Allama Syed Sulaiman Nadwi’s Vision of Indian Culture, Urdu Language and National Unity

By Dr. Zafar Darik Qasmi, New Age Islam 30 August 2025 Abstract: Allama Syed Sulaiman Nadwi (1884–1953) was a renowned historian, writer, and thinker who worked to uplift Indian Muslims during British rule. He strengthened Shibli Academy (Darul Musannifeen), making it a leading center of knowledge. Nadwi believed India’s unity lay in cultural diversity and a common language, not uniformity. He suggested calling Urdu “Hindustani” to free it from communal bias. Through Ma’arif magazine and numerous writings, he addressed intellectual, cultural, and social challenges. He actively engaged with institutions like AMU, Jamia Millia, and Nadwatul Ulama. His legacy emphasizes unity, tolerance, scholarship, and the harmonious blending of religious and modern education. Main Points: 1. Strengthened Shibli Academy, turning it into a scholarly powerhouse. 2. Advocated Hindustani language for unity, beyond communal identity. 3. Believed India’s strength lies in cultural and religious diversity. 4. Completed Seerat-un-Nabi and wrote significant historical, cultural works. 5. Edited Ma’arif, addressing Muslims’ intellectual and social needs. 6. Combined religious tradition with modern education and broad vision. ----- Allama Syed Sulaiman Nadwi (1884–1953) was born in the village of Desna, located sixteen miles from Patna and eight miles from Bihar Sharif. The period in which he was born was very difficult for Indians. After the failure of the 1857 revolt, Muslims in particular were surrounded by despair and hopelessness. Socially, politically, and economically, Indians—especially Muslims—were facing several hardships. The beloved homeland was under British rule. The British not only caused suffering and oppression, but their missionaries were also trying to turn Muslims away from their faith. At the same time, some Indians had sold their conscience and faith to work for the British, which created even more problems. In short, the atmosphere of India at that time was full of struggle and pain. However, to rescue Indians from this hopelessness and to build a bright future, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan laid the foundation of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, which later developed into a great institution. On the other hand, Darul Uloom Deoband had also started its work. These two institutions gave hope and courage to Muslims and tried to create a suitable environment. We can say that although their curricula and methods were different, both had the same purpose: to build the nation of India and to teach peace and unity. Both institutions aimed to produce such loyal servants of the nation who would not only serve their own community but also work for the well-being of all humanity. Today, these two institutions are still successful in their missions. Short Biography of Syed Sulaiman Nadwi: One of Nadwi’s most important works was the growth of Darul Musannifeen (Shibli Academy). The work of this institution had started between 1914–1918. In Hayat-e-Sulaiman, Shah Moinuddin Ahmad Nadwi writes: “Among the scholarly achievements of Syed Sahib, the greatest was the development of Darul Musannifeen. Though Shibli founded it, he passed away before completing its structure. Nadwi expanded it beyond what Shibli had imagined, and the institution grew into a great centre of knowledge. Its success was due to the sincerity of its workers and also the fact that it was founded at a time when the country had great need for such an institution.” Darul Musannifeen, since its beginning, has provided valuable scholarly services that continue to be recognized. Shibli was the founder, but it was Nadwi who gave it life and development, presenting it as an institution of depth and broad vision. That is why the works produced in Shibli Academy still hold importance today. Nadwi was an excellent biographer of the Prophet’s life and a distinguished writer and thinker. His writings on various issues are still considered a standard reference for scholars. His works were deeply research-based, yet at the same time, in his letters and essays, he wrote beautifully about national harmony and cultural diversity. His Views on Indian Culture: An extract from his article in Ma’arif magazine (December 1916) shows how much he cared about Indian culture: “The talk of India’s progress is meaningless until there is unity. India is a home of different races, religions, and languages. To turn them into one nation is only possible through unity. To unite them all into one race or one religion is practically impossible. But if India wants to become one united nation, then only a common language can achieve this.” (Hayat-e-Sulaiman, p.110) In this statement, Nadwi rejected all ideas that wanted to impose one color or one ideology on India. He believed that India’s beauty lies in its diversity. To disrespect religions or ignore the importance of regional languages is to damage India’s spiritual and moral values. Today, when there is debate about making India a “Hindu Rashtra” or enforcing a “Uniform Civil Code,” Nadwi’s words remind us that the very identity of India depends on its diversity. His Views on Urdu: Syed Nadwi also thought deeply about the future of the Urdu language. In Ma’arif (August 1935), he wrote that the real and correct name of this language should be Hindustani, because languages are normally named after nations or regions. He said the name “Urdu” was historically wrong, and because of it, the language was seen with bias. According to him, the language was originally called “Hindustani,” and this name would save it from being tied to one religion or community. He also expressed sorrow that no one was doing enough to promote Urdu. There were no organizations, no branches in provinces, no money spent for its growth—except in Hyderabad Deccan. Even in provinces where Urdu was not the mother tongue, nothing was being done. (Hayat-e-Sulaiman, p.348) This shows that Nadwi was not in favor of calling it “Urdu” but rather “Hindustani.” His thought is very meaningful even today, because Urdu has often been treated with neglect or linked with communal identity. He believed that calling it Hindustani would free it from prejudice and give it a national place. Today, the sad reality is that many people give speeches about Urdu’s decline, but very few actually work to promote it. Even those who earn their living in the name of Urdu rarely run daily newspapers or magazines in it. This shows that we must become serious and practical about promoting Urdu. His Literary and Social Services: Nadwi worked for the reform of society not only through speeches but also through his writings. His editorship of Ma’arif magazine was another major service. His editorials and notes fulfilled the intellectual and cultural needs of Indian Muslims. His works are diverse and numerous. They include the completion of Seerat-Un-Nabi, Arz-Ul-Qur’an, Arab-O-Hind Ke Ta’alluqaat (Relations between Arabs and India), and many more. The list of his writings is vast, and it is not possible to mention them all here. His Broad Role: Nadwi had experience of both religious and modern systems of education. He was connected with Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia, and served as a member of the AMU Court, addressing students directly. This shows his broad and inclusive mindset. He also managed Shibli Academy, edited Ma’arif, worked at Nadwatul Ulama in Lucknow, and joined many other academic and intellectual bodies. Wherever he worked, he served with sincerity and dedication. Along with these responsibilities, he continued his scholarly writing, which is a source of pride and inspiration for us all. Conclusion: Allama Syed Sulaiman Nadwi’s services were many and varied. He combined religious and modern knowledge, he valued harmony and coexistence, and he worked for both the nation and humanity. His writings are mirrors of unity, peace, and social harmony. Even today, his ideas remain important and relevant. His words remind us that in times of division and prejudice, the real need is for tolerance, mutual respect, and cultural unity. URl: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/allama-sulaiman-nadwi-indian-culture-urdu-unity/d/136657 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Refuting the Doubts Raised by ISIS and Its Supporters: Part-2

By Dr. Imad al-Din Khayti Translated from Arabic to English by Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam Refuting the Misconception that the “Islamic State” derives its legitimacy from the legacy of Jihad and its scholars Summary of the Refutation of the ‘State’ Organization (ISIS) This summary is drawn from a key refutation in the book شبهات تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية وأنصاره والرد عليها (The Doubts Raised by the Islamic State Organization and Its Supporters—and Responses to Them) by Dr. Imad al-Din Khayti, published by the Research Office of the Islamic Syrian Authority. The work thoroughly challenges the legitimacy and ideology of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS). Drawing from the consensus of scholars, and Islamic principles, the refutation highlights how ISIS falsely claims religious authority based on the legacy of jihad and early support from Salafi-jihadi figures, many of whom later renounced the group. ISIS’s refusal to follow recognized leadership, along with its extreme interpretations of Takfir (declaring others as disbelievers), sets it apart from mainstream Islamic movements. Its harsh and violent methods, lack of consultation, and attempts to impose leadership by force contradict both Islamic teachings and historical precedent. Moreover, leading scholars and religious bodies across the Muslim world have publicly rejected ISIS, calling it a misguided and illegitimate faction. The group’s version of jihad focuses more on gaining power than defending Muslim communities, often targeting other Muslims and distorting Islamic ethics. In Syria, ISIS falsely claimed to be the original force behind the jihad, while in reality, local revolutionary groups led the resistance independently. Ultimately, the overwhelming view among scholars is that ISIS has deviated from authentic Islamic creed and practice, and its claims to leadership and legitimacy are invalid and widely rejected. (Translator) ------ Refuting the Misconception that the “Islamic State” derives its legitimacy from the legacy of jihad and its scholars By Dr. Imad al-Din Khayti ISIS’s Misconception: The so-called "Islamic State" claims that its existence and legitimacy are rooted in the historical legacy of jihad within the Muslim Ummah. It asserts that its scholars are the very scholars of the Jihadi Salafi movement—those who once supported and endorsed the formation of this "State." Additionally, it argues that the group was among the first to raise the banner of jihad in Syria during its early association with Jabhat al-Nusra, and therefore, it considers itself most entitled to lead the jihad and carry its banner. Response to This Misconception: First, the "State" organization limits its claim of legitimacy to the endorsement of a select group of Jihadi Salafi leaders, disregarding the broader scholarly and Mujahideen consensus across the Muslim Ummah. However, even many of those very leaders have since disassociated themselves from the organization. They have publicly declared their opposition, withdrawn their recognition, and rejected the group once it deviated from their principles and broke away from their authority. Al-Zawahiri, in his statement “A Testimony to Spare the Blood of the Mujahideen in al-Sham,” mentioned aspects of the relationship between al-Qaeda and the “State” organization—the very relationship upon which the organization bases its claim to legitimacy. The details of that relationship had been concealed throughout the period of conflict with other Iraqi factions. He outlined it through the following points: 1. Al-Qaeda was neither consulted nor asked for permission prior to the announcement of the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq. 2. The "State" organization was not obedient to al-Qaeda or responsive to its directives: a. It did not seek permission from al-Qaeda to establish the “State” in Iraq, nor did it consult them before announcing its expansion into the Levant (Syria). Furthermore, it refused al-Qaeda’s repeated requests to return to Iraq. b. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was an unknown figure to al-Qaeda leadership; they had no prior knowledge of him. Al-Qaeda repeatedly requested the “State” organization to provide information about him in the past. c. The “State” organization disagreed with al-Qaeda on certain political and military matters, despite repeated communications on these issues. d. The “State” organization refused to establish independent courts during recent events in Syria, despite multiple requests from al-Qaeda to do so. This was also the stance of all the prominent figures of the [Jihadi] Salafi current, such as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatada al-Filistini, and others.[i] Moreover, the majority of the Jihadi Salafi movement and its affiliated groups did not agree with the organization’s recent policies and actions—beginning with the declaration of the caliphate, and the subsequent positions and decisions that followed. The same applies to the statements and positions the “State” organization attributes to bin Laden and others: Old disputes between al-Qaeda and the “State” had already surfaced publicly regarding several issues going back to the Iraq days, along with the letters exchanged over these matters. Al-Qaeda justified its previous silence about these disagreements as an effort to protect the cause of jihad and avoid giving the enemies an opportunity to exploit internal conflicts—as stated by Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, the former mufti of al-Qaeda. So not a single leader from the Jihadi Salafi current—whose history the “State” organization tries to invoke—remains in agreement with them on their recent positions. How then can the “State” organization use the endorsement of the Jihadi Salafi current as evidence for the correctness of its methodology only at certain times and not others? This clearly proves the falsehood of this claim and the invalidity of using it as evidence.[ii] In fact, the “State” organization has attacked and discredited the historical leaders of this current, labelling several of them with Irjā’ and misguidance.[iii] So how can they then claim to be their successors, or that those scholars testify in their favour?![iv] Second: The people of knowledge, fatwa (legal rulings), jihad, opinion, and consultation are not limited to any specific organization or affiliation. Rather, they come from the broader Muslim community and its majority over many decades. They are the ones through whom jihad, knowledge, and Dawah (Islamic call) have been carried out by their hands and efforts. The scholars and Mujahideen of the Ummah have rejected this organization (ISIS) and have ruled that it deviates from the religion. Many fatwas and statements have been issued by scholarly bodies consisting of scholars from various Islamic countries, rejecting the organization’s ideas and clarifying its creed. These fatwas are numerous, and below are some examples: 1. The fatwa issued by the Syrian Sharia Associations and Bodies states that the ongoing fighting between the Mujahideen brigades and the “State” organization is not a Fitna (civil strife), but rather a fight against a faction that is outside the fold of Islam and aggressive toward Muslims.[v] 2. Fatwa of the Islamic Sham Authority on exposing the external creed of the organization.[vi] 3. Statement by the major Mujahideen factions in Syria with their Sharia bodies (represented by the Islamic Front) regarding the claim of the caliphate, in which they decided that the “State” organization is an external group and that its caliphate is illegitimate.[vii] 4. Several Fatwas And Statements From The Syrian Islamic Council.[viii] 5. Statement by the Muslim Scholars Authority in Iraq, which rejected the declaration of the caliphate and considered it not in the interest of Muslims.[ix] 6. General positions of the Mujahideen factions in Iraq since the emergence of the “Islamic State of Iraq” organization, including recent publications such as the Army of the Mujahideen’s “The Islamic State Between Reality and Illusion” by its Emir Abu Abdullah al-Mansur.[x] 7. Statement by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which determined that the declaration of al-Baghdadi’s caliphate by the “State” organization in Iraq lacks any legitimate or realistic standards, and warned against opening the door to chaos in independent legal reasoning (Ijtihād), far from the qualified authorities of the Muslim Ummah—its scholars, jurists, and specialists. 8. Statement by the Association of Muslim Scholars in Sudan, which rejected the declaration of the caliphate and clarified that the organization is an external group. 9. The masses of scholars and learned individuals of the Ummah—Syrians and others—who rejected the organization’s ideas, actions, and declaration of the caliphate. Many described it as breaking away from the Muslim community. Due to their large numbers, it is difficult to list their names, and it is rare to find anyone among them who supports the organization. Third: The claim by the “State” organization that it was the one who initiated jihad in Syria is not true. The people of the country were the ones who began this blessed jihadist revolution—first through strikes, then through peaceful protests[xi]—and only turned to armed resistance when the regime’s response forced them to do so. Most of the jihadist groups present today had already emerged and begun their activities before the “State” organization or Jabhat al-Nusra even had a presence in Syria. In fact, the leaders of Jabhat al-Nusra—which initially included leaders and figures who would later become part of the “State” organization—stated that their reason for coming to Syria and founding their movement was to support the Syrian people and help them confront the regime. They also acknowledged that none of this would have happened without the Syrian revolution. Al-Jawlani said in his interview on Al Jazeera on December 19, 2013: “Circumstances in Iraq came one after another, and while our bodies were there, our hearts were attached to the land of al-Sham [Greater Syria], until the Syrian revolution began... Al-Sham would not have been ready for our entry were it not for the Syrian revolution... This revolution removed many of the obstacles and paved the way for us to enter and reach this blessed land.” (End of quote.) All jihadist groups in Syria owe their existence and initial spark to the Syrian revolution. It was the revolution that allowed them to emerge, join the fight, support it, embrace it, provide the right environment for its continuation, and enable them to operate. Fourth: What matters is not who first declared jihad or who initiated it earliest. Being first does not necessarily mean being right—in fact, it could reflect haste and recklessness. This has been evident in deviant movements such as the Kharijites, heretics, and esoteric sects, who declared “jihad” against the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the Umayyad State, and the Abbasid State. What truly matters for jihad to be valid is its alignment with Islamic law (Sharī‘ah) and its realization of genuine benefit. If the methodology of the group declaring jihad is correct, then its actions and jihad are valid and accepted, even if it appeared later. But if the group’s methodology is corrupt, then its actions and jihad are invalid and rejected, even if it came first. The Prophet (peace be upon him) once sent a caller during one of the military expeditions to announce to the people: “Whoever constricts a dwelling or blocks a road—he has no [valid] jihad.” (Narrated by Abu Dawud (4/268, Hadith No. 2629). So if this is the consequence for someone who merely constricts a dwelling or blocks a road for a Muslim, what then remains of the claim to jihad for those who kill Mujahideen and preachers, adopt the extremist beliefs of the Kharijites, and harm the cause of jihad, the country, and the people? Fifth: Even if we assume that the “State” organization was the first to declare jihad, this does not entitle it to take control of jihad and the state unilaterally, without consultation with the Muslims, nor to monopolize leadership, or to appoint over them someone they neither accept nor want—especially if that person is from outside the country. This has never been the way of the scholars of jihad and the leaders of the Mujahideen in any of the lands they entered—from Afghanistan, to Chechnya, Bosnia, and others. This is the true history of jihad; from which they claim to derive their legitimacy![xii] If it is said: These early Muslims came out of the Arabian Peninsula, conquered lands, and ruled them—and continued to do so until recently. Those conquering rulers were known individuals, with known circumstances. People accepted them as their leaders, and they operated under the authority of a single, established ruler, whose governance was stable and whose obedience was religiously mandated. That ruler had the legitimate right to appoint or remove leaders based on the best interest of the state. Moreover, those cities and regions were all part of one unified state, no matter how distant its territories were. So how do they compare to the unknown leaders of this organization—unidentified in person or character—who embrace deviant ideologies and beliefs, seize power through deceitful and criminal means, and impose themselves on the people without consultation or consent, only to be met with opposition and resistance as a result? This analogy is therefore invalid. – Moreover, consideration for the people of the land, its notables, and leaders in their public affairs, and those who govern them, has a basis in Islamic law, including the following: 1. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) intended to migrate to Medina, he did not migrate until a number of its people embraced Islam and pledged to protect him and be his supporters. 2. If the matter concerned the people of a particular land, he would consult them and no one else—such as when he consulted the Ansar rather than the Muhajirun regarding fighting the Quraysh in the Battle of Badr. 3. When sending teachers to instruct people in matters of their religion, he often sent someone from their own people, as this increased the likelihood of accepting the message. For example, he sent Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari as a judge to Yemen. 4. Likewise, judges were often appointed from among the locals. Moreover, the Muslims were not eager for ruling, control, or suppressing their Muslim opponents as is the case with the “State” organization, which has made establishing the emirate, allegiance, and founding the state its foremost goal. It prioritized this over defending against the invading occupier, and then it allied with and fought against the occupier to the extent that it declared Takfir (excommunication) on anyone who opposed it, as will be noted later. Rather, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would send to kings and rulers saying to them: “Submit (to Islam) and you will be safe, and I will grant you what your hands can reach.”[xiii] And people from tribes and peoples would come to him (peace be upon him) to learn the matters of religion, then return to their people to teach them and manage their affairs. How different are the two matters![xiv] In summary: The majority of the scholars and Mujahideen of the Ummah have ruled that the “State” organization is deviant and misguided, having strayed from the creed of the Ummah and its community. Therefore, the organization’s claim that it follows the methodology of the Mujahideen or their sheikhs is a false and rejected claim, even by those close to its methodology, such as the Jihadi Salafi current. ----- Endnotes: [1] See, for example, ‘al-Dawlah al-Islāmiyyah fī al- ‘Irāq wa al-Shām' wa al-mawqif al-wājib tijāhahā, lil-Maqdisī, (The Reality of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham and the Required Stance Toward It" by al-Maqdisi) wa Thiyāb al-Khalīfah, lil-Filasṭīnī, and "The Caliph’s Garments" by al-Filistini. [1] These very positions taken by the Jihadi Salafi current are what led the “State” organization to launch a coordinated religious media campaign against the current’s leadership, aiming to discredit them and strip them of their legitimacy in favour of the organization. This was done by accusing the current of deviating from the correct methodology, betraying the trust, and thus presenting the “State” organization as the sole heir and rightful guardian of the ideology of the Jihadi Salafi current. One example of this is what al-Adnani said in his final statement, “Say to Those Who Disbelieve: You Will Be Defeated,” addressing America: “We dragged you into two wars—in Khorasan and Iraq,” even though the “State” organization had no presence in Afghanistan and did not participate in its wars! [1] Issue 6 of Dabiq magazine, which is published in English, contained several articles that described al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, and Abu Qatada as being misguided. It also accused al-Qaeda and its leadership — including bin Laden — of irjā’ (a theological deviation involving delaying judgment on sinners. [1] Many analyses have focused on uncovering the true nature of the conflict between the so-called "Islamic State" organization (ISIS) and the broader Jihadi Salafi movement, with its various groups. This summary highlights the two main points of disagreement: (1) Organizational Conflict: The first and most prominent issue lies in ISIS’s refusal to submit to the leadership and directives of the broader Jihadi Salafi current. This refusal led to differing views on strategic priorities—particularly in Syria—and eventually escalated into disagreements over the structure and leadership of the organization itself. Unvetted and unknown individuals were introduced into ISIS’s ranks, especially those not accepted by al-Qaeda, leading to disobedience and the breakdown of discipline. This divergence eventually gave rise to harsh rulings of Takfir (declaring others to be disbelievers) and infighting. (2) Ideological Conflict: The second area of disagreement is ideological. ISIS developed a set of unique and controversial religious interpretations—especially regarding takfir and its expanded application, as well as in its approach to military operations, both in scale and method. It’s worth noting that signs of tension between ISIS and the broader movement existed as early as the days when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. However, these differences were deliberately concealed at the time in the name of “preserving the interests of jihad,” until they surfaced publicly and ultimately led to direct conflict between the two wings of the movement. Despite this divide, the foundational ideological and theological framework of the Jihadi Salafi movement as a whole remains grounded in the idea that armed struggle is the legitimate method for change in the Muslim world. This includes fighting against governments and regimes they label as “apostate,” “agents of the West,” or as having replaced the rule of Allah. Their reasoning is based on doctrines of Hakimiyyah (sovereignty belongs to God) and al-wala’ wal-bara’ (loyalty and disavowal), as interpreted by the movement. Notably, they limit their religious references to a narrow set of ideologues, excluding the broader body of Muslim scholars. A review of the writings of key ideologues—such as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada al-Filastini—reveals a high degree of alignment in core beliefs and doctrines. In fact, despite the prolonged dispute, al-Maqdisi once tweeted about his relationship with ISIS members, saying: “I am their sheikh who taught them Tawheed (monotheism).” It is important to recognize that the Jihadi Salafi current itself contains a range of tendencies—from more extreme to more moderate—yet its foundational principles are still built on the frameworks established by its ideologues. It’s also worth noting that many of the historical figures often associated with these movements—such as Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden, and Khattab—did not hold many of the ideas promoted by the current iteration of the Jihadi Salafi movement. For example: They did not endorse the blanket takfir of governments. In fact, they expelled individuals from their camps for expressing such views. Nor did they refer to foreign fighters joining them as “muhajirun” (emigrants), but rather called them “Ansar” (supporters), and they discouraged them from asserting control in the lands they entered. These and many other examples highlight the need to re-examine the historical evolution of these movements, the factors behind their transformation, and the individuals responsible for this shift. It also calls into question whether these movements truly represent the legacy of the figures they claim as their foundation—figures whose names they use to gain legitimacy. [1] See the fatwa: Hal al-qitāl al-qā’im bayna al-katā’ib al-mujāhidah wa tanẓīm (al-Dawlah) qitāl fitnah? “Is the fighting between the Mujahideen brigades and the ‘State’ organization a fitna?” http://islamicsham.org/fatawa/1549 [1] See the fatwa: Yunẓar fatwā: Hal tanẓīm (al-Dawlah al-Islāmiyyah) min al-Khawārij? (Is the “Islamic State” organization among the Kharijites?) http://islamicsham.org/fatawa/1945 [1] These include: Fatwa regarding the Islamic State organization in Iraq and al-Sham: http://sy-sic.com/?p=263. Statement by the Syrian Islamic Council regarding the war on terrorism: http://sy-sic.com/?p=182. Clarifying statement about the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham organization: http://sy-sic.com/?p=244 [1] These include: A fatwa concerning the Islamic State organization in Iraq and al-Sham: http://sy-sic.com/?p=263. A statement by the Syrian Islamic Council regarding the war on terrorism: http://sy-sic.com/?p=182. A clarifying statement about the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham organization: http://sy-sic.com/?p=244. [1] See Statement No. 1003, al-muta‘alliq bi-i‘lān tanẓīm al-Dawlah al-Islāmiyyah al-khilāfah fī al-‘Irāq wa Sūriyā (Regarding the declaration of the caliphate in Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State organization. http://www.iraq-amsi.net/ar/news_view_75741.html [1] Many statements, fatwas, and positions were issued by the military factions in Iraq and their various Sharia bodies to clarify the reality of the Islamic State of Iraq organization during the time of the war in Iraq. [1] Since the beginning of the blessed Syrian revolution, scholars and fatwa councils have actively accompanied it by issuing religious rulings related to the uprising. They were at the forefront of this effort, preceding any extremist groups. One notable example is the work of the Islamic Sham Organization, which issued some of the earliest fatwas, including: Is it permissible to give zakat in advance to aid the Syrian people? Should a person obey orders to kill protesters to save himself? Is someone killed by the Syrian regime considered a martyr? These rulings can be found at: http://islamicsham.org/fatawa. Later, when the revolution turned into an armed struggle, the Syrian Resistance Charter was issued, followed by an explanation titled Explanation of the Syrian Resistance Charter. These works focus on clarifying the rulings related to jihad in the Syrian context. You can view it here: http://islamicsham.org/versions/715. [1] Shaykh Abdullah Azzam said in his book “Bushā’ir al-Naṣr” (Glad Tidings of Victory), p. 14: “Do not forget that you are a guest of the Afghans, and that these people paved the way for you to fulfil the obligation of jihad. So the credit belongs to Allah first and last, and then to them. So preserve this favour they have granted you.” He—and many other leaders of jihad—rejected taking any official positions in the countries where they were engaged in jihad. They spoke extensively on this matter and issued strong warnings against doing so. [1] As mentioned in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) letter to Hawdhah ibn Ali al-Hanafi, the ruler of Yamamah. See: ‘Uyoon al-Athar fi Funoon al-Maghazi wal-Shama’il wal-Siyar by Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (Vol. 2, p. 338). [1] Abu Basir al-Tartousi said in his article “A Man Should Not Lead in Another’s Domain”: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “When someone visits a people, he should not lead them in prayer. Let one of them lead the prayer.” He also said: “A man should not lead another in his own home or in his domain, nor should he sit in a place of honour in someone’s home except with their permission.” The early scholars said: The host has more right to lead the prayer than the guest. Based on this principle, just as a guest should not lead the prayer in someone else’s home out of respect for the host’s rights, dignity, and feelings, and just as he is not allowed to sit on the host’s couch or special seat without permission, it follows even more strongly that he should not assume leadership in matters of governance, politics, or managing the affairs of a land without the host’s consent and approval. In fact, this analogy is even more applicable, more sensitive, and a clearer violation of the host’s rights, dignity, and authority. Any guest who fails to observe this etiquette and this profound Prophetic teaching will inevitably end up in conflict with the rightful host. And when that happens, he will have no one to blame but himself. Endnotes: [i] See, for example, ‘al-Dawlah al-Islāmiyyah fī al- ‘Irāq wa al-Shām' wa al-mawqif al-wājib tijāhahā, lil-Maqdisī, (The Reality of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham and the Required Stance Toward It" by al-Maqdisi) wa Thiyāb al-Khalīfah, lil-Filasṭīnī, and "The Caliph’s Garments" by al-Filistini. [ii] These very positions taken by the Jihadi Salafi current are what led the “State” organization to launch a coordinated religious media campaign against the current’s leadership, aiming to discredit them and strip them of their legitimacy in favour of the organization. This was done by accusing the current of deviating from the correct methodology, betraying the trust, and thus presenting the “State” organization as the sole heir and rightful guardian of the ideology of the Jihadi Salafi current. One example of this is what al-Adnani said in his final statement, “Say to Those Who Disbelieve: You Will Be Defeated,” addressing America: “We dragged you into two wars—in Khorasan and Iraq,” even though the “State” organization had no presence in Afghanistan and did not participate in its wars! [iii] Issue 6 of Dabiq magazine, which is published in English, contained several articles that described al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, and Abu Qatada as being misguided. It also accused al-Qaeda and its leadership — including bin Laden — of irjā’ (a theological deviation involving delaying judgment on sinners. [iv] Many analyses have focused on uncovering the true nature of the conflict between the so-called "Islamic State" organization (ISIS) and the broader Jihadi Salafi movement, with its various groups. This summary highlights the two main points of disagreement: (1) Organizational Conflict: The first and most prominent issue lies in ISIS’s refusal to submit to the leadership and directives of the broader Jihadi Salafi current. This refusal led to differing views on strategic priorities—particularly in Syria—and eventually escalated into disagreements over the structure and leadership of the organization itself. Unvetted and unknown individuals were introduced into ISIS’s ranks, especially those not accepted by al-Qaeda, leading to disobedience and the breakdown of discipline. This divergence eventually gave rise to harsh rulings of Takfir (declaring others to be disbelievers) and infighting. (2) Ideological Conflict: The second area of disagreement is ideological. ISIS developed a set of unique and controversial religious interpretations—especially regarding takfir and its expanded application, as well as in its approach to military operations, both in scale and method. It’s worth noting that signs of tension between ISIS and the broader movement existed as early as the days when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. However, these differences were deliberately concealed at the time in the name of “preserving the interests of jihad,” until they surfaced publicly and ultimately led to direct conflict between the two wings of the movement. Despite this divide, the foundational ideological and theological framework of the Jihadi Salafi movement as a whole remains grounded in the idea that armed struggle is the legitimate method for change in the Muslim world. This includes fighting against governments and regimes they label as “apostate,” “agents of the West,” or as having replaced the rule of Allah. Their reasoning is based on doctrines of Hakimiyyah (sovereignty belongs to God) and al-wala’ wal-bara’ (loyalty and disavowal), as interpreted by the movement. Notably, they limit their religious references to a narrow set of ideologues, excluding the broader body of Muslim scholars. A review of the writings of key ideologues—such as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada al-Filastini—reveals a high degree of alignment in core beliefs and doctrines. In fact, despite the prolonged dispute, al-Maqdisi once tweeted about his relationship with ISIS members, saying: “I am their sheikh who taught them Tawheed (monotheism).” It is important to recognize that the Jihadi Salafi current itself contains a range of tendencies—from more extreme to more moderate—yet its foundational principles are still built on the frameworks established by its ideologues. It’s also worth noting that many of the historical figures often associated with these movements—such as Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden, and Khattab—did not hold many of the ideas promoted by the current iteration of the Jihadi Salafi movement. For example: They did not endorse the blanket takfir of governments. In fact, they expelled individuals from their camps for expressing such views. Nor did they refer to foreign fighters joining them as “muhajirun” (emigrants), but rather called them “Ansar” (supporters), and they discouraged them from asserting control in the lands they entered. These and many other examples highlight the need to re-examine the historical evolution of these movements, the factors behind their transformation, and the individuals responsible for this shift. It also calls into question whether these movements truly represent the legacy of the figures they claim as their foundation—figures whose names they use to gain legitimacy. [v] See the fatwa: Hal al-qitāl al-qā’im bayna al-katā’ib al-mujāhidah wa tanẓīm (al-Dawlah) qitāl fitnah? “Is the fighting between the Mujahideen brigades and the ‘State’ organization a fitna?” http://islamicsham.org/fatawa/1549 [vi] See the fatwa: Yunẓar fatwā: Hal tanẓīm (al-Dawlah al-Islāmiyyah) min al-Khawārij? (Is the “Islamic State” organization among the Kharijites?) http://islamicsham.org/fatawa/1945 [vii] These include: Fatwa regarding the Islamic State organization in Iraq and al-Sham: http://sy-sic.com/?p=263. Statement by the Syrian Islamic Council regarding the war on terrorism: http://sy-sic.com/?p=182. Clarifying statement about the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham organization: http://sy-sic.com/?p=244 [viii] These include: A fatwa concerning the Islamic State organization in Iraq and al-Sham: http://sy-sic.com/?p=263. A statement by the Syrian Islamic Council regarding the war on terrorism: http://sy-sic.com/?p=182. A clarifying statement about the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham organization: http://sy-sic.com/?p=244. [ix] See Statement No. 1003, al-muta‘alliq bi-i‘lān tanẓīm al-Dawlah al-Islāmiyyah al-khilāfah fī al-‘Irāq wa Sūriyā (Regarding the declaration of the caliphate in Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State organization. http://www.iraq-amsi.net/ar/news_view_75741.html [x] Many statements, fatwas, and positions were issued by the military factions in Iraq and their various Sharia bodies to clarify the reality of the Islamic State of Iraq organization during the time of the war in Iraq. [xi] Since the beginning of the blessed Syrian revolution, scholars and fatwa councils have actively accompanied it by issuing religious rulings related to the uprising. They were at the forefront of this effort, preceding any extremist groups. One notable example is the work of the Islamic Sham Organization, which issued some of the earliest fatwas, including: Is it permissible to give zakat in advance to aid the Syrian people? Should a person obey orders to kill protesters to save himself? Is someone killed by the Syrian regime considered a martyr? These rulings can be found at: http://islamicsham.org/fatawa. Later, when the revolution turned into an armed struggle, the Syrian Resistance Charter was issued, followed by an explanation titled Explanation of the Syrian Resistance Charter. These works focus on clarifying the rulings related to jihad in the Syrian context. You can view it here: http://islamicsham.org/versions/715. [xii] Shaykh Abdullah Azzam said in his book “Bushā’ir al-Naṣr” (Glad Tidings of Victory), p. 14: “Do not forget that you are a guest of the Afghans, and that these people paved the way for you to fulfil the obligation of jihad. So the credit belongs to Allah first and last, and then to them. So preserve this favour they have granted you.” He—and many other leaders of jihad—rejected taking any official positions in the countries where they were engaged in jihad. They spoke extensively on this matter and issued strong warnings against doing so. [xiii] As mentioned in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) letter to Hawdhah ibn Ali al-Hanafi, the ruler of Yamamah. See: ‘Uyoon al-Athar fi Funoon al-Maghazi wal-Shama’il wal-Siyar by Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (Vol. 2, p. 338). [xiv] Abu Basir al-Tartousi said in his article “A Man Should Not Lead in Another’s Domain”: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “When someone visits a people, he should not lead them in prayer. Let one of them lead the prayer.” He also said: “A man should not lead another in his own home or in his domain, nor should he sit in a place of honour in someone’s home except with their permission.” The early scholars said: The host has more right to lead the prayer than the guest. Based on this principle, just as a guest should not lead the prayer in someone else’s home out of respect for the host’s rights, dignity, and feelings, and just as he is not allowed to sit on the host’s couch or special seat without permission, it follows even more strongly that he should not assume leadership in matters of governance, politics, or managing the affairs of a land without the host’s consent and approval. In fact, this analogy is even more applicable, more sensitive, and a clearer violation of the host’s rights, dignity, and authority. Any guest who fails to observe this etiquette and this profound Prophetic teaching will inevitably end up in conflict with the rightful host. And when that happens, he will have no one to blame but himself. ------ Dr. Imad al-Din Khayti is a researcher and expert in Islamic studies. He serves as the Deputy Head of the Fatwa Council at the Syrian Islamic Council, where he contributes to issuing fatwas on contemporary issues (as reported in Roaa Islamic Magazine, Arabic). He has authored several works, but is best known for his book “The Doubts Raised by the Islamic State Organization and Its Supporters—and Responses to Them”, which addresses topics related to ISIS's ideology and the doubts surrounding it, drawing on the insights of various scholars and theologians. URL for part 1: Introduction: Refuting ISIS and the Ideology of Terror in the Name of Islam: Part—1 URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-terrorism-jihad/refuting-doubts-isis-supporters-part-2/d/136651 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

A Liberatory Re-reading of Shirk as Ontological Violence

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 30 August 2025 In Islamic theology, shirk (associating partners with God) is considered the ultimate spiritual transgression. Traditional interpretations have often confined its meaning to ritual polytheism or literal idol worship. This paper offers a progressive and liberatory hermeneutic, arguing that the concept of shirk must be expanded to encompass acts of profound ontological violence. It posits that the heinous crimes of murdering an innocent, rape, paedophilia, and genocide are not merely grave sins but are, in their very essence, functional manifestations of shirk. These acts constitute a violent usurpation of divine prerogatives over life, dignity, and existence, effectively deifying the perpetrator's will, desire, or ideology. By analysing the Quranic principles of divine sovereignty (Rububiyyah), human dignity (Karamah), and the nature of tyranny (Taghut), this paper demonstrates that such transgressions represent a fundamental rebellion against the divine order. This re-reading transforms the concept of shirk from a marker of theological othering into a powerful ethical framework for confronting injustice and affirming a humanistic vision of social and spiritual liberation rooted in the principle of God's absolute Oneness (Tawhid). From Ritual Transgression to Ethical Rebellion The Quran’s central and most urgent call is to Tawhid, the unwavering affirmation of the Oneness of God. Its conceptual antithesis, shirk, is consequently presented as the greatest injustice (Ẓulm ‘Aẓim) (Quran 31:13) and the one sin God will not forgive if a person dies unrepentant (Quran 4:48). Historically, the discourse surrounding shirk has been dominated by its most visible forms: the veneration of carved idols, the worship of astronomical bodies, or adherence to a polytheistic creed. While these acts are undeniably forms of major shirk, a hermeneutic confined to such literalism fails to harness the concept’s profound ethical power and its relevance to the modern world’s most pressing moral crises. This paper seeks to move beyond a purely ritualistic definition of shirk to unearth its deeper ontological meaning. It argues that shirk is fundamentally an act of ontological rebellion—the ascription of a uniquely divine attribute or authority to any entity other than God. This entity can be a political ideology, a racial dogma, a system of economic exploitation, or, most insidiously, the tyrannical human ego (Nafs). In this liberatory framework, the most egregious crimes against humanity—the murder of an innocent person, the sexual violation of a human being, and the systematic extermination of a people—are re-contextualized. They are not simply violations on a graded list of prohibitions; they are potent, practical, and violent enactments of shirk. The perpetrator of such crimes, through their actions, functionally claims a partnership in divinity. They enthrone their own will as a rival sovereign, exercising a power over life, death, and dignity that belongs exclusively to the Divine. This is not merely breaking a rule; it is a direct challenge to the authority of the Ruler. This paper will argue that a progressive and humanistic reading of the Quran reveals that the ultimate test of faith is not just the correctness of one’s creed, but the submission of one’s actions to the principles of justice and compassion that flow from Tawhid. To see murder, rape, and genocide as shirk is to understand them not just as crimes against humanity, but as acts of cosmic rebellion against the very source of humanity’s sacredness. It is to transform the concept of shirk from a theological weapon into a shield for the vulnerable and a call for profound social and spiritual justice. Redefining Shirk: The Idolatry of Sovereignty and Self The foundation of a liberatory understanding of shirk lies in a deeper appreciation of its opposite, Tawhid. Islamic theology traditionally delineates Tawhid into three domains: The Oneness of God’s Lordship and Sovereignty (Tawhid al-Rububiyyah), the Oneness of His right to be worshipped (Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah), and the Oneness of His unique names and attributes (Tawhid al-Asma’ wa al-Ṣifat). A violation in any of these domains constitutes shirk. The pre-Islamic Arabs, as the Quran itself attests, largely accepted God’s Rububiyyah—they acknowledged a supreme Creator-God. The scholar Toshihiko Izutsu notes that their shirk was primarily in the domain of Uluhiyyah, where they directed worship to lesser deities as intercessors, believing this would bring them “nearer to Allah” (Izutsu, p.115). The Quranic revolution was to insist that if God’s Lordship is absolute, then worship must be equally absolute and exclusive. A progressive hermeneutic, however, must recognize that the Quran itself pushes the definition of shirk far beyond the worship of stone idols. It identifies subtler, yet more pervasive, forms of idolatry. The Quran critiques those who follow leaders who legislate in defiance of divine law, stating: “They have taken their scholars and their monks as lords besides God” (Quran 9:31). This verse is crucial, as it expands the concept of a "lord" (Rabb) from a deity in a temple to any human authority that demands an ultimate obedience which rightly belongs to God. Even more profoundly, the Quran identifies the human ego and its untamed desires as a potential idol. In a verse of stunning psychological insight, it asks: “Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire (Hawa)?” (Quran 45:23). Here, the object of worship is not an external statue but an internal force. The "god" is the unbridled will, the narcissistic impulse, the lust for power or pleasure that becomes the ultimate arbiter of one’s actions. This is the bedrock of our argument: when this internal idol of the self is unleashed in the world through acts of supreme violence, the perpetrator is committing the most tangible and horrific form of shirk. The modern scholar Sayyid Qutb’s concept of Hakimiyyah (sovereignty) provides a powerful, if controversial, tool for this analysis. Qutb argued that any system that claims the right to ultimate legislation for human life is setting itself up as a rival to God, a Taghut (a tyrannical idol) (Qutb, p.32). While often interpreted through a narrow political lens, the liberatory potential of this idea is immense. It is a radical theological critique of all forms of absolutism. This paper extends this critique from the political to the personal. The ultimate tyranny is not only a state that claims divinity, but the individual who, in a moment of violence, acts as a god over another human being. The murderer, the rapist, and the genocidaire are the ultimate practitioners of a self-proclaimed Hakimiyyah, a sovereignty of the ego that directly challenges the sovereignty of God. Their action is their declaration of partnership with the Divine, a shirk performed not with words, but with blood and terror. The Usurpation of the Sacred: Crimes as Ontological Violence To understand these crimes as shirk requires recognizing them as invasions of sacred domains exclusively governed by God. These are not merely moral transgressions but acts of ontological usurpation, where a human being violently seizes a divine prerogative. The Quran establishes God as the sole Giver of Life (Al-Muhyi) and Taker of Life (Al-Mumit). Life is not a biological accident but a sacred trust (Amanah), a breath of the divine spirit (Quran 15:29). Its sanctity is therefore absolute. The Quran’s declaration that “whoever kills a soul… it is as if he had slain mankind entirely” (Quran 5:32) is a profound statement about the nature of this transgression. From a liberatory and humanistic perspective, this verse means that in killing one person, the murderer has assaulted the very principle of divinely-granted life that undergirds all of humanity. They have shown a contempt for the sanctity of life that, in principle, makes every human being vulnerable. In the act of unlawful killing, the murderer functionally claims the divine attribute of Al-Mumit. They are not just breaking God’s law; they are playing God. Their will—fuelled by anger, hatred, or greed—is elevated to a position of ultimate authority, with the power to revoke a life that God Himself willed to exist. This is a direct contestation of divine sovereignty (Rububiyyah). The perpetrator’s judgment, “this person must die,” becomes a rival decree to God’s will, “this person shall live.” This act of supreme arrogance (Kibr) mirrors the primal rebellion of Iblis, who declared, “I am better than him” (Quran 7:12). The murderer’s action is a silent, violent echo of this cry: “My will is more important than their life.” This is the deification of the self, a practical and bloody form of shirk. Rape and Paedophilia: The Idolatry of Desire and the Desecration of Dignity Perhaps no act illustrates the concept of interpersonal Taghut more horrifically than sexual violence. The Quran bestows upon every human being an inherent and divinely-given honour, or Karamah (Quran 17:70). This Karamah is the theological foundation for human dignity, encompassing the sanctity of one’s body, will, and autonomy. Rape is the ultimate annihilation of this God-given honour. In this act, the perpetrator establishes a terrifying microcosm of idolatry: they become the Rab (lord, master) and they violently force the victim into a state of total subjugation, treating them as an object, a slave (‘abd) to their deified desire. This is the most violent manifestation of taking one’s desire as a god (Quran 45:23). The perpetrator’s lust becomes the ruling law, demanding and enforcing total submission through terror. The victim, who is meant to be a servant of God alone, is forced into a temporary, horrific servitude to the idol of the perpetrator’s ego. This is shirk in its most intimate and brutal form. As feminist Islamic scholar Amina Wadud argues, a Quranic ethic is predicated on the mutual respect and moral agency of all individuals. Rape is a theological crime because it “denies the human agency of another being, which is a direct violation of God’s intention for that being” (Wadud, Qur'an and Woman, 81). By denying the victim’s God-given agency and dignity, the perpetrator claims a right of ownership and dominion over another soul, a right that belongs only to God. Paedophilia deepens this ontological violence to a satanic degree. It targets the very innocence and vulnerability that God commands humanity to protect (e.g., Quran 93:9). It is an act of war against the divine attribute of Mercy (Rahmah). The abuser acts as a predatory anti-god, replacing divine guardianship with a self-serving, destructive dominion. They do not merely harm a child; they desecrate a symbol of divine trust and mock the cosmic order. This is not just a crime; it is an inversion of sacred reality, the worship of a depraved and tyrannical self, which is the functional definition of shirk. Genocide: The Apotheosis of Collective Idolatry Genocide is shirk writ large—the ultimate expression of collective self-deification. God declares in the Quran that He created humanity’s diversity as a divine sign (ayah) and a means for mutual recognition and enrichment: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another” (Quran 49:13). This verse is a cornerstone of a humanistic and ecumenical Islamic worldview. Diversity is not an accident to be tolerated, but a gift to be celebrated, a reflection of the infinite creativity of Al-Muṣawwir (The Fashioner). Genocide is a declaration of war against this divine will. It is a human attempt to "un-create" what God has created. The ideology that drives genocide—be it racial supremacy, virulent nationalism, or religious fanaticism—becomes the group’s Ilah (god). This false god demands total loyalty, redefines morality, and sanctions the erasure of the "other." The perpetrators collectively usurp God's role as the arbiter of existence for entire peoples. They are functionally saying to God: “Your creation of this group was a mistake. We will correct it.” The Quran provides the ultimate archetype for this horror in the figure of Pharaoh (Fir‘awn). His genocidal policy of slaughtering the Israelite male infants (Quran 28:4) was explicitly linked to his ultimate theological claim of shirk: he proclaimed to his people, “I am your Lord, the Most High” (Ana Rabbukum Al-A‘Lá) (Quran 79:24). This is the Quran’s clearest connection between the act of genocide and a claim to divinity. Genocide is the state policy of a collective that has deified itself, placing its own tribal identity on a throne that belongs only to God. This is collective shirk on a monstrous scale, the most arrogant and comprehensive challenge to the Lordship of all worlds. The Social and Political Fallout of Shirk: Towards a Theology of Liberation Framing these crimes as shirk is not a mere theological exercise; it has profound implications for a theology of liberation. It demonstrates that shirk is the root of all forms of oppression (Zulm) and corruption (Fasad). Resisting injustice, therefore, becomes a spiritual imperative, an act of affirming Tawhid. When a state or a ruler demands absolute obedience and claims the ultimate authority to define right and wrong, they are committing political shirk. Such a regime becomes a Taghut. As scholar Khaled Abou El-Fadl powerfully argues, the core of Islamic political ethics is the subversion of all human claims to absolute power, which is a form of idolatry (El-Fadl, p.278). A commitment to Tawhid is therefore a commitment to resisting political tyranny in all its forms. Similarly, economic systems that deify wealth and promote exploitation are a form of economic shirk. When the pursuit of capital becomes life’s ultimate purpose, wealth becomes a god. Practices like usury (Riba), hoarding, and the exploitation of the poor are condemned so fiercely in the Quran precisely because they represent a system where a human construct (money) is given a creative, self-generating power that mimics God’s role as the sole Provider (Ar-Razzaq). A commitment to Tawhid necessitates a struggle for economic justice, for a system where resources serve humanity rather than a humanity that serves resources. On a social level, shirk manifests as the idolatry of the group identity—the poison of ‘Aṣabiyyah (tribalism, nationalism, racism). When loyalty to one’s tribe or nation is placed above the divine command for universal justice, the tribe has become an idol. This form of shirk shatters the Quranic vision of a common humanity united under God (Quran 49:13) and replaces it with a world of competing, hostile tribal gods. A true commitment to Tawhid requires a radical rejection of these chauvinistic idols and an embrace of a common human brotherhood. To stand for justice, “even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives” (Quran 4:135), is a profound act of rejecting social shirk. In this light, Tawhid is not a passive creed but an active, liberatory project. It is a constant struggle against the Taghut in all its manifestations: the tyranny of the state, the exploitation of the market, the chauvinism of the tribe, and the violence of the individual ego. To fight for the oppressed, to defend the vulnerable, and to uphold justice is to engage in the highest form of worship: the practical affirmation of the Oneness of a just and compassionate God. A Humanistic Imperative for a Just World To re-read murder, rape, paedophilia, and genocide as profound manifestations of shirk is to reclaim the concept from the annals of abstract theology and place it at the heart of a living, liberatory ethics. This hermeneutical move insists that faith is judged not by the piety of one’s rituals alone, but by the justice of one’s actions. When an act so fundamentally contradicts the principle of Tawhid by usurping a divine right, it becomes a form of practical apostasy, a declaration of rebellion against the cosmic order. This understanding is profoundly humanistic. It grounds the inalienable rights and dignity of every human being in a divine source, making their violation not just an offense against a person, but an offense against God Himself. It provides a theological basis for the absolute sanctity of life, bodily autonomy, and the value of cultural diversity. It transforms the fight for human rights from a secular endeavour into a spiritual struggle. Furthermore, this framework is deeply liberatory. It identifies the root of all oppression—political, economic, social, and interpersonal—in the spiritual disease of shirk, the deification of the self and its constructs. It provides a powerful vocabulary for critiquing and resisting all forms of tyranny. The ultimate practice of Tawhid is not found in quiet contemplation alone, but in the active, courageous, and compassionate defence of those who suffer from the violence of others’ idolatry. The struggle to build a just, equitable, and peaceful world is, in its essence, the struggle to live out the deepest meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah—there is no god, no ultimate authority, no object of worship, and no source of absolute power, but the One, Merciful, and Just God. Bibliography El-Fadl, Khaled Abou. Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari'ah in the Modern Age. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Izutsu, Toshihiko. God and Man in the Koran: Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschauung. Tokyo: Keio University, 1964. Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. Chicago: Kazi Publications, 2007. The Qur’an. Translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/liberatory-shirk-ontological-violence/d/136650 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Science in Service to Humanity: A Quranic Perspective

By Dr. Basheer Ahmed, New Age Islam 30 August 2025 In an age of global crises and technological upheaval, the scientific mindset is a necessity. It empowers individuals to make decisions grounded in reason and evidence, rather than blind faith or rigid tradition. This mindset fosters a society that is not only informed and innovative, but resilient—capable of confronting complex challenges with wisdom, foresight, and moral clarity. History shows how the suppression of scientific thought leads to stagnation—a lesson epitomized by Europe’s Dark Ages (5th–15th centuries. In early Christian Europe, misinterpretations of scripture led to the condemnation of intellectual inquiry. Fundamentalists, fearing the liberating power of reason, burned libraries and silenced philosophers. The result was a 1,000-year intellectual freeze, until the Renaissance reignited the pursuit of learning. In stark contrast, the Quran charted a different course. It did not fear knowledge—it sanctified it. The very first revelation to Prophet Muhammad was not a command to believe, submit, or obey—but to read: “Read in the name of your Lord who created…” (Quran 96:1–5) Unlike the medieval Christian worldview, which saw science as a threat, Islam framed the natural world as a "book of signs" (Ayat) to be studied. With over 800 verses referencing natural phenomena—from embryology to astronomy, the Quran invited believers to observe, question, and discover. God grants human beings intelligence, reasoning, and moral responsibility (10:101, 2:164, 16:67, 45:5). The Quran liberates the mind, encouraging curiosity and the search for truth: “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding” (Quran 3:190). This essay explores how Islam’s early embrace of science fuelled a golden age, why Muslim societies later abandoned this legacy, and how the Quran’s ethical framework can guide modern scientific progress to serve humanity. The Golden Age of Islamic Science: A Legacy of Light When Muslims expanded into the Byzantine Empire, they encountered vast fields of knowledge—science, philosophy, mathematics—and embraced them with fervour. For nearly eight centuries (7th–15th centuries), Muslim scholars did not merely preserve ancient wisdom—they pioneered new frontiers. Great universities flourished in Baghdad, Cordoba, Cairo, Nishapur, and Samarkand, becoming beacons of intellectual excellence. The Abbasid Caliphate’s establishment of Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad marked a turning point in human history. Its translation bureau converted texts from Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, and other languages into Arabic, democratizing global knowledge. Scholars studied the works of Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman thinkers—while conducting original research that advanced science, medicine, and philosophy. Translated Works include: Ptolemy’s Almagest (astronomy),Aristotle’s Metaphysics (philosophy,)Sanskrit medical texts (e.g., Charaka Samhita).This project was not mere preservation, it was innovation. Muslim scholars critically tested Greek theories, correcting errors (e.g., rejecting Aristotle’s geocentric model) and pioneering new fields. Here Are Just A Few Of The Luminaries Who Shaped Civilization: Ibn al-Haytham (965–1040) Father of optics and the scientific method. Debunked Euclid’s "emission theory" of vision, proving light enters the eye. Laid groundwork for modern cameras and telescopes. Al-Khwarizmi (c. 780–850) – founder of algebra Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126–1198) – defender of reason and philosophy Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980–1037) Authored The Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia used in Europe for 600 years. Discovered contagious diseases and anesthesia. Al-Biruni (973–1048) Calculated Earth’s radius with 99% accuracy. Studied Hindu cosmology, promoting cross-cultural dialogue. Al-Zahrawi (936–1013) Invented 200+ surgical instruments (e.g., forceps, scalpels).Wrote Al-Tasrif, a surgical manual referenced for centuries. Al-Battani (850-929) Astronomer and mathematician Omar Khayyam (1048-1131) Geometric Algebra and Rubaiyat Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274) Astronomer and mathematician Ibn al-Nafis (1210-1288) Discoverer of pulmonary circulation Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) Father of sociology and historiography There achievements were not isolated—they reflected a systematic culture of inquiry endorsed by the Quran’s emphasis on ‘ilm (knowledge). These and countless other scholars made discoveries that laid the foundation for the European Renaissance and the modern scientific revolution. For centuries, the Islamic world was synonymous with intellectual dynamism, where faith and reason were not seen as enemies but as complementary paths to truth. The Decline Of Scientific Work In Muslim World From the 11th century onward, however, scientific progress in the Muslim world began to slow. Philosophers and scientists emphasize that natural laws govern the universe; theologians argue that this restricts Allah's omnipotence. The influential theologian Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) marginalized science by arguing that natural laws undermined God’s omnipotence. His famous analogy—"Fire burns cotton only by God’s will, not by nature"—discouraged empirical study. While Al-Ghazali’s intent was spiritual, his legacy inadvertently stifled curiosity. By the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks displaced the Abbasids, prioritizing military expansion over intellectual freedom. Their vizier, Nizam al-Mulk, feared educated elites would demand democratic reforms, leading to a catastrophic policy shift. The Seljuk vizier Nizam al-Mulk (d. 1092) shifted educational priorities away from philosophy and natural sciences toward purely religious studies in the Nizamiyyah institutions. Over the next few centuries, scientific laboratories and observatories were neglected or destroyed, and universities stopped teaching science. By the 15th century, scientific inquiry had largely disappeared from Muslim centres of learning. Universities replaced science with Dars-e-Nizamiyya (religious studies). Observatories like Maragha (founded by Nasir al-Din al-Tusi) were dismantled. Philosophers like Ibn Rushd (Averroes) were exiled for advocating reasons. Meanwhile, Europe’s Renaissance flourished using works of Muslim scholars in Arabic translated in European languages. The Muslim world, once a global leader in science and innovation, gradually fell behind. What Is Science—and Why Does It Matter? Science is more than a method—it is a mindset. It seeks to understand the universe through observation, experimentation, and reason. It is a tool for progress, inventing new technologies to ease human life and expand possibilities. Science has revolutionized medicine, travel, communication, and nearly every aspect of modern living. The Quran emphasizes both the vastness of divine knowledge and the limitations of human understanding. “If all the trees on earth were pens and the sea [were ink], the words of Allah would not be exhausted” (Quran 31:27). Human knowledge, compared to divine wisdom, is described as but “a little” (Quran 17:85). This humility before the infinite inspires relentless inquiry. Socrates echoed this sentiment: “I know that I know nothing.” The deeper one delves into knowledge, the more one realizes its boundless nature. Human inquiry relies on the five senses and their extensions—the telescope, microscope, and now particle accelerators. Yet ultimate reality includes al-Ghaib (the unseen), which only God knows: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him” (Quran 6:59). Science can reveal much, but not all. This recognition should inspire both humility and responsibility. Scientific Discoveries and Their Impact on Modern Life The last 200 years have witnessed more scientific progress than the previous two millennia combined. These discoveries have transformed human life in profound ways: • Electricity: Powers homes, industries, and transportation. It has turned night into day and enabled modern civilization. • Transportation: From bicycles to airplanes to space travel, science has shrunk the world and expanded human horizons. • Communication: The internet, smartphones, and satellite technology have revolutionized how we connect, learn, and share ideas. • Medicine: Vaccines eradicated smallpox and polio. Antibiotics like penicillin have saved millions. mRNA technology enabled rapid response to COVID-19. CRISPR allows precise gene editing, offering hope for genetic disorders. • Surgery: Organ transplants, robotic surgery, and advanced diagnostics have made once-fatal conditions treatable. • Assistive Technology: Hearing aids, eyeglasses, and prosthetics have vastly improved quality of life. • Education: Platforms like Khan Academy democratize learning. Mobile apps deliver agricultural and health advice to remote areas. • Disaster Preparedness: Early warning systems save lives during floods, earthquakes, and storms. • Renewable Energy: Solar panels and wind turbines offer sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, reducing pollution and combating climate change. These innovations have saved lives, alleviated suffering, and elevated human potential. Yet it is sobering to note none of these breakthroughs originated in the Muslim world. The civilization that once pioneered algebra, optics, and medicine now lags in scientific contribution. Ethics: The Soul of Science Perhaps the most urgent limitation of science today lies not in its capacity—but in its conscience. Technologies like CRISPR, artificial intelligence, and climate engineering offer immense power—but demand immense responsibility. Science has also been weaponized. Nuclear bombs killed hundreds of thousands. Industrialization has ravaged ecosystems. Despite medical advances, millions still lack access to basic healthcare or clean energy. The Quran addresses this ethical dilemma through the concept of Khilafah—humans as God's vice-regents on Earth (Quran 2:30). This role carries a sacred responsibility: to protect creation and ensure that innovation serves human flourishing, not oppression. Innovation should be guided by ethics, equity, and sustainability. As the Quran teaches, to act rightly (‘Amal Salihat) is itself a form of worship Reviving the Quranic Ethos of Inquiry Early Muslims saw no conflict between science and religion. They viewed scientific achievement as a religious duty aimed at improving human life. Today, however, Muslim-majority countries spend just 0.5% of GDP on research and development—compared to up to 10% in Global Northern states. Only 1% of the world’s scientists are Muslim. Renowned scholar Khaled Abou El-Fadl emphasized reason, critical thinking, and historical context in interpreting the Quran. He saw it as a guide for addressing contemporary challenges. Muslims must revive ijtihad—independent reasoning—and foster curiosity. Wealthy Gulf nations often import technology rather than develop it. According to UNDP, much of their oil revenue is invested abroad rather than in domestic innovation. Even highly trained Muslim scientists returning from elite Western institutions often find themselves stifled by lack of intellectual freedom. We must move beyond the false duality of Dunya and Akhirat. The Quran mentions both terms 115 times each, emphasizing balance. Rituals without impact on personal, familial, or societal life miss the essence of worship. The Quran calls believers to promote good and prevent harm (Quran 3:110). The Prophet (pbuh) said that the best of people is those who benefit others. Scientific education and industrial development can eradicate poverty. Zakat should be invested in education so that future generations no longer need it. Amal Salehat: Doing Good as Worship The Quran urges believers to engage in Amal Salehat—righteous deeds—and Fa’lu al-Khayr—acts of goodness. These are not limited to Muslims but intended for all humanity. Scientific discovery that enhances human well-being is a form of worship. Worship in Islam is not confined to rituals. It includes every sincere act aligned with divine guidance, seeking knowledge, helping others, earning a living ethically. “O mankind, you are those in need of Allah, while Allah is the Free of need…” (Quran 35:15) This verse must be understood in context. God does not need our worship; we need it to grow and fulfil our potential. Toward an Islamic Renaissance The Muslim world can no longer afford to rest on past glories. We must rekindle the spirit of inquiry that once made Islamic civilization a beacon of knowledge. This requires: Critical Thinking And Ijtihad – Encouraging questioning minds and fresh reasoning. Investment in research and education – Redirecting resources to build world-class institutions. Ethical Guidance – Ensuring science serves humanity and upholds justice. Integration Of Faith And Reason – Understanding that serving humanity through science is itself worship. Once the hallmark of Islamic civilization—can again become its guiding light. Conclusion: Science as Sacred Duty The choice lies before us: either remain passive consumers of knowledge, or reclaim our heritage as leaders in advancing science for the service of humanity. Science is not antithetical to religion—it is its extension. The Quranic worldview embraces knowledge as a divine gift and a human responsibility. “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” (Quran 13:11). By aligning scientific progress with ethical values and spiritual insight, we can build a future that honours both the mind and the soul. By reviving this vision, Muslims can once again contribute to a global future where knowledge is in service to humanity. ------ Dr. Basheer Ahmed is a former Professor of Psychiatry, President Emeritus of Institute of Medieval and Post- Medieval Studies (IMPMS), and Chairman Emeritus of the Muslim Community Centre for Human Services. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-science/science-service-humanity-quranic-perspective/d/136649 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Living With Lowly Humans

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 30 August 2025 August 28 was Raghupati Sahay 'Firaq' Gorakhpuri's 129th birth anniversary. The maverick genius wrote exquisite poetry in Urdu, though he taught English Literature at Allahabad University. While 'Firaq' is called a poet of feminine (also, masculine!) beauty (Shayar-E-Husnparast), he also wrote on much serious themes and subjects. Three of his famous couplets from his oeuvre of nearly 42 thousand couplets will bolster the point: Waqt-e-Peeri Doston Ki Be-Rukhi Kya Gila Bach Ke Chalte Hain Sabhi Girti Hui Deevaar Se (In old age friends forsake, why should one complain at all nobody treads in the shadow of a crumbling wall) This is the harsh(est) reality faced by many of us during the twilight years. Friends, relatives and the so-called near and dear ones avoid those who're at the fag-end of their lives. And this one, which's one of his rarest couplets: Jii Raha Hoon Main Kam-Zarfon Ke Saath Andesha Hai Kahin Unhin-Sa Na Ho Jaaoon (Living with lowly humans, I'm apprehensive of unwittingly following suit) Yes, very true. When one, perforce, lives with substandard and lowly humans, one tends to become like those inferior individuals. Negativity works very fast. Bad odour spreads faster than the fragrance. It's a human proclivity to be drawn to all things that are bad, lowly and undesirable. We often start using abusive language and pick the bad habits from those we hobnob with. Even if you're not hail-fellow-well-met with them, you start following the ways of those inferior people, riff-raff or rabble. Here, 'Firaq' is not disdainful of the hoi-polloi or the Great Unwashed. He's just stating the truth and truth is often disconcerting. Bharthari says, " Spend a day with thieves and by night, you too become like a thief / But spend twenty years with a saint, there's no certainty that you too become a saintly figure." It's said in Sanskrit, "Neti Vachan Tvarit Gatyam" (Negativity travels too fast). And this one: Zabt Keeje Toh Dil Hai Angara Aur Agar Roiye Toh Paani Hai (If bottled up, heart is a cinder / When you cry, it's water) 'Firaq' shows the paradoxes in just two lines, that too, so effectively and employing minimum words. Though 'Firaq' was undoubtedly a great poet, he was also haughtily supercilious and at times, even narcissistic: Ghalib O Meer Mus.Hafi Hum Bhi Firaq Kam Nahin (There were indeed poets like Ghalib, Meer and Mushafi / 'Firaq' also has a place in the pantheon of the greats). Many critics didn't like the naked self-praise in his following couplet : Aane Wali Naslein Tum Par Rashk Karengi, Hum-Asro Jab Ye Khayal Aayega Un Ko, Tumne 'Firaq' Ko Dekha Hai (Generations to come will be envious of you, for, you saw 'Firaq' in flesh and blood). Even the diehard admirers of Firaq's poetry find it to be too hubristic. 'Firaq' was dismissive of other poets and that alienated him from them. Alas, humility was one trait he failed to befriend. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/living-lowly-humans/d/136648 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Javed Akhtar's Atheism Is Based On Reason

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 29 August 2025 The West Bengal Urdu Academy's invitation to renowned poet, film writer, and lyricist Javed Akhtar for an upcoming event has been converted into a controversy by Islamist outfits. The Calcutta unit of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has strongly objected to the decision to invite Akhtar as chief guest, stating in a letter to the Academy that the invitation should be withdrawn as he had repeatedly "spoken against religion and God". It cited the example of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, and warned of protests. "Javed Akhtar is a person who speaks against religion and god. It is not right to invite such a person to any prestigious programme in the Urdu language," the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind said in the letter to the Urdu-promotion body. Why're Islamist outfits so apprehensive of Javed Akhtar? Javed is an avowed atheist and a sound rationalist. In fact, reason and atheism go hand in hand. If Islam, or for that matter any faith, is true and irreproachable, why should it be fearful of an atheist or a rationalist? So many Muslims across the globe follow him on the internet. Watch his videos and discussions on YouTube and read the viewers' comments. If he's condemned and abused by a large number of Muslims, many Muslims endorse his views on not just Islam and Allah but on all man-made faiths and their bogus gods. Why're we, esp. Muslims, so fearful of those who speak the truth? Javed Akhtar's emphasis has always been on Science and Reason because Science and Reason are the only reliable paths to truth and understanding. Blindly accepting dogmas or beliefs without scrutiny is antithetical to genuine understanding. Science, through its systematic methodology of observation, experimentation, and peer-review, strives to uncover the workings of the natural world, while reason encourages critical thinking and logical analysis. Both science and reason demand evidence to support claims, allowing for the continuous reassessment and progress of knowledge. When it comes to matters of faith or belief in the existence of a higher power or supernatural entities, relying solely on blind faith is an inadequate and unreliable approach. Instead, adopting a rational and critical mindset, basing beliefs on logical reasoning and empirical evidence, is deemed superior. Unfounded beliefs formed on blind faith can lead to dogmatism, close-mindedness, and a rejection of evidence-based knowledge. Moreover, science and reason have provided answers to many mysteries once attributed to gods. Throughout history, human understanding has evolved, and as our knowledge has expanded, many phenomena that were once considered supernatural have found rational explanations. Science, with its rigorous methodologies and evidence-based approach, has unravelled the complexities of the physical world, leaving little room for supernatural intervention. Through reason, critical thinking, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity has navigated a path towards enlightenment, relying less on faith-based beliefs and more on empirical evidence. Javed believes in the evolution and enlightenment of human minds. He believes that true freedom can only be attained through the liberation from religious indoctrination. Like Bhagat Singh, Javed has always averred that religious teachings, which often impose a set of beliefs and practices, can restrict individual liberties and inhibit critical thinking. By rejecting religious dogmas, one can break free from the shackles of conformity and explore the world with an open and unbiased mind. This liberation enables individuals to critically examine new ideas, embrace scientific knowledge, and develop a personal philosophy based on reason and evidence, ultimately attaining the true freedom to question, to explore, and to determine their own moral compass. Remember, the search for meaning and purpose in life can be found in human connection and compassion, not religion. Religion is not the sole path to finding significance in life. By emphasizing human connection and compassion, individuals can foster a sense of purpose and fulfilment in their lives. Rather than relying on any organized religion, this perspective encourages a focus on our shared human experiences and the impact we can have on each other's lives. Through empathy and connection, individuals may discover a profound sense of meaning and purpose that transcends any particular religious system. In these times, when more and more rational voices are emerging all over the world, trying to stop Javed Akhtar from speaking the uncomfortable truths about your god and religion is a futile attempt. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/javed-akhtar-atheism-reason/d/136644 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminis

Understanding the Scales of Deeds: Pathways to Reforming the Muslim Ummah

By Kaniz Fatma, New Age Islam 29 August 2025 In Islam, belief in the Hereafter holds a central place. It reminds us that this worldly life is temporary. Real life begins after death. On that day, every person will be held accountable for their actions. The Qur’an refers to the Day of Judgment with different names. It calls it Yawm al-Hisab (Day of Reckoning), Yawm al-Deen (Day of Religion), and Yawm al-Wazn (Day of Weighing). These names show how serious and important that day will be. In Surah Al-A’raf, verses 8 and 9, Allah speaks about the weighing of deeds. These verses make us reflect on how heavy or light our deeds really are. Allah says: “On that day, the weighing will be true. So, whoever’s scales are heavy, they are the successful ones. And whoever’s scales are light, they are the ones who have harmed themselves, because they used to wrong Our signs.” (Surah Al-A’raf, 7:8–9) These verses tell us that on the Day of Judgment, every deed will be weighed. Those whose good deeds are heavier will succeed. They will enter Paradise. Those whose scales are light due to bad deeds will be at a loss. They will be among those who are punished. These verses are not only a part of our belief but also a strong reminder for self-improvement. In today’s world, many Muslims are caught up in worldly matters. These verses call us back to what truly matters—success in the Hereafter. In this article, we will look at the meaning of these verses, how deeds might be weighed, and how Muslims can improve their lives. The goal is to shape our lives according to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Importance of Weighing Deeds in the Light of the Quran The Day of Judgment is the day when Allah’s justice will be fully established. On that day, no one will face injustice. Every person will be judged fairly, based on their actions. One of the most significant parts of that day is the weighing of deeds. The Quran refers to this concept in many places. For example, in Surah Al-Muminoon, Allah says: "So whoever's scales are heavy, they are the successful ones." (Quran, Surah Al-Muminoon, 102) This weighing is not just a physical act. It is much deeper. It reflects the moral and spiritual value of each deed. With Allah’s power, every action, no matter how small, will be measured accurately. The result of this weighing will decide whether a person deserves Paradise or Hell. According to scholars of the Quran, the phrase “weighing with truth” means complete and perfect justice. On that day, no social status, personal connections, or recommendations will help. The only thing that will count is the truth and sincerity of one’s deeds. Famous commentator Ibn Kathir explains that this weighing will be a miraculous process. Good deeds will appear as light and beauty. Bad deeds will show as darkness and burden. Allah will make their true impact visible in the scale of justice. These teachings serve as a serious reminder for all Muslims. They urge us to stay focused on gathering good deeds and turning away from sins. Sadly, in today’s world, many Muslims are becoming careless. People neglect their daily prayers. The importance of fasting is being forgotten. Even zakat, one of the key pillars of Islam, is often ignored or delayed. These verses of the Quran are meant to wake us up. They remind us that if our scales remain light due to laziness, sins, or heedlessness, the loss will not just be temporary, it will be eternal. Therefore, now is the time to reflect. We must realign our lives with the teachings of the Quran and strive to make our deeds heavy with sincerity, goodness, and obedience to Allah. Possible Forms of Weighing Deeds: Views of the Scholars Scholars have studied how deeds might be weighed on the Day of Judgment. They have described three possible forms. These ideas come from Tafseer Kabeer (Vol. 5, p. 202) and Tafseer Khazin (Vol. 2, p. 78). These forms help us understand the true nature of our deeds. They also make us think about how pure our actions really are. First form: Deeds may be like ’A’raad’, accidental or secondary things linked to human actions. Allah might create special bodies to represent these deeds and weigh those bodies. For example, prayer cleanses the soul. Allah may create a radiant body for this deed, which will be heavy on the scale. This teaches us that Muslims should do their deeds sincerely for Allah alone. It should not be for show. Today, many Muslims show off in their actions. This makes deeds lighter in weight. We need to correct this by focusing on pure intention. Second form: Good deeds may be transformed into beautiful and pleasing bodies. Bad deeds may turn into ugly and unpleasant bodies. These bodies will then be weighed. For example, charity may become a beautiful form that adds weight to the scale. On the other hand, gossip or lying may appear ugly and harmful, making the scale lighter. This form reminds us that the beauty of deeds depends on their intention and effect. For reform, Muslims should avoid bad traits like envy, hatred, and earning money unlawfully. Spreading hatred on social media is common now, which makes deeds ugly. We must repent and embrace good deeds. Third form: The scale might not weigh the deeds themselves but the records of deeds — the book in which angels write every action. If good deeds are many, the book will be heavy; otherwise, it will be light. This idea is supported by a hadith where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said a person’s book of deeds will be heavy because of saying “La ilaha illa Allah.” This gives hope to Muslims that even small good deeds carry great weight. But we must fill our record with good deeds, not sins. Today, many Muslims delay prayers, neglect fasting, and violate the rights of others. This makes their record light. These three forms show us that the weighing of deeds reflects Allah’s power. They call us to prepare for the Hereafter seriously. The scholars’ views make us think about how our deeds will appear on that day. Reforming Muslims: Ways to Make Deeds Heavy These Quranic verses do more than teach belief. They stress the need for reform among Muslims. Today, many Muslims are caught up in worldly desires. They chase wealth, fame, and pleasures. But the Quran reminds us that true success lies in having heavy scales on the Day of Judgment. So, how can we reform ourselves? First, Strengthen Your Faith Believe firmly in Allah’s verses and act upon them. Those who ignore or reject these signs will have light scales. Muslims should make reading and understanding the Quran a daily habit. Second, Focus On Performing The Obligatory Acts Prayer, fasting, zakat, and Hajj are the foundation of deeds. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Islam is built on five pillars.” Neglecting these makes the scale light. Sadly, many Muslims, especially the youth, are neglecting prayer. We must revive mosques and teach children about religion. Third, Adopt Voluntary Acts And Sunnah Deeds Small good deeds, like smiling, greeting others, and helping, also add weight. A hadith tells of a woman who entered Paradise because she gave water to a thirsty cat. Muslims should help with social issues like poverty, orphan care, and sickness. Fourth, Repent From Sins Bad deeds make the scale light. Nowadays, forbidden earnings, interest, gambling, and immorality are common. To reform, develop the habit of sincere repentance and choose halal means of earning. Fifth, Fulfil The Rights Of Others Respect and care for parents, neighbours, and relatives. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said the first things to be accounted for on Judgment Day are the rights of people. Justice and fairness among each other are crucial for reform. By following these steps, we can make our scales heavy. In today’s time, when Muslims seem weak, this reform will make them strong. The Muslim community needs unity. We must leave hatred behind and embrace love and togetherness. Conclusion: Preparing for the Hereafter and the Call to Success The different forms of weighing deeds on the Day of Judgment teach us that life is a test. Whether it is weighing bodies against accidents, beautiful and ugly forms, or the record of deeds, all show Allah’s power. But the main point is how we make our deeds heavy. Without the reform of Muslims, the progress of the community is not possible. Let us all repent, increase good deeds, and prepare for the Hereafter. May Allah grant us success and make our scales heavy. Ameen. Article in Urdu: The Forms of Weighing Deeds on the Day of Judgment: An Invitation Towards the Reformation of Muslims قیامت کے دن اعمال کے وزن کی صورتیں: مسلمین کی اصلاح کی طرف ایک دعوت ----- Kaniz Fatma is an Islamic scholar, and a regular columnist for New Age Islam. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/deeds-pathways-reforming-muslim-ummah/d/136642 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani Of Bihar Shaped Indian Muslim Intellectual Thought Through Works On Qur’an, Hadith, Fiqh And Interfaith Harmony

By Dr. Zafar Darik Qasmi, New Age Islam 29 August 2025 Abstract: Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani (1892–1956), a prominent scholar from Bihar, shaped Indian Muslim intellectual thought through works on Qur’an, Hadith, Fiqh, education, and interfaith harmony. He argued that nationhood is based on the mission of reform, not race, language, or territory. Gilani strongly opposed the division of knowledge into “religious” and “worldly,” advocating a unified curriculum based on beneficial sciences. His writings highlight tolerance, social unity, and shared values between Islam and Hinduism. By promoting interfaith dialogue, cultural understanding, and learning regional languages, he sought to bridge gaps between communities and education systems, fostering peace in India’s pluralistic society. Main Points: 1. Gilani emphasized Qur’an, Hadith, Fiqh, education, and social reform. 2. Nationhood arises from prophetic mission, not race, language, territory. 3. He rejected religious–worldly division, promoted unified beneficial sciences. 4. Advocated interfaith dialogue, tolerance, and shared Hindu–Islamic values. 5. Supported learning Sanskrit, Hebrew, regional languages for social harmony. 6. His vision fosters unity, peace, and inclusivity in pluralistic India. ----- Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani (1892–1956) was a renowned Islamic scholar from Bihar, India. He was born in Nalanda district, and his ancestor, Muhammad Ahsan, was a respected religious scholar. Maulana Gilani received his education at Darul Uloom Deoband. In 1920, he was appointed as a professor in the Department of Theology at Osmania University, Hyderabad. Later, he also served as the Dean and Head of this department. He has authored almost 25 to 30 books, both large and small. Some of his famous books include Tadwin Al Qur'an (Compilation of the Qur’an), Tadwin al-Hadith (Compilation of Hadith), Tadwin al-Fiqh (Compilation of Islamic Jurisprudence), Sawaneh Qasmi (Biography of Qasim Nanotvi), Hindustan Mein Musalmanon ka Nizam-e-Taleem wa Tarbiyat (Education and Training System of Muslims in India – 2 volumes), al-Din al-Qayyim, and Islam aur Hindu Dharm ki Baaz Mushtarik Qadrein (Some Common Values of Islam and Hinduism). This does not mean that his other works were less important; rather, all of them reflect deep scholarship and research. Scholarly Vision and Contributions: Maulana Gilani was among those great personalities of India who provided scholars, intellectuals, and thinkers with a balanced and moderate platform for reflection and research. His contributions were not limited to Qur’an, Hadith, and Fiqh alone; he also explored Islamic economics, history, biography, and the study of religions. In the context of modern India and its pluralistic society, his thoughts and writings become even more significant. His views are highly valued for social reform, the promotion of peace, reducing communal tension, and strengthening human relations and international harmony. India has always been a center of diverse religions and cultures, and Gilani’s writings carry great relevance for this pluralistic environment. His works reflect Indian civilization, culture, and shared values. For promoting national security, social peace, and tolerance, what is needed most is intellectual balance, freedom of thought, and openness of mind. Gilani possessed all these qualities, which makes his legacy important for the modern world. Concept of Nationhood and Interfaith Harmony: Maulana Gilani promoted ideas of interfaith dialogue, mutual understanding, peaceful coexistence, and social harmony. He believed in blending the best of both traditional and modern knowledge. In one of his writings, he explained the concept of community and nationhood from the Qur’anic perspective. Discussing the people of prophets such as Noah, Hud, and Lot (peace be upon them), he pointed out that although their beliefs and actions were different from their prophets, the Qur’an still referred to them as “the people of Noah,” “the people of Hud,” and so on. Based on this, he argued that nationhood is not dependent on race, language, or territory, but on the mission of reform to which prophets are sent. According to him, Muslims in India should also consider the entire population of India as their “nation,” since they live among them and are responsible for guiding them towards truth. He extended this principle globally, stating that Chinese Muslims belong to the Chinese nation, Turkish Muslims to the Turks, Egyptian Muslims to the Egyptians, and so forth, since their mission of reform and guidance is tied to those communities. This concept of nationhood is broad, balanced, and inclusive, and it has great relevance in the Indian context. Unity of Religious and Modern Knowledge: Alongside social and national harmony, Maulana Gilani also emphasized harmony between traditional religious knowledge and modern secular education. He strongly criticized the division of knowledge into “religious” and “worldly.” He wrote that society and governments value only those sciences that are disconnected from religion, which has resulted in two parallel systems of education: universities and colleges on one side, and madrasas on the other. The graduates of both systems remain unaware of each other’s perspectives. This division has created conflict and confusion in Muslim society. One group pushes people forward, while the other pulls them backward, leaving the masses in chaos. Gilani believed that separating knowledge into “religious” and “secular” has been harmful to humanity. Instead, knowledge should be classified into “beneficial” and “non-beneficial.” He also advocated for a unified curriculum to prevent intellectual disunity and to ensure progress. Even today, this division between modern education and religious education is visible in India, which creates hurdles in national progress and leads to social problems. Engagement with Indian Culture and Other Religions: Another unique aspect of Gilani’s work is his deep engagement with Indian civilization and other religions. He not only studied Hinduism but also wrote extensively on shared values between Islam and Hinduism. His books Islam aur Hindu Dharm ki Baaz Mushtarik Qadrein and Hazaar Baras Pehle reflect his efforts to promote interfaith understanding. He frequently studied Hindu scriptures, especially the Mahabharata. His works also reveal that he strongly supported the learning of languages like Sanskrit, Hebrew, and English. In Hindustan Mein Musalmanon ka Nizam-e-Taleem wa Tarbiyat, he mentioned historical examples of Muslim scholars who mastered Sanskrit and engaged in intellectual exchanges with Hindu scholars. Relevance for Modern Times: From all these examples, it becomes clear that today’s madrasas should also teach students Indian languages in addition to Arabic and Urdu, so that they can better connect with society. Currently, much of Islamic scholarship remains confined to Arabic, Urdu, and English, while very little is available in Hindi and regional languages. This gap creates mistrust and distance between madrasas and society, which weakens social unity in India’s pluralistic context. If we wish to promote harmony, peace, and national pride, then we must follow Gilani’s path of balance, inclusivity, and intellectual openness. His vision shows us how religious thought, social reform, and interfaith dialogue can together build a peaceful and united society. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/maulana-gilani-muslim-quran-hadith-fiqh-interfaith/d/136641 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism