Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi, a Hyderabad-based scholar, justifies indiscriminate violence in his fatwa on the concept of power in Islam. Let me quote a few lines from the writings of this maulana who runs a girls’ madrasa in Hyderabad and is known to have been an inspiration behind Indian Mujahedin:
 “Let it be known that, according to Islamic jurisprudence, fighting the infidels (kuffar) in their countries is a duty (farz-e-kifayah) according to the consensus of ulema …
“… I can say with full conviction that qital (killing, violence, armed struggle) to uphold the kalimah (declaration of faith) has neither been called atrocity or transgression nor has it been prohibited. Rather, qital has not only been ordained for the purpose of upholding the kalimah but also stressed and encouraged in the Book (Quran) and the Sunnah (Hadith). Muslims have indeed been encouraged and motivated to engage in qital and they have been given good tidings of rewards for this.”
 “It is the duty (of Muslims) to struggle for the domination of Islam over false religions and subdue and subjugate ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk (infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it is the duty of the Muslims to proselytise and invite people to Islam. The responsibility to testify to the Truth and pronounce the Deen God has entrusted with the Muslims cannot be fulfilled merely by preaching and proselytising. If it were so there would be no need for the battles that were fought.
 “Jihad has been made obligatory to make the Deen (religion) dominate and to stop the centres of evil. Keeping in view the importance of this task, the significance of jihad in the name of God has been stressed in the Quran and Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have been revealed to Muslims about fighting all the kuffar (infidels): “Unite and fight the polytheists (mushriks) just as they put up a united front against you” (Surah Tauba: 9:36)”.
 [Excerpted and translated from Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi’s Urdu booklet "Taqat ka Istemal Quran ki Raoshni Main," ‘The use of violence, in the light of the Qur’an’]
 Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (Born 1925), otherwise a promoter of peace and pluralism, says the following:

 "Efforts on the part of prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (shirk, kufr). (So) it was God’s decree that he (Prophet Mohammad) be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs (shirk, kufr) were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time".
 [From Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book “Islam – Creator of the Modern World,” re- printed in 2003].
 It is ironic that even an indefatigable promoter of peace and pluralism among Muslims has to concede on the basis of commonly accepted Islamic jurisprudence that the Prophet’s job was to eradicate unbelief from the world, even using military means. And if this is so, what would stop Osama Bin Ladens and Abu Bakr Baghdadis of this world claiming that they are simply carrying forward the Prophet’s unfinished mission?
A comparative analysis of all the above quotes will show that there is no difference between Shia, Sunni, Salafi, Sufi, Deobandi, Wahhabi, Ahl-e-Hadithi, Muslim Brotherhood’s or Jamaat-e-Islami theologies.
The message from all these sermons is clear. Islam must dominate the world and it is the duty of every Muslim to help the process. Wherever a Muslim turns to he gets the same Islam-supremacist message. The latest among the most authoritative books on Islamic theology is a 45-volume comprehensive Encyclopaedia of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). It was prepared by scholars from all schools of thought, engaged by Ministry of Awqaf & Islamic Affairs, Kuwait, over a period of half a century. Its Urdu translation was released in Delhi by Vice-president Hamid Ansari on 23 October 2009.
This most influential book of Islamic jurisprudence has a 23,000-word chapter on jihad. We moderate Muslims and Sufis keep talking ad nauseum about struggle against one’s own nafs (lower self, negative ego) being the real and greater jihad and qital (warfare) being rather insignificant, lesser jihad. But except one sentence in the beginning, the entire chapter talks entirely about the issues related with combating and killing enemies, i.e.  infidels, polytheists or apostates, starting with the stark declaration: “Jihad means to fight against the enemy.” There is no mention of real or greater jihad.
Then Ibn-e-Taimiyya is quoted to say: “… So jihad is wajib (incumbent) as much as one’s capacity”. Then comes the final, definitive definition: “Terminologically, jihad means to fight against a non-zimmi unbeliever (kafir) after he rejects the call towards Islam, in order to establish or raise high the words of Allah.” (Translated from original Arabic)
It is not difficult for an intelligent, educated Muslim to discover our hypocrisy. Clearly what is censured by us moderates as radical Islamist theology is not substantially different from the current Islamic theology accepted through a consensus by ulema of all schools of thought.
Late Osama bin Laden or his ideological mentor Abdu’llāh Yūsuf ‘Azzām, now called father of global jihad, and his present-day successor Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not invent a new theology. Their use of consensual theology is what lies behind their great success in attracting thousands of Muslim youth in such a short while. They will continue to attract more and more youths until we mainstream Muslims realise our hypocrisy and change course.
It is imperative that Sufi theologians, in particular, who are being seen as a source of hope for Islam in the 21st century, look within their own theologies and weed out elements of supremacism and political Islam that continue to be there. Let Islam be understood as a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many, not an exclusivist political, totalitarian ideology, designed to make Islam dominate and rule the world. There is much in Islamic scriptures that supports pluralism and co-existence with other religions, as there is much that supports exclusivism and political domination. Earlier theologians built their arguments on the basis of socio-political situations prevailing in their times to meet the challenges of their times; nothing is stopping theologians of 21st century to follow them in principle and build their arguments and interpretations of scripture on the basis of requirements of our era to meet the challenges like terrorism and gender injustice in Islam facing us today. 

Let me end with a saying of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), indeed a well-known Hadith recognised as authentic by several Muhaddithin of the third century Hijri or 10th century (CE). Let us spend some time reflecting on the implications of what the Prophet says here in regard to pluralism, co-existence with and acceptance of other religions as religions established by the same One God that we Muslims worship:

“My position in relation to the prophets who came before me can be explained by the following example: A man erected a building and adorned this edifice with great beauty, but he left an empty niche in the corner where just one brick was missing. People looked around the building and marvelled at its beauty. They wondered why a brick was missing from that niche. I am like unto that one missing brick and I am the last in the line of the Prophets". (Bukhari, Muslim, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Tirmizi, Musnad Abu Dawud).

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism