Thursday, April 18, 2019

Do Not Repeat the Mistakes of 1989 in Allowing the Return of Taliban, New Age Islam Editor Sultan Shahin Asks International Community at UNHRC in Geneva



By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam
11 March 2019
Oral Statement At United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, 40th Regular Session 25 Feb to 22 March 2019
General Debate on Agenda item 3: “Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development.”
Delivered on behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum
Mr. President,
The US is withdrawing from Afghanistan as well as from Iraq and Syria. Inspired by the Taliban declaration of victory, a radicalised terrorist in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, backed by a Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organisation, attacked an Indian military convoy, killing 40 soldiers. Similar suicide attack killed 27 elite revolutionary guards in Sistan, Iran. Emboldened Jihadists will surely carry out more such attacks in future. The gloating in Islamist circles for having “defeated” both the superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, has reached its peak.
Mr. President,
Still fresh in our minds is what happened when the international community abandoned Afghanistan in 1989. Taliban ruled and Al-Qaeda got a safe haven. A series of atrocities including 9/11 and horrors of Islamic State followed.
 In this backdrop, the complacency of the world community in allowing Taliban to govern Afghanistan is inexplicable. Jihadist strength does not come from their soldiers and territories. It comes from an ideology and ideologies cannot be defeated militarily.
Mr. President,
The Jihadist ideology is based on very solid foundations in Islamic history, scriptures and theology. Moderate Muslims have not yet succeeded in evolving a satisfactory alternative theology of peace and pluralism to challenge the current theology of violence and exclusion. Even when such a theology evolves, it will take time and effort for it to be established. Mainstream Muslims should be allowed the time and space to work out and propagate a counternarrative. I would, therefore, urge the international community not to repeat the mistakes of 1989 and invite further disasters.
Mr. President,
It will be wrong for the world community to think that Islamism has been defeated because the so-called Islamic State has lost most of its territories. Several security experts have reported that out of approximately 30,000 foreign fighters ISIS continues to have around 10,000, hiding in different parts of Iraq and Syria, 10,000 have returned to their homelands and only 10,000 killed in wars. There are no figures available for the local Arab soldiers, but there are apparently quite a few and with sufficient local support to sustain them in their hiding places. It is well-known that many thousands of Sunnis from Saddam Hussain’s former army had joined the so-called Islamic State. On top of all that, ISIS continues to have the support of tens of thousands of sympathisers around the globe who include hackers and online recruiters. Most importantly, Jihadist presence on social media and their ability to propagate their narrative is intact.
As for the Taliban, several security experts feel that they may eventually come back to rule from Kabul again following the US withdrawal, regardless of the arrangement that is worked out now. The promises of following democratic system of governance that the Taliban are making now on the negotiating table are not worth the paper they will be written on. Their publications like Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad have been arguing for decades that democracy goes against the Islamic injunction of sovereignty belonging to God alone.
 Justifying the 9/11 Attacks, Taliban scholar Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri had given a long Fatwa that appeared in Taliban monthly magazine Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad in eight parts in 2012--2013, month after month, supporting indiscriminate killing of Innocent civilians under special circumstances. In his concluding part, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri had focused entirely on the Islamic permissibility of “brutal and mass killing of the enemy.”  Starting from the “lawfulness of burning the enemy” and “opening the dams of rivers and lakes” to drown the inmates of a fort or besieged town, launching mortar attack, the fatwa goes on to justify “releasing snakes and scorpions on the enemy even if non-combatant women and children are also present.” Then it argues, “the lawfulness of these measures including ‘demolishing their buildings, spreading poison and smoke,” if it is not possible to capture or dominate them without resorting to these practices”. Having thus “established” the justification of a terror attack against civilians, the Taliban scholar then goes on to justify the destruction of American cities and questions the sanity of any Muslim who declares “killing the Americans in New York and Washington as unlawful.”
These arguments are made quoting several reputed medieval jurists of the stature of Imam Nawawi, Allama Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdīsī, Imām al-Bayhaqi and Al-Sahihain. (Al-Sahihain refers to Sahih al-Bukhari and Shahih al-Muslim, the two books of Ahadith, considered the most authentic sources of Islamic faith after the holy Qur'an).
 Taliban scholar Al-Abeeri concludes: “Therefore, given the arguments from Shariah, it can be said that whoever said that killing the Americans in New York and Washington is unlawful actually shoots in the dark. He is saying this in ignorance. Killing the enemy by burning or drowning, destroying or damaging buildings to capture them or terrifying the enemy are the points on which the majority of scholars of Islam agree. This practice was followed by the holy companions of the Prophet. How can then someone who is blind in the love of the Americans question something which is authenticated by the Quran and the Hadith.”  (Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad, January 2013)
 I doubt that the American and Russian diplomats who are negotiating with the Taliban are asking them to renounce their radical interpretation of Islam. Even if the Taliban claim to have renounced these views, it would be folly to believe them, as they can justify in their minds making any false promises under the juristic principles of maslaha and taqaiyya. Allowing Taliban to come back to rule Afghanistan or even to share power initially is the portent of a disaster in the making. Doing that simply because the international community has lost interest in the region as it had following the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 is beyond comprehension.
Mr. President,
It must be understood that whatever the ISIS and Taliban or other Islamist terrorist groups do, they are able to justify on the basis of medieval juristic opinion which has resonance with the Muslim masses, certainly with ulema (scholars of Islam) who have read and teach the same books in their seminaries. Moderate Muslim scholars are challenging these views but are far from convincing the Muslim community of the soundness of their views from a theological standpoint.
Why is this proving so difficult? Even in the brief quotes from a Taliban scholar above we have seen that Jihadists are deriving their arguments from a consensus of medieval Islamic jurists (ijmaa) and Hadith. They also quote wartime verses of Quran. Above all they quote events from established history.
While one can reinterpret scriptures and seek to change the ijma, it’s difficult to question established history. As this Taliban scholar said, “this is what the Prophet and his companions did.” This sets an example to be followed by Muslims for all time to come. This is what they claim to be doing and achieving similar successes too. For instance, they are comparing what they consider their success in defeating both superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, to the success of ill-equipped Arab Bedouins of early Islam in defeating both the Byzantine and Sassanian empires, the two superpowers of the seventh century CE.
This doesn’t mean that the Jihadist arguments cannot be questioned and countered. They can be and are. The problem is that in order to challenge them successfully, moderate scholars need to bring about a revolutionary change in their own outlook first. This they are not yet prepared to do. While taking a critical view, they seek to stay within the theoretical framework of the Shariat established by Aimma Arba, the four recognised authorities on fiqh or jurisprudence, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Maalik, Imam Shafai, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The result is that moderates too are often arguing on the basis of the same ideas on which the jihadi edifice is built.
Let me cite an example. The self-styled Khalifa al-Baghdadi’s millenarian thesis that attracted thousands of youths from around the world, and has now proved to be wrong, was based on Ahadith, the so-called sayings of the Prophet, that had been collected decades and centuries after his demise. But when a moderate Sufi scholar Maulana Tahirul Qadri, who wrote a 600-page fatwa against terrorism, set out to counter Baghdadi’s eschatological thesis, he too based his arguments entirely on Ahadith, though a different set of Ahadith, rather than questioning the credibility of sayings gathered centuries after the Prophet’s death. Out of 600,000 Ahadith that had been collected, all but around 10,000 have been found to be either outright fabrications or of very doubtful credibility. Even in the surviving 10,000, called authentic, many have different levels of authenticity. Only the Mutawatir Ahadith, those collected from multiple sources, carrying the same statements of the Prophet, are credited with maximum authenticity. But most of the clerics, including the 126 leading religious scholars and academics from across the Muslim world who wrote a 14,000-word Open Letter to the self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi, critiquing his so-called Islamic State, stated: "... everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired.” This goes completely against common sense. The Hadith was written down and compiled decades and centuries after the demise of the Prophet. How could it have been “divinely inspired,” or “akin to revelation,” as claimed by them? But clearly, even well-regarded scholars in the West, Pakistan’s Maulana Tahirul Qadri and academics from Egyptian Al-Azhar University base their arguments on the same traditional narrative.
Mr. President,
Moderate scholars cannot come up with a credible counter-narrative to the traditional Jihadist narrative whilst conceding the very ground on which the Islamist thesis is formulated. For instance, in the Open Letter, the moderate fatwa says: "It is known that the verse ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated." Then the fatwa goes on to criticise Baghdadi for using coercion. But the important thing is that even the moderate fatwa has accepted the basic premise of Baghdadi and other Islamists that peaceful Meccan verses revealed before the conquest of Mecca have been abrogated or, at least, may have been abrogated, and it is the militant verses relating to war, ordering killing of Mushriks and Kafirs, that should now prevail.
 Another similar issue is the “uncreatedness” of Quran to which all schools of thought including today’s moderates subscribe. This implies that all instructions of the holy Quran, regardless of the context in which they were revealed, are applicable to Muslims for all time to come. Holy Quran gave a number of instructions during the wars that were imposed on the Prophet in early seventh century. Warriors are to fight, to lay down their lives and to kill adversaries. These are no easy tasks. Rewards are announced for following the orders and punishments threatened for not following them. But once the war is over, those orders are no longer applicable. However, even 1400 years after those wars, those instructions are considered applicable to Muslims even today. This is the position of all Islamic scholars. Modern, moderate scholars do not question this proposition. Their Open Letter says: “everything in the Qur’an is the Truth.”
Mr. President,
 The current Islamic theology of consensus of all schools of thought, called ijma, has evolved over one and a half millennium. It’s heavily influenced by the progression of history. So, much of the current theology does not justify itself on the basis of Islam’s primary scripture, the Quran.  No punishment is prescribed in the Quran, for instance, for blasphemy and apostasy. But there are anti-blasphemy laws, prescribing compulsory death sentences in several Muslim countries. Several other Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are currently facing similar demands. The classical Muslim jurisprudence of all schools of thought agrees that blasphemy by a Muslim is a form of apostasy which has to be punished with death, although they differ slightly on how and when to reach this judgement. This punishment, however, has to be awarded by the state after proper judicial scrutiny. But radical ulema now argue that since the Muslim states have become beholden to modern imperial powers or taghut (Satan) and are not awarding and executing this punishment, Muslim individuals have the right, if not the duty, to administer the punishment of death to the offender themselves. How would they determine if someone has actually committed blasphemy or apostasy? Only some scholar or a group of scholars has to issue a fatwa. The alleged blasphemer or apostate may keep claiming that he has not blasphemed or left Islam, but if a scholar says the allegations are correct, then that is usually the final word in an atmosphere of lawlessness that prevails in several Muslim countries.
This atrocity is based on Islamic Shariat’s Hudood laws which are supported by even our moderate ulema. The 126 moderate ulema, fielded by the global Muslim community to counter the Islamic State, take up the issue in their Open Letter and say: "Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law." Having accepted the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe, the Letter goes on to criticise its implementation in the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It says: "however, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner." And so on. But once the moderates have accepted the basic premise of Hudud (Punishment) largely based on 7th century Bedouin Arab tribal mores being "unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law," what difference does actually remain between moderation and extremism?
While Muslims concede that non-Muslims living as protected minorities in Muslim-majority lands can have a measure of religious freedom, except in the Arabian Peninsula, which is reserved for Islam, those born in Muslim families or those who have embraced Islam do not have the freedom to leave the religion. As Islam is now generally considered synonymous with a State blasphemy and apostasy by a Muslim are accepted as high treason and will be punished as such. 
Twentieth century Indian Islamic scholar Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi described Islam as a State, justifying this proposition, but Muslims have believed in the concept, without describing it as such for centuries.  Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Shah Waliullah Dehlavi in the 18th century, or Mujaddid alf-e-Saani Sheikh Sirhindi in the 17th century or Imam Taqī ad-Dīn Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, in 13th-14th centuries or even the Sufi master Imam Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad al-Ghazali in 11th-12th century, all had similar views on this subject.
In the matter of a Muslim’s relationship with non-Muslims similar consensus prevails. Scholars of all hues are united in believing that the only possible relationship between the two can be of that of the conqueror and the conquered. The world is divided into Dar-ul-Islam (the land of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (the land of conflict). Under the force of circumstances, a third category has evolved, Dar-ul-Sulh or Dar-ul-Amn (the land of truce or peace). But this is necessarily a temporary arrangement. Those Muslims, who are living in the Dar-ul-Sulh, have to keep trying to change it into Dar-ul-Islam in the same way as those living in Dar-ul-Harb are supposed to do so.
Mr. President,
 While sectarian differences among Muslims can be bitter and lead to each sect declaring another sect apostate, there is complete unanimity on the Muslim dream that, as Maulana Dr Israr Ahmad of Pakistan put it, “the past glory and grandeur of the Muslim Ummah should be realised.” His mentor Maulana Abul Al’a Maududi had shown the way, in the following words that present a summary of his arguments: “while non-Muslims can be allowed to live as second-class citizens and follow their ungodly beliefs, they cannot be allowed to rule any part of the world. Non-Muslims have to be dislodged from power everywhere. Islam demands sovereignty of God to be established the world over, not in any one small part.” 
“Iqamat e Deen,” (establishing the religion of Islam in the world), Maulana Maududi said was a Muslim’s primary duty. So, when an opportunity arises to dislodge Soviet Union from Afghanistan and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic state, many Muslims from around the world listen to the call. Similarly, when an opportunity arises to remove United States from regions in Iraq and Syria, and Afghanistan, many listen to the call. These are considered golden opportunities to perform Jihad and do one’s religious duty.
So now, when the US has decided to leave both areas, a wave of joy engulfs the Islamist world, filling it with new energy to continue with its dream of eradicating non-Islam, particularly the main enemy, Shirk (polytheism, but mainly idol-worship) from the world. For a deeply religious Muslim, a graduate of a madrasa, in particular, Muslims are one nation (al-Islam millat-e-waheda) and all non-Muslims are another separate nation (al-kufr millat-e-waheda). For most Muslims there is no difference between a Christian, a Jew, or an Atheist, a Deist or an ex-Muslim or those deemed apostates. And their job is to eradicate kufr (disbelief), shirk (polytheism, idol-worship) and irtidad (apostasy) from the face of the earth and establish Islam’s dominion in the world.
Mr. President,
What do the moderate ulema say on this issue? Surprising, but they actually seem to justify the destruction of idols. Read the following from the Open Letter:"Your (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s) former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of (a great Muhaddith, an authority on Hadith) Imam Muslim’s narration in his Sahih (book of authentic Hadith):  on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, Ali ibn Abi Talib said: ‘Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet pbuh]  sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet (pbuh) and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque."
The impression is unmistakable that the moderate ulema are only opposed to the destruction of "the graves of Prophets or Companions," and not to the supposed obligation to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry). So, the implication is that, according to these moderate scholars, the Taliban were justified in destroying Bamian Buddhas. This is not conducive to maintaining inter-faith relations in contemporary world where all civilised peoples respect each other's right to practise their religion, where Islam itself is protected and defended despite the terror activities in its name.
On the issue of the need for a global Caliphate the moderate ulema again concur with the basic proposition of the Baghdadi clique. They say: "There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah (global Muslim community) has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE." Then it goes on to criticise Baghdadi for lack of consensus from Muslims, etc. and accusing him of sedition, fitna, etc in fairly strong language. But the problem remains the same. Moderate ulema agree with Baghdadi on the basic premise of the so-called “obligation of the umma to have a global caliphate.” This is absurd in this day and age. And coming from moderate Islamic scholars from around the world, it is absolutely ridiculous. It is important to realise that the holy Quran also does not call for a global Khilafat.
Clearly both the Baghdadi group (ISIS) and moderate ulema are equally outdated, seemingly continuing to live in the 7th century CE. Neither the extremists nor the moderates accept modern, multi-cultural, sovereign nation-states in which all citizens have equal rights to freely express themselves and practise their religion and whose borders cannot be altered through conquest. The only way a global caliphate on the medieval lines can be established if the so-called Islamic State was able to conquer the whole world and declare its leader as a Caliph of global Muslims community. It is this aspect that the moderate scholars are questioning. How can Baghdadi be a caliph for the global Muslim community without conquering large chunks of land even in the Middle East, they are asking. They are not questioning the medieval system of expanding territories by conquest.
 Islamists certainly and it would appear even moderates, still live in the world in which the greatest Sufi scholar Imam al-Ghazali (1058-1111) had asked them to go to Jihad at least once a year so as to extend the boundaries of Islam. A realistic appraisal of any situation is beyond them. If you knew their history you would understand their irrationality. Indian ulema had, for instance, gone to 14th century Muslim ruler Mohammad bin Tughlaq (the Sultan of Delhi from 1325 to 1351) and told him that all the Mushrikeen (idol-worshippers) of India, i.e., 80 per cent of the Indian population, should be declared Mushrik and killed as punishment for Shirk, the biggest crime in Islam. Tughlaq, of course, did not listen to them.
Mr. President,
This fanaticism and psychological distance from reality among ulema is not merely an Indian phenomenon. The Turkish ulema did not allow the Khilafat-e-Usmania (Ottomans), one of the largest empires in history, to import printing press from Europe for close to four centuries, claiming this was an invention of the devil. The Muslim backwardness of today started from that fatwa. In 1940s and 1950s, the major debate in the Muslim community around the world was if religion permits the use of loud speakers and radio. Later when television became available the same debate consumed a lot of our attention for years. Even today Deoband ulema, whose madrasas produced the Taliban, have allowed the use of internet only for propagation of Islam. But the most unfortunate part is that the Muslim community as a whole continues to remain under the stranglehold of ulema even today.
Until genuinely moderate Muslim scholars are able to question these theological notions about Islam and State successfully, and establish a new modern, pluralist and peaceful theology of Islam, it would be a folly to leave these elements to fester and multiply. They have and can cause much more damage to world peace. The world should unite in providing, as I said before, the moderate Muslims time and space to introspect, contest this theology of violence and exclusion and replace it with a theology of peace and pluralism.

Do Not Repeat the Mistakes of 1989 in Allowing the Return of Taliban, New Age Islam Editor Sultan Shahin Asks International Community at UNHRC in Geneva



By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam
11 March 2019
Oral Statement At United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, 40th Regular Session 25 Feb to 22 March 2019
General Debate on Agenda item 3: “Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development.”
Delivered on behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum
Mr. President,
The US is withdrawing from Afghanistan as well as from Iraq and Syria. Inspired by the Taliban declaration of victory, a radicalised terrorist in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, backed by a Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organisation, attacked an Indian military convoy, killing 40 soldiers. Similar suicide attack killed 27 elite revolutionary guards in Sistan, Iran. Emboldened Jihadists will surely carry out more such attacks in future. The gloating in Islamist circles for having “defeated” both the superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, has reached its peak.
Mr. President,
Still fresh in our minds is what happened when the international community abandoned Afghanistan in 1989. Taliban ruled and Al-Qaeda got a safe haven. A series of atrocities including 9/11 and horrors of Islamic State followed.
 In this backdrop, the complacency of the world community in allowing Taliban to govern Afghanistan is inexplicable. Jihadist strength does not come from their soldiers and territories. It comes from an ideology and ideologies cannot be defeated militarily.
Mr. President,
The Jihadist ideology is based on very solid foundations in Islamic history, scriptures and theology. Moderate Muslims have not yet succeeded in evolving a satisfactory alternative theology of peace and pluralism to challenge the current theology of violence and exclusion. Even when such a theology evolves, it will take time and effort for it to be established. Mainstream Muslims should be allowed the time and space to work out and propagate a counternarrative. I would, therefore, urge the international community not to repeat the mistakes of 1989 and invite further disasters.
Mr. President,
It will be wrong for the world community to think that Islamism has been defeated because the so-called Islamic State has lost most of its territories. Several security experts have reported that out of approximately 30,000 foreign fighters ISIS continues to have around 10,000, hiding in different parts of Iraq and Syria, 10,000 have returned to their homelands and only 10,000 killed in wars. There are no figures available for the local Arab soldiers, but there are apparently quite a few and with sufficient local support to sustain them in their hiding places. It is well-known that many thousands of Sunnis from Saddam Hussain’s former army had joined the so-called Islamic State. On top of all that, ISIS continues to have the support of tens of thousands of sympathisers around the globe who include hackers and online recruiters. Most importantly, Jihadist presence on social media and their ability to propagate their narrative is intact.
As for the Taliban, several security experts feel that they may eventually come back to rule from Kabul again following the US withdrawal, regardless of the arrangement that is worked out now. The promises of following democratic system of governance that the Taliban are making now on the negotiating table are not worth the paper they will be written on. Their publications like Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad have been arguing for decades that democracy goes against the Islamic injunction of sovereignty belonging to God alone.
 Justifying the 9/11 Attacks, Taliban scholar Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri had given a long Fatwa that appeared in Taliban monthly magazine Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad in eight parts in 2012--2013, month after month, supporting indiscriminate killing of Innocent civilians under special circumstances. In his concluding part, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri had focused entirely on the Islamic permissibility of “brutal and mass killing of the enemy.”  Starting from the “lawfulness of burning the enemy” and “opening the dams of rivers and lakes” to drown the inmates of a fort or besieged town, launching mortar attack, the fatwa goes on to justify “releasing snakes and scorpions on the enemy even if non-combatant women and children are also present.” Then it argues, “the lawfulness of these measures including ‘demolishing their buildings, spreading poison and smoke,” if it is not possible to capture or dominate them without resorting to these practices”. Having thus “established” the justification of a terror attack against civilians, the Taliban scholar then goes on to justify the destruction of American cities and questions the sanity of any Muslim who declares “killing the Americans in New York and Washington as unlawful.”
These arguments are made quoting several reputed medieval jurists of the stature of Imam Nawawi, Allama Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdīsī, Imām al-Bayhaqi and Al-Sahihain. (Al-Sahihain refers to Sahih al-Bukhari and Shahih al-Muslim, the two books of Ahadith, considered the most authentic sources of Islamic faith after the holy Qur'an).
 Taliban scholar Al-Abeeri concludes: “Therefore, given the arguments from Shariah, it can be said that whoever said that killing the Americans in New York and Washington is unlawful actually shoots in the dark. He is saying this in ignorance. Killing the enemy by burning or drowning, destroying or damaging buildings to capture them or terrifying the enemy are the points on which the majority of scholars of Islam agree. This practice was followed by the holy companions of the Prophet. How can then someone who is blind in the love of the Americans question something which is authenticated by the Quran and the Hadith.”  (Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad, January 2013)
 I doubt that the American and Russian diplomats who are negotiating with the Taliban are asking them to renounce their radical interpretation of Islam. Even if the Taliban claim to have renounced these views, it would be folly to believe them, as they can justify in their minds making any false promises under the juristic principles of maslaha and taqaiyya. Allowing Taliban to come back to rule Afghanistan or even to share power initially is the portent of a disaster in the making. Doing that simply because the international community has lost interest in the region as it had following the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 is beyond comprehension.
Mr. President,
It must be understood that whatever the ISIS and Taliban or other Islamist terrorist groups do, they are able to justify on the basis of medieval juristic opinion which has resonance with the Muslim masses, certainly with ulema (scholars of Islam) who have read and teach the same books in their seminaries. Moderate Muslim scholars are challenging these views but are far from convincing the Muslim community of the soundness of their views from a theological standpoint.
Why is this proving so difficult? Even in the brief quotes from a Taliban scholar above we have seen that Jihadists are deriving their arguments from a consensus of medieval Islamic jurists (ijmaa) and Hadith. They also quote wartime verses of Quran. Above all they quote events from established history.
While one can reinterpret scriptures and seek to change the ijma, it’s difficult to question established history. As this Taliban scholar said, “this is what the Prophet and his companions did.” This sets an example to be followed by Muslims for all time to come. This is what they claim to be doing and achieving similar successes too. For instance, they are comparing what they consider their success in defeating both superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, to the success of ill-equipped Arab Bedouins of early Islam in defeating both the Byzantine and Sassanian empires, the two superpowers of the seventh century CE.
This doesn’t mean that the Jihadist arguments cannot be questioned and countered. They can be and are. The problem is that in order to challenge them successfully, moderate scholars need to bring about a revolutionary change in their own outlook first. This they are not yet prepared to do. While taking a critical view, they seek to stay within the theoretical framework of the Shariat established by Aimma Arba, the four recognised authorities on fiqh or jurisprudence, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Maalik, Imam Shafai, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The result is that moderates too are often arguing on the basis of the same ideas on which the jihadi edifice is built.
Let me cite an example. The self-styled Khalifa al-Baghdadi’s millenarian thesis that attracted thousands of youths from around the world, and has now proved to be wrong, was based on Ahadith, the so-called sayings of the Prophet, that had been collected decades and centuries after his demise. But when a moderate Sufi scholar Maulana Tahirul Qadri, who wrote a 600-page fatwa against terrorism, set out to counter Baghdadi’s eschatological thesis, he too based his arguments entirely on Ahadith, though a different set of Ahadith, rather than questioning the credibility of sayings gathered centuries after the Prophet’s death. Out of 600,000 Ahadith that had been collected, all but around 10,000 have been found to be either outright fabrications or of very doubtful credibility. Even in the surviving 10,000, called authentic, many have different levels of authenticity. Only the Mutawatir Ahadith, those collected from multiple sources, carrying the same statements of the Prophet, are credited with maximum authenticity. But most of the clerics, including the 126 leading religious scholars and academics from across the Muslim world who wrote a 14,000-word Open Letter to the self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi, critiquing his so-called Islamic State, stated: "... everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired.” This goes completely against common sense. The Hadith was written down and compiled decades and centuries after the demise of the Prophet. How could it have been “divinely inspired,” or “akin to revelation,” as claimed by them? But clearly, even well-regarded scholars in the West, Pakistan’s Maulana Tahirul Qadri and academics from Egyptian Al-Azhar University base their arguments on the same traditional narrative.
Mr. President,
Moderate scholars cannot come up with a credible counter-narrative to the traditional Jihadist narrative whilst conceding the very ground on which the Islamist thesis is formulated. For instance, in the Open Letter, the moderate fatwa says: "It is known that the verse ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated." Then the fatwa goes on to criticise Baghdadi for using coercion. But the important thing is that even the moderate fatwa has accepted the basic premise of Baghdadi and other Islamists that peaceful Meccan verses revealed before the conquest of Mecca have been abrogated or, at least, may have been abrogated, and it is the militant verses relating to war, ordering killing of Mushriks and Kafirs, that should now prevail.
 Another similar issue is the “uncreatedness” of Quran to which all schools of thought including today’s moderates subscribe. This implies that all instructions of the holy Quran, regardless of the context in which they were revealed, are applicable to Muslims for all time to come. Holy Quran gave a number of instructions during the wars that were imposed on the Prophet in early seventh century. Warriors are to fight, to lay down their lives and to kill adversaries. These are no easy tasks. Rewards are announced for following the orders and punishments threatened for not following them. But once the war is over, those orders are no longer applicable. However, even 1400 years after those wars, those instructions are considered applicable to Muslims even today. This is the position of all Islamic scholars. Modern, moderate scholars do not question this proposition. Their Open Letter says: “everything in the Qur’an is the Truth.”
Mr. President,
 The current Islamic theology of consensus of all schools of thought, called ijma, has evolved over one and a half millennium. It’s heavily influenced by the progression of history. So, much of the current theology does not justify itself on the basis of Islam’s primary scripture, the Quran.  No punishment is prescribed in the Quran, for instance, for blasphemy and apostasy. But there are anti-blasphemy laws, prescribing compulsory death sentences in several Muslim countries. Several other Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are currently facing similar demands. The classical Muslim jurisprudence of all schools of thought agrees that blasphemy by a Muslim is a form of apostasy which has to be punished with death, although they differ slightly on how and when to reach this judgement. This punishment, however, has to be awarded by the state after proper judicial scrutiny. But radical ulema now argue that since the Muslim states have become beholden to modern imperial powers or taghut (Satan) and are not awarding and executing this punishment, Muslim individuals have the right, if not the duty, to administer the punishment of death to the offender themselves. How would they determine if someone has actually committed blasphemy or apostasy? Only some scholar or a group of scholars has to issue a fatwa. The alleged blasphemer or apostate may keep claiming that he has not blasphemed or left Islam, but if a scholar says the allegations are correct, then that is usually the final word in an atmosphere of lawlessness that prevails in several Muslim countries.
This atrocity is based on Islamic Shariat’s Hudood laws which are supported by even our moderate ulema. The 126 moderate ulema, fielded by the global Muslim community to counter the Islamic State, take up the issue in their Open Letter and say: "Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law." Having accepted the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe, the Letter goes on to criticise its implementation in the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It says: "however, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner." And so on. But once the moderates have accepted the basic premise of Hudud (Punishment) largely based on 7th century Bedouin Arab tribal mores being "unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law," what difference does actually remain between moderation and extremism?
While Muslims concede that non-Muslims living as protected minorities in Muslim-majority lands can have a measure of religious freedom, except in the Arabian Peninsula, which is reserved for Islam, those born in Muslim families or those who have embraced Islam do not have the freedom to leave the religion. As Islam is now generally considered synonymous with a State blasphemy and apostasy by a Muslim are accepted as high treason and will be punished as such. 
Twentieth century Indian Islamic scholar Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi described Islam as a State, justifying this proposition, but Muslims have believed in the concept, without describing it as such for centuries.  Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Shah Waliullah Dehlavi in the 18th century, or Mujaddid alf-e-Saani Sheikh Sirhindi in the 17th century or Imam Taqī ad-Dīn Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, in 13th-14th centuries or even the Sufi master Imam Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad al-Ghazali in 11th-12th century, all had similar views on this subject.
In the matter of a Muslim’s relationship with non-Muslims similar consensus prevails. Scholars of all hues are united in believing that the only possible relationship between the two can be of that of the conqueror and the conquered. The world is divided into Dar-ul-Islam (the land of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (the land of conflict). Under the force of circumstances, a third category has evolved, Dar-ul-Sulh or Dar-ul-Amn (the land of truce or peace). But this is necessarily a temporary arrangement. Those Muslims, who are living in the Dar-ul-Sulh, have to keep trying to change it into Dar-ul-Islam in the same way as those living in Dar-ul-Harb are supposed to do so.
Mr. President,
 While sectarian differences among Muslims can be bitter and lead to each sect declaring another sect apostate, there is complete unanimity on the Muslim dream that, as Maulana Dr Israr Ahmad of Pakistan put it, “the past glory and grandeur of the Muslim Ummah should be realised.” His mentor Maulana Abul Al’a Maududi had shown the way, in the following words that present a summary of his arguments: “while non-Muslims can be allowed to live as second-class citizens and follow their ungodly beliefs, they cannot be allowed to rule any part of the world. Non-Muslims have to be dislodged from power everywhere. Islam demands sovereignty of God to be established the world over, not in any one small part.” 
“Iqamat e Deen,” (establishing the religion of Islam in the world), Maulana Maududi said was a Muslim’s primary duty. So, when an opportunity arises to dislodge Soviet Union from Afghanistan and replace it with a fundamentalist Islamic state, many Muslims from around the world listen to the call. Similarly, when an opportunity arises to remove United States from regions in Iraq and Syria, and Afghanistan, many listen to the call. These are considered golden opportunities to perform Jihad and do one’s religious duty.
So now, when the US has decided to leave both areas, a wave of joy engulfs the Islamist world, filling it with new energy to continue with its dream of eradicating non-Islam, particularly the main enemy, Shirk (polytheism, but mainly idol-worship) from the world. For a deeply religious Muslim, a graduate of a madrasa, in particular, Muslims are one nation (al-Islam millat-e-waheda) and all non-Muslims are another separate nation (al-kufr millat-e-waheda). For most Muslims there is no difference between a Christian, a Jew, or an Atheist, a Deist or an ex-Muslim or those deemed apostates. And their job is to eradicate kufr (disbelief), shirk (polytheism, idol-worship) and irtidad (apostasy) from the face of the earth and establish Islam’s dominion in the world.
Mr. President,
What do the moderate ulema say on this issue? Surprising, but they actually seem to justify the destruction of idols. Read the following from the Open Letter:"Your (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s) former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of (a great Muhaddith, an authority on Hadith) Imam Muslim’s narration in his Sahih (book of authentic Hadith):  on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, Ali ibn Abi Talib said: ‘Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet pbuh]  sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet (pbuh) and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque."
The impression is unmistakable that the moderate ulema are only opposed to the destruction of "the graves of Prophets or Companions," and not to the supposed obligation to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry). So, the implication is that, according to these moderate scholars, the Taliban were justified in destroying Bamian Buddhas. This is not conducive to maintaining inter-faith relations in contemporary world where all civilised peoples respect each other's right to practise their religion, where Islam itself is protected and defended despite the terror activities in its name.
On the issue of the need for a global Caliphate the moderate ulema again concur with the basic proposition of the Baghdadi clique. They say: "There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah (global Muslim community) has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE." Then it goes on to criticise Baghdadi for lack of consensus from Muslims, etc. and accusing him of sedition, fitna, etc in fairly strong language. But the problem remains the same. Moderate ulema agree with Baghdadi on the basic premise of the so-called “obligation of the umma to have a global caliphate.” This is absurd in this day and age. And coming from moderate Islamic scholars from around the world, it is absolutely ridiculous. It is important to realise that the holy Quran also does not call for a global Khilafat.
Clearly both the Baghdadi group (ISIS) and moderate ulema are equally outdated, seemingly continuing to live in the 7th century CE. Neither the extremists nor the moderates accept modern, multi-cultural, sovereign nation-states in which all citizens have equal rights to freely express themselves and practise their religion and whose borders cannot be altered through conquest. The only way a global caliphate on the medieval lines can be established if the so-called Islamic State was able to conquer the whole world and declare its leader as a Caliph of global Muslims community. It is this aspect that the moderate scholars are questioning. How can Baghdadi be a caliph for the global Muslim community without conquering large chunks of land even in the Middle East, they are asking. They are not questioning the medieval system of expanding territories by conquest.
 Islamists certainly and it would appear even moderates, still live in the world in which the greatest Sufi scholar Imam al-Ghazali (1058-1111) had asked them to go to Jihad at least once a year so as to extend the boundaries of Islam. A realistic appraisal of any situation is beyond them. If you knew their history you would understand their irrationality. Indian ulema had, for instance, gone to 14th century Muslim ruler Mohammad bin Tughlaq (the Sultan of Delhi from 1325 to 1351) and told him that all the Mushrikeen (idol-worshippers) of India, i.e., 80 per cent of the Indian population, should be declared Mushrik and killed as punishment for Shirk, the biggest crime in Islam. Tughlaq, of course, did not listen to them.
Mr. President,
This fanaticism and psychological distance from reality among ulema is not merely an Indian phenomenon. The Turkish ulema did not allow the Khilafat-e-Usmania (Ottomans), one of the largest empires in history, to import printing press from Europe for close to four centuries, claiming this was an invention of the devil. The Muslim backwardness of today started from that fatwa. In 1940s and 1950s, the major debate in the Muslim community around the world was if religion permits the use of loud speakers and radio. Later when television became available the same debate consumed a lot of our attention for years. Even today Deoband ulema, whose madrasas produced the Taliban, have allowed the use of internet only for propagation of Islam. But the most unfortunate part is that the Muslim community as a whole continues to remain under the stranglehold of ulema even today.
Until genuinely moderate Muslim scholars are able to question these theological notions about Islam and State successfully, and establish a new modern, pluralist and peaceful theology of Islam, it would be a folly to leave these elements to fester and multiply. They have and can cause much more damage to world peace. The world should unite in providing, as I said before, the moderate Muslims time and space to introspect, contest this theology of violence and exclusion and replace it with a theology of peace and pluralism.

Can Madrasas Be Allowed To Have ‘Sovereignty’? Let Them At Least Weed Out Violent Passages from Their Text First




By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam
1 Mar 2019
“An attack on the sovereignty of madrasas” is how the All India Muslim Personal Law Board secretary described the suggestion to bring the Muslim religious schools under the Right to Education (RTE) act. Madrasas’ autonomy and independence guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution will be threatened, Khalid Saifullah Rahmani said recently.
But, the question is what have Indian madrasas, where more than seven million children go for basic education, made of their autonomy? Even if one concedes that it is okay for them to teach just Islamiyaat, they must be asked what brand of Islam are they teaching these impressionable children?
Also Read:
The concern was also flagged by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights when last year it proposed bringing madrasas under the RTE to ensure that the children didn’t miss out on their right to education. Children going to madrasas were “as good as out-of-school kids”, the panel said.
I will give just one example and ask madrasa authorities if they are in right minds to be imparting such incendiary ideas to our children and that too in the 21st century. That these teachings cannot be directly linked to any violence yet is beside the point – a ghettoised mind is more toxic than a ghetto. Something that hasn’t happened yet can happen tomorrow.
There is a book called Islami Akhlaq-wo-Aadaab (Islamic behaviour and good manners) for teenage students and part of the course for Aalimiyat (an equivalent of Class 12). Written by Maulana Amjad Ali Azmi Rizvi, this is actually a simplified and summarised version of the 16th volume of Bahar-e-Shariyat, a book of Islamic jurisprudence that is a required study for every Aalim, a scholar trained in Islamic law.
The book claims to seek reforms in the Muslim society. In its chapter on an Islamic dictum Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi anil Munkar (Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil), it says:
“In attacking mushrikeen (polytheists, usually and wrongly translated as idolaters) all by oneself, there is a possibility that one will be killed but if there is a greater possibility that one will kill their man or injure or defeat them, there is no harm in attacking alone; but if there is a greater possibility that they will not be harmed or defeated, then one should not attack. If there is a possibility that when one stops fasiq (depraved) Muslims from committing sins one would get killed and will not be able to harm the debauched Muslims, still it is best to stop them from sinning, (although not stopping them is also permitted, (Fatawa Alamgiri), because getting killed in this venture does not go in vain. It may not appear to be fruitful at this time but in future it will bring good results (Page 268).”
 [I have tried to be as close to the Urdu text as possible in this translation, even at the cost of some clarity.]
This is so utterly senseless that anyone reading this might wonder if I am quoting it out of context. There isn’t any context. This is the last paragraph of the chapter and the one before it gives advice on reporting a theft.
The religious ruling is given as if Muslims regularly need advice on whether, and under what circumstances, it is worth risking life while trying to kill a mushrik or stopping a “wicked Muslim” from committing a sin. This would make sense if one were to assume that Muslims risk their lives in these pursuits, as routinely as, say, they go out to buy vegetables.
Fortunately, that is not the case. But, that is no argument for complacency. Islamic theology, as it is taught unabashedly and senselessly, is full of violence, most of it against Muslims who dare to think a new thought.
Fresh thinking was banned in the 9th Century CE. There are thousand and one grounds for declaring Muslims kafir (infidel) or murtad (heretic, apostate) and sentence them to death. This sentence can be carried out by any Muslim in the absence of an Islamic court.
As for non-Muslims, including those whom Quran considers Ahl-e-Kitab (People of the Book) and deserving the most intimate relations with Muslims, theology considers them permanent denizens of hell. No wonder most religious Muslims conversant with their theology feel nothing but contempt for non-Muslims and can have nothing but reverence for those who are engaged in despatching them to their permanent abode.
A distinction should, however, be made between Islam and Islamic Sharia (laws) or Islam and Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) or Islam and its understanding or Kalam (theology). If Muslims want to live honourably in today’s closely connected world, they have to work towards evolving a new jurisprudence and theology of peace and pluralism and gender justice to replace the theological texts that encourage violence, supremacism, xenophobia, intolerance and gender injustice.
At the very least and as an urgent measure, I would request madrasa authorities to weed out from textbooks passages like the one above that beget murderous violence as well as irrelevancies like how to treat female prisoners of war and concubines, etc.
Related:
Our ulema cannot be unaware that Muslim youth in large numbers are joining jihadist groups around the world today. We should have been deeply worried when the first time a Sunni Muslim went to a Shia mosque in Pakistan, blew himself up to kill fellow namazis, considering them apostate, and thinking he was doing a pious act for which he will be rewarded by God with a place in heaven. This was several years ago. Today, we have become a society which can produce a whole army of suicide bombers practically anywhere in the world. The blame lies squarely with the kind of education imparted in our madrasas.
RTE will ensure a modern curriculum so that children are more attuned to the world around them. They will study what students in other schools are being taught and will not feel left out once they leave madrasas. A modern education will equip them to a world where technology is shaping lives and changing it at a breathtaking pace.
Madrasa education is a serious violation of the human rights of Muslim children. Our children and the world at large deserve better. We simply cannot live in the 21st Century with a 7th-Century mindset.
Sultan Shahin is the founder-editor of a Delhi-based progressive Islamic website NewAgeIslam.com
Note: This article first appeared in the print edition of FirstPost weekly, New Delhi
Source: firstpost.com/india/time-madrassas-give-children-their-right-to-education-6180351.html

Arabic Imperialism Vs. Islamic Pluralism: Has The Time Come For Islam To Go Local?




By Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam
9 Feb 2019
A Turkish lawmaker, Öztürk Yılmaz, has proposed that the Muslims in Turkey be called to prayer in Turkish, and not Arabic. His Republican People’s Party threw him out for the demand, though when the party, which now leads the Opposition, was in power, the azaan was in Turkish.
Not just azaan, even namaz was offered in Turkish during 1932-1950. But the Arab colonisation of Muslim minds was so comprehensive that it was a very unpopular decision, and was rolled back when the party lost the election in 1950.
The first time prayers were said in Turkish in an Istanbul mosque was on 19 March, 1926 — the first Friday of Ramzan that year. Cemaleddin Efendi, who was leading the prayer, noticed that most of the people left without completing their prayers.
The issue of prayers in local languages came up the moment Islam crossed the Arabian Peninsula into the Sasanian Empire. In the second half of the seventh century CE, Islam was spreading in what is today Iran and the proud Persians asked for prayers in their language.
Language Barrier
This was fair and in consonance with instructions in the Quran that prayers be said in the language people understood. The Quran says god’s messengers went to different parts of the world, conveying His message in local languages. God showed no preference for Arab hegemony. Jurists, too, weighed in. Imam Mālik ibn Anas, Imam Muhammad al-Shāfi’ī, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, all Arab jurists, opposed the idea.
A senior jurist of Persian origin, Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of Hanafi jurisprudence, favoured the change but several of his followers didn’t agree with him.
Officially adopted by the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century, the Hanafi School is followed by many in West Asia, South Asia and the Far East. And yet, the idea of prayers in local languages has not taken off.
The push for languages arose from two sources: a pride in local culture and a desire to have a closer connection to god.
Not only god in the Quran, even Prophet Mohammad in his final sermon made clear that the Arabs don’t have superiority over others.
But the Arabs, who used Arabic to further imperialistic ambitions, have not only sought to impose the language but also their dress code, architecture and other cultural identity-markers. The result is that some of the respected clerics in India feel honoured to call themselves slaves (Ghulam) and even dogs (Kalb) of Arab spiritual masters.
Talk To Me
Does this mean that Islam does not have a regional colour? No. Indian Islam has features that the Arabs would not be able to identify with. For instance, our caste-system, the practice of dowry and married women wearing sindoor and bindi. But clerics have made every effort to obscure the syncretism of Indian Islam.
The word used for worship in the translation of the Quran by Shah Rafiuddin is pūjnā, associated with the Hindu ritual. In the 18th century, both the indigenous pūjā and the Arabic ibādā were permissible substitutes. It was only a century later, when the boundaries of Muslim identity began to tighten, that the Arabic word became mandatory.
The world’s largest movement for preaching Islamic uniformity and exclusivism, Tablighi Jamaat, was started by Deobandi scholar Maulana Ilyas Kandhlawi in 1927 after he noticed that Muslims in Mewat continued to be well integrated with their original Hindu culture.
Tablighi efforts have been aided by an injection of Saudi petrodollars. The familiar Muslim greeting of Khuda Hafiz is now Allah Hafiz. It is no longer unusual to see a Muslim woman in a hijab or a man dressed in an abaya or sporting a keffiyeh. It’s all right in West Asia, where these clothes protect from sun, dust and sandstorms, but in Kolkata, Jakarta, London, Paris or Boston? It is nothing but a sign of a colonised Muslim mind.
Transition to local languages has not been easy for other religions too. A certain holiness does attach itself to some languages. Vedic Sanskrit, for instance, is sacred for Hindus, Hebrew for Jews. Christianity’s struggle to retain the Bible in Latin and Greek was intense and bloody, with a powerful Church putting up a stiff resistance. Eventually, the Bible did speak to the people in their language.
The Ulema in India refuse to accept as Quran an Urdu or English translation of the holy book. Mosques, too, do not display translated copies of the Quran, but in Europe and the US they do. In fact, much of Islamic literature is now easily available in translation on the Net.
In South Asia, there has never been a call for azaan or namaz in local languages. How can Muslims come close to Allah if they don’t understand the language they are praying in? Maybe the debate in Turkey will open our hearts and minds.
Sultan Shahin is the founder-editor of a Delhi-based progressive Islamic website, NewAgeIslam.com
Note: This article first appeared in the Print edition of the weekly Firstpost, New Delhi on February 9, 2019.
Source: firstpost.com/india/time-may-have-come-for-islam-to-go-local-6048201.html

Honouring the Prophet (pbuh) and Showing Gratitude




By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
15 March 2019
Allah says in the Quran, (21:107) “We sent you not (O Muhammad), but as a Mercy for all the worlds.” The creation of Adam and his progeny, distinct from every other creature, in their cognitive abilities, was a great favour of Allah on the progeny of Adam. Further, Allah sent Messengers all through the ages, to guide mankind on the straight path to success in this life and in the Hereafter.  This process of guidance through revelations culminated with Muhammad (pbuh), and the revelation of the Quran containing the perfected and complete religion. With it was also complete the granting of full autonomy to man in making moral choices and therefore the Quran proclaimed, “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. Hereafter, war was ordained only to fight injustice and oppression. The people of the previous scriptures and all people who submit to Allah (by any name) and do good deeds are assured of their reward with Allah.
(2:112) Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
There is a misconception even among some Muslims who are more familiar with the Bible than the Quran, that the Quran only recognizes “Abrahamic” religions. This is not true as it should be evident from the verse cited above. Besides, the Quran names two other non-Abrahamic religions, the Sabians directly and the Buddhists indirectly and there are several non-Abrahamic prophets mentioned in the Quran that do not find a mention in the scriptures of other “Abrahamic” religions as they were not from the Bani Israel or from the progeny of the Prophet Jacob/Yaqub.
The Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh) was distinct from the mission of every previous messenger. Despite the intense opposition whipped up by a few, all the remaining people ended up accepting Islam, and proved to be very dedicated Muslims who made great sacrifices and spread the religion far and wide in a very short period. Those killed fighting, was of the order of 2% of the population and they were among the most vicious enemies of the religion.
Islam does not make any claim of being a new religion and connects with all previous scriptures and religions that preach submission to one God (by any name). It confirms part of what was revealed in the earlier scriptures, and omits what is no longer relevant, necessary or abrogated. It also contains portions that were not revealed before. This is so since the process was progressive revelations based on the times and the maturity of the people to receive guidance and continued until the people had reached a level of maturity to whom the “perfected and complete religion could be revealed”
Mankind owes an enormous gratitude to Allah for the distinctive abilities Allah has granted to the progeny of Adam, and guided them through the ages, and finally giving them the perfected and complete religion through Muhammad (pbuh). By honouring the Messenger, we honour Allah, and by showing gratitude to the Prophet, we show gratitude to Allah and if we disrespect or dishonour the Messenger ever so slightly, we disrespect and dishonour Allah. It is not possible to be a good Muslim while not respecting, honouring and loving the Prophet (pbuh).
(3:164) Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error.
Allah Demands Unquestioning Belief and Obedience to the Messenger
The Messenger is Allah’s partner in the revelatory process and indeed belief in Allah and His Book is not possible without belief in the Prophet.  Since the Prophet is acting on behalf of Allah, obedience to the Prophet becomes obedience to Allah and rejection of the Prophet is rejection of Allah. You cannot honour, help, obey, love Allah without honouring, helping, obeying and loving the Prophet
(49:15) Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah and His Messenger, and have never since doubted…
(4:80) He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. (3:132) And obey Allah and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy. (33:71) He that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest achievement. (24:51)  The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey": it is such as these that will attain felicity.(33:36) It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
(9:62)…. it is more fitting that they should please Allah and His Messenger, if they are Believers. (33:57) Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
(58:20) Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be among those most humiliated. (8:13) If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment. (9:80) ….Allah will not forgive them: because they have rejected Allah and His Messenger: and Allah guideth not those who are perversely rebellious.
How Do We Show Honour the Prophet (Pbuh) and Show Gratitude?
(33:56) Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.
We are asked to send blessings or durud on the Prophet. We must recite durud excessively and always whenever the Prophet’s name is mentioned. Without developing respect and love for the Prophet, we cannot have faith in Allah. The moment we lose respect and love for the Prophet, we lose our faith. We should therefore be extremely careful about what we think and say about the Prophet. As Muslims, we are commanded to put the best construction on anything that we hear and not entertain evil thoughts about anyone, least of all the Prophet.
Enemies of Islam
The enemies of Islam are forever trying to turn Muslims into apostates. The simplest way is to make them doubt their Prophet or make him look bad. They therefore look for stories that can make their Prophet look bad. The Quran says about people who calumniate chaste men and women and bring evil charges against them:
(24:11) Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves: think it not to be an evil to you; On the contrary it is good for you: to every man among them (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned, and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous.
(12) Why did not the believers - men and women - when ye heard of the affair,- put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This (charge) is an obvious lie"?
The charge they often bring against the Prophet is based on verse 33:37 which we shall discuss shortly.
“Relations” Based Only On Our Manner of Speaking Are Derecognized
(33:4) Allah has not made …. your wives whom ye divorce by Zihar your mothers: nor has He made your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way.(5) Call them by (the names of) their fathers: that is juster in the sight of Allah.
The tyranny of relationships based on merely our manner of calling, extended to divorce by Zihar which the Quran abolished. In addition, Pagan Arab society had the same taboos that Hindu Society has against marrying anyone whom one has at any time called mother/father, aunt/uncle or sister/brother although not related biologically.
We know now, that adopted children are susceptible to psychological trauma when they discover that their natural parents are different from their adopted parents. This is particularly likely during adolescence, as the child begins to explore his or her identity and question his or her place in the world. It is therefore better that they know all along their true and adopted identities and are made comfortable with it. The most compelling reason why adopted children should not change their name is they should not be ashamed of their past. This is the wisdom from psychology today which the Quran informs us 1400 years ago. Contrary to popular belief, the Quran does not abolish adoption, but only giving the adopted child your name. The adopted child continues to be the child of its natural parents and must continue to bear their name.
The True Story Of Zaid, the Prophet’s “Adopted” Son
Zaid was a slave gifted to Muhammad by his first wife Khadija (RA). He was fifteen years younger than Muhammad. Zainab was the Prophet’s cousin and a divorcee. The Prophet freed Zaid but he refused to leave Muhammad for his natural parents, declaring the Prophet to be his father. The Prophet sent Zaid’s marriage proposal for the hand of Zainab. Her parents first refused on account of the social stigma attached to a former “slave”. Zainab on hearing this, said that since the proposal had come from the Prophet, it cannot be refused and agreed to marry Zaid. The marriage however proved to be disastrous and Zaid wanted to divorce his wife. Allah had His plans and indicated to the Prophet to marry Zainab after she had been divorced by Zaid and after the due formalities of Iddat etc. as a duty to Allah (verse 33:38). The Prophet was uncomfortable for two reasons:
Zainab was his cousin and was known to him from her childhood. He never had any intention to marry Zainab which is why he had asked for her hand for Zaid rather than for himself.
The strong taboo against marrying the divorcee of one’s son applied in Arab Pagan society to the adopted son’s wife as well. He therefore feared the adverse reaction of the people if he married Zainab as commanded by Allah.
Since the command of Allah was to marry Zainab after Zaid divorce her, in order to avoid marrying her, the Prophet was trying to prevail upon Zaid not to divorce his wife saying, “Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." While doing so, what he was hiding in his heart, was that Allah was not averse to the divorce, and in fact had indicated to the Prophet to marry Zainab after the divorce as a duty to Allah. This is what Allah finally revealed or made manifest. The following verses should now be clear:
(33:37) Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah´s command must be fulfilled.
(38) There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty. It was the practice (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have passed away. And the command of Allah is a decree determined.
(39) (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages of Allah, and fear Him, and fear none but Allah. And enough is Allah to call (men) to account.
With this marriage, the taboo against marrying relations based on simply our “manner of speaking” but not by blood, was abolished.
The questions that are asked are, ‘why couldn’t this be done through a verse” rather than by making the Prophet do what was obnoxious in that society. The simple answer is that much of the teaching of the Quran is through “experiential learning”. The lesson is taught with an example or real-life event. There could not have been guidance on the conditions under which to migrate without a migration. There could not have been guidance on how to wage war and on how to behave in victory without fighting and winning a war. There could not have been guidance on treaties without treaties. 
The stronger the taboo, the greater was the requirement to make the Prophet do what was considered obnoxious to break the taboo. We know how tyrannical this taboo is when we see boys hiding to avoid being tied a Rakhi by an unrelated girl.
The question is similar to ‘why was Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) asked to sacrifice his son? Did not Allah know about his unquestioning loyalty to the commands of Allah?’ The social evil that Allah abolished through the “sacrifice” (that did not take place) is child sacrifice. This was by demonstrating that Allah does not require such sacrifice even from His prophets.
Another similar question is, ‘why was Jesus born to virgin Mary? What has God to do with procreation? Why could he not be born the normal way with a father.’ The simple answer is because God wanted to provide proof of Adam’s creation without parents with the ‘miraculous’ birth of Jesus.
Another example is the verse: (65:1)” O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods…….” Why is this verse addressed to the Prophet and not to “The Believers” like every other legislative verse? This is because the Prophet never divorced any of his wives and there was a danger that the people may have considered divorce a taboo just because the Prophet never divorced. This verse tells us that even if the Prophet had divorced, it wouldn’t have been inappropriate and there is no taboo on divorce just because the Prophet never divorced.
People also question the timing of the verse to insinuate that this verse was forged by the Prophet to escape the wrath of the people. When else would Allah announce the marriage except immediately after performing the marriage? Could this have been revealed before Zaid divorced Zainab? That would have been like a command to Zaid to divorce his wife. Could it have been revealed much later? That would have been meaningless. When this was entirely an affair of Allah and arranged by Him to legislate voiding a taboo, the timing was perfect. And why would Allah allow the Prophet to suffer the barbs of the people when he was entirely innocent?
Through these events and verses, Allah separates the believers from the hypocrites and the apostates. Do not therefore fall a prey to the tricks of Satan by paying heed to such canards about the Prophet. The Prophet (pbuh) is far above what these enemies of Islam say about him.
(3:179) Allah will not leave the believers in the state in which ye are now, until He separates what is evil from what is good ….
(6:10) Mocked were (many) messengers before thee; but their scoffers were hemmed in by the thing that they mocked.
(6:112) Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and Jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.
How Do The Pious Muslims Behave?
They show the utmost respect to the Prophet. The Prophet is not amongst us today and therefore, the equivalent of lowering the voice in the Prophet’s presence would be never saying anything about the Prophet, except what is honourable.
(49:3) Those that lower their voices in the presence of Allah´s Messenger,- their hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.
 (49:7) And know that among you is Allah´s Messenger: were he, in many matters, to follow your (wishes), ye would certainly fall into misfortune: But Allah has endeared the Faith to you, and has made it beautiful in your hearts, and He has made hateful to you Unbelief, wickedness, and rebellion: such indeed are those who walk in righteousness;-
Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

The Meaning of Islam and Muslim




By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
19 March 2019
The triliteral root word slm (sīn lām mīm س ل م) is common for the following Arabic words:
Salam - Nominal noun as a greeting meaning “peace” and as a noun meaning peace as in 4:90
 “… if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace (l-Salama) ....”
As a noun meaning submission as in  16:28
The ones whom the angels take in death [while] wronging themselves, and [who] then offer submission (l-salama), [saying], "We were not doing any evil." But, yes! Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what you used to do.
Taslīm – also means acceptance as in 33:22, peace as in 33:56 and submission as in 4:65
33:22  And when the believers saw the companies, they said, "This is what Allah and His Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth." And it increased them only in faith and acceptance (tasliman).
33:56: Indeed, Allah confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels [ask Him to do so]. O you who have believed, ask [Allah to confer] blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace (tasliman)
4:65 But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit (wayusallimū)  in [full, willing submission (taslīman).
Aslama – meaning submission as in 2:112 Yes [on the contrary], whoever submits (aslama) his face in Islam to Allah while being a doer of good will have his reward with his Lord. And no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.
Meaning acceptance as in 49:17 They consider it a favor to you that they have accepted Islam (aslamu). Say, "Do not consider your Islam a favor to me. Rather, Allah has conferred favor upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if you should be truthful."
Islam – Submission to Allah
Muslim – Those whose submit to Allah as in 43:69  [You] who believed in Our verses and were Muslims. Or 30:53 And you cannot guide the blind away from their error. You will only make hear those who believe in Our verses so they are Muslims [those who submit to Allah and follow the straight path shown by Allah].
Salīm –  meaning devout and humbly submitting as in  26:89  But only one who comes to Allah with a devout  heart (qalbe salim)."
The words acquire newer meanings with their usage. Initially “Aslama, Tasliman, Islam” may have only meant acceptance. Acceptance is however based on trust or faith and to indicate both trust/faith and acceptance is to acknowledge a relationship of peace and friendship rather than hostility.  Salam used as a greeting may have initially indicated only acceptance and trust and over a period acquired the meaning of “peace” since acceptance and trust leads to peace. Now, after centuries of peace and among friends and relatives, it is interpreted as a prayer of peace for the one greeted as our minds are no longer suspicious of the other.  Taslim is another word of greeting used in a similar fashion which also means acceptance, or submission or peace depending upon the context.
In the context of Allah the word that initially meant acceptance, becomes submission or surrender. We do not merely accept based on trust but submit or surrender based on complete faith to Allah.
Shalom is similar in meaning to Salam and is from the same trilateral root. So, why does the word Muslim and Islam not appear in their scriptures? It may have been lost in translation and only the greeting form appears to have survived. It however appears in the Aramaic Gospel of Mathew as ‘mašlmana’ from the root word slm, the same as Muslimun in Arabic and means « submitted to God, » « he who trusts in God, » « who commits himself to Him » to commit or hand oneself over (or again to submit) to God. While translating, it has been rendered in Greek by use of the verb paradidomi.
The common root word for a greeting such as Salam and submission to God such as Islam/Muslim is also found in other religions and cultures. For example, Namaste is a greeting while namaha from the same root word means submission to God. Namaste is combination of two words Namah (नम:) + Te (ते).
The meaning is ‘Salutations to you’, or ‘I bow down to you’ or ‘Obeisance to you’. The root of the word ‘Namaha’ is ‘Nam’ =Namati meaning to prostrate, ‘to salute’ etc. The word ‘Tae’ is the dative case form of the pronoun ‘Tvam’ meaning ‘you’.
नमस् - bow, obeisance, reverential salutation, adoration (by gesture or word;often with dative case exempli gratia, 'for example' rāmāya namaḥ ,salutation or glory to rāma
In every Mantra the prefix of Namah is generally added. Just for example Namah Sivaya. Now this Mantra is practically indicating the holy name of Lord Siva. Na means negation and Ma means false ego or Ahamkara. Therefore Namah means surrendering to the name Siva. In other words to accept the supremacy of Lord Siva means Namah Sivaya. 
Namaste is the Sanskrit equivalent of Salam
And Namaha is the Sanskrit equivalent of Islam or Muslim meaning (one who has)total surrender/submission to God negating self and ego.
Allah Has Named All His Devotees Muslim from Ancient Times
The following verse makes clear that Allah has named those who follow His religion “Muslim” both before and in the Quran.
(22:78) And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion (millata) of your father Abraham. It is He (Allah) Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!
There are many more verses from which it is clear that the word Muslim was used to mean one who submits to Allah in Islam.
The Magicians of Pharaoh Who Believed
(7:126) "But thou dost wreak thy vengeance on us simply because we believed in the Signs of our Lord when they reached us! Our Lord! pour out on us patience and constancy, and take our souls unto thee as Muslims (who bow to thy will)!
Devout Christians and Jews
(29:53) And when it is recited to them (Christians and Jews), they say: "We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord: indeed we have been Muslims (bowing to Allah´s Will) from before this.
Rabbi Allen S. Maller calls himself a Muslim Jew.
Prophet Joseph or Yusuf
(12:101) "O my Lord! Thou hast indeed bestowed on me some power, and taught me something of the interpretation of dreams and events,- O Thou Creator of the heavens and the earth! Thou art my Protector in this world and in the Hereafter. Take Thou my soul (at death) as one submitting to Thy will (as a Muslim), and unite me with the righteous."
Prophet Lut
(51:36) But We found not there any just (Muslim) persons except in one house:
Prophet Yaqub or Jacob
(133) Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy god and the god of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma´il and Isaac,- the one (True) Allah: To Him we bow as Muslim."
(134) That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case!
Jesus And His Followers Were Muslim
 (3:52) When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah´s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
(5:111) "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger: they said, ´We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims´".
(5:112) Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah, if ye have faith."
(3:80) Nor would he (Jesus Christ) instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have become Muslim?
Solomon and Queen Sheba were Muslim
(27:44) She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: "This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass." She said: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul: I do now submit in Islam (aslamtu)), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds."
The Prayer of Abraham
(2:128) "Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
(131) Behold! his Lord said to him: "Bow (thy will to Me):" (aslim)He said: "I bow (my will) (aslamtu) to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe."
(2:132) And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except as Muslims."
Significance of The Term Muslim
Judaism, Christianity and every other religion preaching submission to the One God are sects of Islam and the generic term for the followers of Islam is Muslim. A Muslim is one who believes in all the prophets as Messengers of Allah and believes in all the scriptures as the revelations from Allah. He is not a sectarian. Whether those who call themselves Muslim today are such non-sectarians or not is a different question. Those who appropriate the terms Islam and Muslim only to the followers of Muhammad are every bit as sectarian as the rest.
The Non-Sectarian Approach That Allah Commands Us
(2:135) They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."
(136) Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma´il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah as Muslims."
(22:34) To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your god is One God: submit then your wills to Him (in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,-
(3:19) The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.
(3:67) Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and a Muslim, and he joined not gods with Allah.
 (3:83) Do they seek for religion other than the religion of Allah?-while to Allah submit (aslama) all creatures in the heavens and on earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they all be brought back.
(84) Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma´il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah are we Muslims (submissive)."
(85) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
(2:208) O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy.
Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com