Monday, December 17, 2018

Kashmir Is Too Diverse, Too Multicultural A Land To Turn Into A Radical Islamist State



By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam
09 June 2018
On a two-day visit to the state to review the security situation amid an ongoing Ramzan ceasefire, Home Minister Rajnath Singh asserted that the Centre will change the "face and fate" of Jammu and Kashmir.
In this context, it is important to argue why Rajnath Singh's visit to the valley will turn out a crucial step towards breaking the political logjam in Jammu and Kashmir. Considerably, this visit has assumed significance in the wake of the extension of ceasefire announced earlier by home minister during the ongoing month of Ramazan. The two-day visit to the J&K state was reportedly focused on conditional ceasefire announced by the Home Minister on May 16 for the holy month of Ramazan.
It is interesting to note that Rajnath Singh recently asserted that the government hasn’t tied the hands of the security forces. “It wasn’t a ceasefire, but suspension of operation in view of Ramzan”, Singh said according to a report published by Times Now. He refused to call it a ceasefire and chose to describe it as ‘suspension of operations’. The technical term for this is NICO – Non-Initiation of Combat Operations. Thus, it was clearly stated that operations will be resumed if any militant attacks are launched in the valley.
Now, the holy month’s end is around the corner. For Kashmir, this Ramazan was relatively more of a month for reconciliation, non-violence and ceasefire—a move taken by the Centre in the beginning of Ramazan. Though the extension or no extension in the ceasefire would depend on inputs Rajnath Singh will gather from security and Intelligence agencies on the situation post-ceasefire, such positive chances are welcome in the valley to mitigate the mayhem and decrease the chaos insurgency causes. While the Ramazan ceasefire has brought great relief to the beleaguered people of Jammu and Kashmir, militants and insurgents continue to unleash mindless violence, desperately trying to sabotage the peace process.
Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has optimistically tweeted that the militants will, soon, realise the “futility of their actions”, welcoming the reiteration of the commitment to the ceasefire on the border by both DGMO’s. “This brings great relief to the people residing in the vicinity. Peace on our borders is the first essential step to a larger understanding and I truly hope it sustains…” she remarked.
Of course, Centre’s announcement of a unilateral ceasefire during the ongoing Ramzan has given the Kashmiris in general and youths in particular an atmosphere to move ahead. Therefore, most peace-loving youths in the valley are strongly pleading for an extension of the truce. Mehbooba Mufti has rightly pointed out that “these children want to live, they want to play, and they want to smile...like elsewhere in the country”.
This has put Rajnath Singh’s visit to the valley in a renewed focus amid speculations that the centre may extend the Ramazan Ceasefire. But this truce has also left many Kashmiri intellectuals entangled with questions like these: Is Aazad (freedom) of Kashmir a call for violence? Why has Kashmir never been allowed to settle down and take a breather from violence? Those who objectively analyze and review the ongoings in the valley are now highly critical of the insurgent ideology of violence.
M.H.A Sikander, a young Kashmiri writer-activist based in Srinagar, has penned a moving scholarly article in which he asks: Is Violence the Only Way Out? He writes in New Age Islam: “Since last one decade gun culture has gained new currency as a tool of resistance in Kashmir....The vicious cycle of death and violence needs to be broken and fractured."
The Srinagar-based writer-activist offers a historical account of how violence in the valley has been romanticised with the flawed notion of Islamic state. He further writes: "The romanticism and tryst for the Islamic state is not new. In 1990s, most pro-Pakistan militant organizations declared their aim as establishment of Islamic state, once the accession with Pakistan is complete…..The discourse in Kashmir for establishing an Islamic state became vibrant once again with the rise of Pan Islamist insurgent movements like ISIS and Al Qaeda. This discourse is being represented by Ansar Ghazawatul Hind organization headed by Zakir Moosa."
The rise of the Ansar Ghazwat ul Hind confused even many of the militants to ponder whether Kashmir is fighting a territorial war or a religious war? The whole of the Kashmiri insurgency is now divided on this. Common Kashmiris are left with two options:  support this maniac call for the self-styled 'Islamic state' or blame the forces for lying about the ceasefire call. We as a population are so confused about this struggle now that nobody knows who is running all this.
On the other hand, Pakistan is promoting leaders like SAS Geelani who loudly claims to achieve the goal of 'Azadi Baraa-e-Islam' (freedom for Islam). These religio-political leaders in Kashmir don't understand that Muslims since ages have lived and prospered with all communities and religions. But in the name of Islamic system of governance (Nizam-e-Mustafa), what Pakistan wants to achieve is extend its borders and influence on either side, be it creating Taliban or interfering in Kashmir. Inevitably, Pakistan's state-sponsored militants and propagandists of radical Islamic state on its borders are fuelling the fire of Islamophobia around the world.
Is this the Azadi that a section of Kashmiri Muslims seek to achieve through violence, guns and stones? Succumbing to the expansionist designs of a self-styled Islamic state that even today calls the migrants of 1947 as Muhajireen?
It is an utterly sorry state of affairs in the state where whosoever loudly claims to speak for Islam and has a gun or a stone in his hand is the ‘commander of the faithful’ (Ameer-ul-Mominin). The civil society needs to gear-up as the Kashmiri Muslims currently are completely unaware of what he is losing in all this ridiculously incomprehensive culture of gun and violence.
In the valley of today, reason has eroded a large section of the society and even emotions are biased towards something so abstract that even an emotional person would call this act as inhuman and anti-Kashmiriyat. The situation is that the loudmouthed, pseudo-religious and long-nurtured element of hate has grown deep into the gullible young minds.
Worst of all, the Pak-engineered hate and violence in the valley gives the Kashmiri society a tribal outlook showing that they are not fit to live democratically and deserve to be militarized to get civilized. This is not an allegation but a prediction that is getting proven to be true day after day. In the past thirty years, aspirations were never heard, roads were never paved.
But now that the long-cherished opportunity of peace and reconciliation in form of ceasefire has been opened up, something otherwise has to happen. It's about time the mainstream Kashmiri people focused on their lost heritage—Kashmiriyat—the greatest gift of Rishi-Sufi tradition in the mystics’ land. In fact, ultimately, Kashmir is too diverse, too multicultural a land to turn into a radical Islamist state. Thus, this visit of the Home Minister seems to go down well after a long and fierce political turmoil in the valley.
Regular columnist with New Age Islam, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a scholar of classical Arabic and Islamic studies, cultural analyst and researcher in Media and Communication Studies.

Churn In Indian Muslim Community Over Feud Between Ajmer And Bareilly: Dargah Custodians Sparring Over Claims Of ‘True Sufism”



By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam
10 November 2018
Shakeel Shamsi, the regional editor of the noted Urdu daily, Inquilab has written an interesting editorial titled “Maslaki Bughz-o-Inaad Ka Waseetar Hota Daira” (escalating scale of sectarianism). He laments that the sectarian conflicts among Muslims which were confined to Shias-Sunnis or later Deobandi-Barelwis are now escalating into the slugfests between Ajmer Dargah’s Sufis and the devout Barelwis.
The puritanical Barelvi ulema, who call themselves ‘Reformist Sufis’ have denounced the mystically-inclined custodians of the Ajmer Dargah calling them Badmazhab (heretics) and Gumrah (misguided) and Rawafiz (hardcore Shias). More bluntly, in the recently concluded annual Urs-e-Aala Hazrat in Bareilly, they have asked Sunni Muslims to boycott visitations of the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/bareilly-city-sunni-barelvi-ulma-announce-in-aala-hazrat-urs-muslims-do-not-go-to-ajmer-18612771.html
In sharp rebuttal, the custodians of the Sufi shrine also known as ‘Khuddam’ (those in service) have disassociated themselves with the ‘fatwa factories’ running in name of Sufism.   
In his press statement, Ajmer Sharif's Gaddinashin Khadim Syed Sarwar Chishti said, in a stern counter-attack, that Barelwiyat (the Barelwi creed) is not Sufism and that it is another offshoot of religious extremism. “Their job is just to pass Fatwas against one another”, Chishti said as reported in Amar Ujala on November 8. amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/bareilly/ajmer-sharif-khadim-syed-sarwar-chishti-big-statement-on-urs-e-razavi-forum-announcement
Chishti argues that Sufism is service to people who celebrate their faiths and maintain communal harmony. Khwaja Gharib Nawaz's humane compassion for and reconciliation with all (Sulh-e-Kul) is the glaring example. “But their (Barelwi Ulema’s) stances do not stand for the teachings of the Sufi saint”, he avers. 
In fact, on the occasion of the Urs-e-Ala Hazrat, Sayed Amin Mian, the chairperson of Khanakah-e-Barkatia in Marahra, accused the Ajmer Sufi custodians of making objectionable remarks against Aala Hazrat. Thus, he instructed his followers not to visit Ajmer Sharif. This statement made headlines in the local Urdu and Hindi newspapers, and the next day, the Barelwi ulema backed out and declined to accept that they had issued any instructions against visitation of the Ajmer Dargah.
This feud apart, what deserves attention and serious deliberation is the claims that the Barelwi movement in India has actually purged Sufism of its universal appeal and egalitarian values. No wonder that the Barelwi muftis have disparaged almost all contemporary Sufi-minded scholars for their pluralistic ethos and peaceful ideas.
For instance, Pakistani-origin Sufi scholar Dr. Tahir ul Qadri is seen as “Badmazhab” (follower of erroneous path) for his interfaith activism in Canada and other European countries where he frequently lectures. India’s chief Barelvi Muftis and Qazis including Allama Ziaul Mustafa (the chief Qazi of Barelwis in India) declared him an apostate during his lecture in a South African Muslim congregation. Consequently, the ulema of Barelwi faction in India and Pakistan issued several Fatwas of Takfeer (apostasy) against him on the grounds of his inter-religious dialogue endeavours like participating in Christmas celebrations and holding Sufi Music congregations (Mahfil-e-Sima’a).
Such retrogressive pronouncements or Fatwas from the Barelwi ulema were not on rise in India until they re-ideologised themselves in blasphemy laws emanating from Pakistan. Sultan Shahin, the founder-editor of this progressive forum, New Age Islam, rightly points it out:
“The fact remains that Mumtaz Quadri, the murderer of Governor Salman Taseer came from a non-Wahhabi Barelvi sect and was incited into his act and promised heaven in lieu of this murder by a Barelvi Mullah Hanif Qureshi. A shrine has now been built in the outskirts of Islamabad to worship him. Barelvis are considered Sufism-oriented and have been the main victims of Salafi-Wahhabi attacks on Sufi shrines. The half a million people who thronged the murderer Mumtaz Qadri’s funeral and the tens of thousands who are visiting his so-called shrine, however, are largely from Barelvi sect. They consider Governor Salman Taseer to be a blasphemer and his murderer an Aashiq-e-Rasool, i.e., someone who loves the Prophet (pbuh)…. The fact is Salman Taseer had merely called for the repeal of this black Blasphemy law.”
Mr. Shahin also asked a pertinent question in one of his earlier editorials at NewAgeIslam.com:
“Sectarian unity is certainly an admirable goal. The intention behind it, however, is also very important. Wahhabi, Deobandi and Barelvi sects, who call each other Kafir (infidel), are seeking to unite for some months now.  But towards what end?”
If this ‘unity’ of Ummah stands only for enforcement of discriminatory blasphemy laws in Muslim countries, it is indeed matter of grave concern. Isn’t it surprising enough that Khadim Razavi, Barelwi leader of the Tahrik-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) spoke in unison with the ‘father of Taliban’ Maulvi Sami-ul-Haque. The last sermon that he made to his followers before he was stabbed to death in Rawalpindi, called for a ‘painful death’ to Asia Bibi and all blasphemers. Along with Khadim Razavi, he also mobilized the protesters in Islamabad against Asia’s acquittal. He had intended to join them but he could not, as reported in New York Times.
(Source: nytimes.com/reuters/2018/11/02/world/asia/02reuters-pakistan-cleric-taliban.html)
At the same time in India, the Barelvi-controlled institutions mourned the landmark judgment of Pakistan’s Supreme Court acquitting an accused ‘blasphemer’.
Much earlier in 2011, the Mumbai-based Barelwi outfit Raza Academy strongly protested in support of Malik Mumtaz Qadri, the body-guard who assassinated Salman Taseer. It echoed in India the vociferous support of Barelwi youths’ organization in Pakistan “Shabab-e-Islami” which first protested against the imprisonment of Mumtaz Qadri. They loudly claimed to be “Ahle Sunnat”, another term that Barelvi followers choose to use in the subcontinent. In fact, the Barelwi clergy were first to disparage the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province for advocating reforms in Islam’s blasphemy laws. Now they are calling Imran Khan a ‘Shaitan’ for supporting the judgment of Asia Bibi’s acquittal.
Notably, Raza Academy had got issued a fatwa against AR Rahman for composing music, which is un-Islamic in their view, for Majid Majidi's biopic, Muhammad: The Messenger of God. Office bearers of Raza Academy publicly asked everyone associated with the film to recite the Kalima and profess Islam again. They purported to state that the entire film crew had turned apostate and hence was obliged to reiterate their faith in Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) again. Even a stern fatwa was issued by Mumbai’s Barelwi Qazi, Mufti Mahmood Akhtar Qadri, the then Imam at Haji Ali Dargah.
Contrary to that, the custodians at Ajmer Sharif Dargah as well as in various other Sufi shrines denounced this fatwa against AR Rahman Khan. They rather hailed the Indian legendry for composing music in ‘good faith’ and called him a ‘true believer’. Thereafter, Rahman wrote this statement: "I follow the middle path and am part traditionalist and part rationalist. I live in the Western and Eastern worlds and try to love all people for what they are, without judging them”.
More to the point, the Barelwi ulema abhor the cultural practices such as the first Islamic month’s commemoration of Muharram known as Tazia, women’s entry to shrines, celebration of Basant and Diwali which occur at a few Dargahs, Sufi music known as sim’a and Sufi whirling in imitation of the dervishes called Raqs. All this is at odds with the worldview of liberal and forward-looking Sufi custodians.
One of the world-renowned custodians (Gaddinashins) of Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Syed Salman Chishty who also runs Chishty Foundation based on the pluralistic principle of "Love towards all, Malice towards none" propounded by Khawaja Moinuddin Chishty (r.a). told this writer:
“As part of the larger humane cause through the platform of Chishty Foundation, we intend to promote the blessed Sufi teachings of Khawaja Gharib Nawaz, Sufi art of Calligraphy, Sufi Poetry, Sufi music and concepts of intertwined Spirituality and Music which is a deeper connection between the Higher state of awareness of the Divine presence through Sama and Qawwali–the Chishti Sufis’ food for the Soul. However, this concept is yet to have a full vision and realization for the essence of complete Sufi understanding and teachings.”
Chishty further says that it’s a universal message for the entire humanity that we love and respect Ashraf-ul-Makhluqat (the best of creations i.e. Human beings) regardless of their faith and creed. They are all equally the best creations of the One Almighty Creator, Allah (s.w.t)
Notably, the Chishty Foundation which asserts the blessed message of Khwaja Gharib Nawaz to serve the Humanity (Khidmat-e-Khalq) is all set to celebrate the 11th International Sufi Rang Festival 2018 as its eleventh edition towards realizing the blessed vision of the Chishti Sufi lineage. “In today’s troubled times, we believe that the message of the great Sufi saints is the not just a way of communication, but rather it is an essential soft power for the solution of the 21st century’s crises, a roadmap towards the Path of Love and Brotherhood among the whole Humanity”, Chishty concluded.
Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur'anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism

Protecting the Prophet’s Sanctity (Tahaffuz-e-Namus-e-Risalat) And Tackling Tehreek-i-Labbaik In Pakistan: A Critical Observation



By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam
06 November 2018
Most ulema in Pakistan and even in India extend the applicability of blasphemy laws to non-Muslims living in Muslim countries. Not to speak of the self-avowed clerics like Maulvi Khadim Razvi of the ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP) or the recently killed Maulvi Samiul Haque of 'Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan' (TTP), even the well-known Barelvi and Deobandi theologians,  Muftis (Islamic jurists) and more scandalously, even the so-called Sufi-Sunni clerics are unanimously agreed upon this. They aver that it is incumbent upon the Islamic government to execute all blasphemers, be they Muslim or non-Muslim. This actually emanates from their reference to this Hadith report as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari: "Slay whoever has desecrated the Prophet" (من سب نبيا فاقتلوه). (Al-Bukhari. 1997, vol. 9, 46)
Interestingly, Imam An-Nasa’i, another authoritative Hadith compiler like Imam Bukhari, has reportedly accused one of the narrators of this Hadith of lying.
In one of his surprising moves, Imran Khan who previously supported the discriminatory blasphemy laws has now welcomed the Pakistani apex court’s judgment which acquitted Asia Bibi—a Christian woman who spent 8 years on death row under Pakistan's blasphemy law. Thus, for the first time, Pakistan's Supreme Court has tried to challenge the gross misuse of the blasphemy law in the country. It has categorically stated:
“Blasphemy is a serious offence but the insult of the appellant's (Asia Bibi) religion and religious sensibilities by the complainant party and then mixing truth with falsehood in the name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad was also not short of being blasphemous”.
Thus, the apex court has lambasted the Islamist complainants who had insulted Asia's religious sentiments, which the court said was no less than blasphemy as Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is also a prophet in Islam. It sets an example of how to overturn the attempts by the extremists who use the blasphemy law as a tool to pursue their personal agendas, while claiming to protect the honour of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and at the same time, slurring other prophets of Islam.
Notably, Imran Khan who earlier backed the extremist outfit Taliban, calling its insurgency in Afghanistan as a legitimate jihad against occupying forces, has confronted another similar self-appointed vigilantes of radial Islamism—Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP). Soon after the apex court’s landmark verdict evoked huge protests and death threats from the ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP), Imran Khan denounced the extremist antics of the new, self-avowed “Ameer” of the far-right group, Khadim Hussain Razvi. In his address to the nation on November 1, Khan talked tough asking the ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP) protestors not to "confront the State" and refrain from vandalism. He said he had been "compelled" to communicate with the nation due to the reaction and the language used by a "small segment" in response to the Supreme Court verdict, as Dawn reports.
As a result, the extremist group called off the protests against Asia Bibi's acquittal with an apology for 'inconveniencing without reason'. According to media reports, on November 3 the TLP announced the end to the violent protests and aggressive sit-ins which brought the country to a standstill since 30 October. However, this announcement came after an agreement between the government and the TLP, according to which the government will not oppose the filing of a review petition in the Supreme Court against Asia Bibi’s acquittal. The govt also promised to immediately initiate a legal process to place Asia Bibi's name on the Exit Control List (ECL). Thus, the critics believe, the government of Pakistan has, as usual, succumbed to the pressure protests by the Islamist extremists in the country.
Clearly, Imran Khan does deserve credit for compelling the ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP) to end its violent protests and sit-ins. But at the same time, it raises an uncomfortable question as to how he is going to deal with the blasphemy laws in order to craft his Naya Pakistan.
While this was an opportunity for Imran Khan to turn the page and embrace a more inclusive vision for the religious minorities in Pakistan, it is more opportune time to revisit and reform the regressive blasphemy laws. It is time to candidly expose the insanity behind the laws that have taken life after life in Pakistan, with the likes of ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’s (TLP) radical Islamists having complete impunity. Let’s not forget that Mumtaz Qadri, the assassin of Governor Salman Taseer who was brutally killed because of calling Pakistan's Blasphemy laws black, belonged to the same faction which Imran Khan mistakably considers a "small segment". The death penalty sentenced to Qadri caused more turbulence in Pakistan that what we saw with horror in the wake of Asia Bibi's acquittal by the apex court. The consequent protests by the Islamist hardliners across the country were much lesser now than the turmoil which was created to ‘exonerate’ Qadri as Ghazi (man of religious valour) and Alahir Rahmah (the one who is dear to Allah). 
All this makes it patently clear that the public support for the enactment of medieval Islamic blasphemy laws in Pakistan is strong. Therefore, the religio-politicians of modern Pakistan like the notorious ‘Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan’ (TLP) leader Khadim Rizvi call for severe punishments to the supposed blasphemers with a view to shoring up their political support base.
But more deplorably, the laws have often been used to get revenge after personal disputes, and in most such cases, convictions do not stand to scrutiny. In fact, the public support for religious extremists in the country who enjoy complete impunity is deeply rooted. The killing of Salman Taseer was not an isolated incident in Pakistan. A former judge, Arif Iqbal Bhatti was also brutally assassinated because he did not sentence the accused to death in a fake case of blasphemy. Similarly, some radical Islamists in Pakistan, a few years ago, burned alive a mentally disabled man on the accusation of blasphemy. This insane cruelty was perpetrated despite the fact that even the Islamic Sharia does not implement the blasphemy law on anyone who lost his senses.
Not long ago, a Pashtun Muslim student Mashal Khan was mercilessly lynched in the premises of his university in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa over fake allegations of posting blasphemous content online. Scandalously, the 22 perpetrators of this lynching who were arrested by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police included six employees of the university. More shockingly, Mashal's friends stated to the police in writing that he was a devout Muslim but since he strongly protested against the mismanagement by the university, he was lynched. Also, the Inspector General Police later stated: "We did not find any concrete evidence under which a blasphemy investigation or legal action can be launched against Mashal”.
According to the Al-Arabiya report, in the last 28 years as many as 62 people have been murdered in Pakistan on blasphemy allegations, even before their trial could be conducted in accordance with the law. A report recently launched by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states, as many as 40 people are on death row or serving a life sentence in Pakistan for blasphemy.
In fact, the anti-blasphemy laws which were introduced in British colonial times to avoid religious clashes have been brazenly misused by both individuals and radical Islamists with serious repercussions. They turned more violent in the 1980s when the dictator Zia-ul-Haq introduced several reforms which led to the abuse of the law. Since then, over 1,000 people have been accused of blasphemy in Pakistan.
Since 1990, at least 65 people have reportedly been killed in Pakistan over the blasphemy allegations. Earlier, most of the accused were Muslims or the Ahmadis also known as Qadiyanis. But since the 1990s, the minority Christians, who make up just 1.6% of the population, have been systematically targeted by numerous attacks, as this BBC report tells us: bbc.com/news/world-asia-46080067.
For any Muslim-majority country to be civilised and fair to the religious minorities, one of the measures to be taken is to declare the blasphemy laws outlawed and abrogated. One of the essential social and political changes that must occur in Pakistan to usher in democracy is to oust the medieval Islamic blasphemy laws. It should learn from Ireland which, until recently, was deeply conservative, dominated by the Catholic Church, but the country has recently celebrated the end of a “medieval” blasphemy law.
The abrogation or reformation of the anti-blasphemy laws will be widely applauded by the progressive Muslims across the world who hail PM Imran Khan’s stance against the extremist elements disrupting law and order. Nevertheless, until the new government moves towards the procedural reforms, the grave threats of potential exploitation of blasphemy laws will loom large.
On the pretext of protecting the honour of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or what is called Tahaffuz-e-Namus-e-Risalat, the Islamic postulate has always been misused by the hardcore Islamists in Pakistan. But in reality, the holy Prophet, whose sanctity the extremists claim to defend never sentenced to death the Meccan pagans, who cursed, ridiculed and plotted to kill him. Even when the pagans desecrated the Prophet’s sanctity accusing him of ‘forging’ the Qur’an, he acted upon the divine instruction indicating that only Allah can decide the punishment for even as grievous sin as ‘fabricating’ and ‘concocting’ the Qur’an. Allah says:
“Do they say, 'he has fabricated it'? Say you, 'if I have fabricated it, you have no power for me against Allah. He knows best the (words) you utter about this (Qur’an) as mockery. And He is Sufficient as witness between me and you. And He is Forgiving, Merciful”. (Translation by Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi) 
At least, this clear and categorical verse from the Qur’an should make the Barelvi extremists in Pakistan reconsider its position on Asia Bibi. Equally important is to read the Pakistani Supreme Court’s judgment. Most of the Barelvis challenging the verdict seem to have wholly or conveniently ignored the apex court's verdict which starts with a declaration of faith, and involves the first 14 paragraphs clarifying that the Court, and its judges, hold the holy Prophet in the highest veneration. It actually starts with a couplet of Allama Iqbal from his famous “Jawaab-e-Shikwa” considering him the ‘Spiritual Father of Pakistan’, in which the veneration and adulation of Holy Prophet is reckoned as the foundational principle of Islam:
Ki Mohammed S.A.W. Se Wafa Tune, To Hum Tere Hain,
Yeh Jahan Kya Cheez Hai Loh-O-Qalam Tere Hain
(We are yours only with your loyalty towards Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Let alone this universe, even the Tablet and The Pen are yours.)
Thus, the judgment holds the Prophet’s prestige and dignity in the highest esteem compared to all creatures of by Allah and clearly demonstrates his lofty moral values as the highest exemplary role model bearing an overwhelming effect on the course of history. “His teachings have undoubtedly brought about the greatest effect in changing the minds, deeds and conducts of individuals and nations. His exceptional achievements have surpassed all predecessors in all respects”, it reads.
Thus, the court’s judgment authored by the Chief justice substantiates the point that the “unlimited and unparalleled love” with Allah’s Messenger is an integral part of a Muslim’s faith. In this connection, the judgment quotes following verses along with a few Hadith narrations:
“Say, [O Muhammad], “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people”. (Qur’an 9:24)
“By the star when it descends, Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed”. (53:1-4).
 “Say, [O Muhammad], “If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful”. (Qur’an 3:31)
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. (4:65).
It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. (Qur’an 33:36)
“Certainly, you have in Allah’s Messenger an excellent example (role-model) to follow, for whoever looks forward to Allah and the last day and remembers Allah abundantly.” (Qur’an 33:21)
And when you, [O Muhammad], do not bring them a sign, they say, "Why have you not contrived it?" Say, "I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord. This [Qur'an] is enlightenment from your Lord and guidance and mercy for a people who believe." (Qur’an 7:203).
And indeed, for you is a reward uninterrupted. And indeed, you are of a great moral character. (Qur’an 68:3-4)
And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds. (Qur’an 21:107)]
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, "We hear and disobey" and "Hear but be not heard" and "Ra'ina" (راعنا) twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], "We hear and obey" and "Wait for us [to understand]," it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. (Qur’an 4:46)
By quoting these verses from Qur’an, the Supreme Court’s verdict has unequivocally described the glorification and exaltation of Holy Prophet and has ordered Muslims to strictly observe maximum respect and be extremely careful in this regard, to the extent of using most appropriate words and even lowering their voices, as mentioned in the following verse from Surah Al-Hujurat:
“O ye who believe! raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet nor shout when speaking to him as you shout one to another, lest your deeds be rendered vain while you perceive not.” (Qur’an 4:46)]
As for the punishment for blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), it has been endorsed in the judgement which quotes the following verse from Surah Al-Ahzab in its premise:
 “Lo! Those who malign Allah and his Messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained”. (Qur’an 33:57)
The judgment also puts forward an explanation of this verse by Imam Qurtubi, the famous Mufassir (Qur’an exegete) from Cordoba of Maliki origin, who writes in his commentary of the Qur’an:
“Everything which becomes a means of malignity (Aza’a) of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) whether by quoting words bearing different meanings or similar actions comes under his malignity?”
 (Al Jaam’e li Ahkaam al-Qur’an, Vol.XIV, page 238)
The judgement also brings, along with other commentaries, exegesis of the same verse by Imam Ismail Haqqi, the 17th-century Turkish Sufi scholar and interpreter of the Qur’an. He writes in ḥ al-Bayān (the Spirit of Elucidation), an esoteric interpretation of the Qur’an:
“…..the malignity of Allah and his Prophet (pbuh) meant only the malignity of the Prophet in fact, and mention of Allah (SWT) is only for glorification and exaltation to disclose that the malignity of the Prophet (pbuh) (is indeed the malignity of Allah (SWT).”
But what surprised me is the fact that the apex court’s verdict did not make mention of Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Tahawi, the two most eminent Hanafi Imams who rejected the enactment of blasphemy laws on the Ahl Zimmah (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic countries), as clearly evidenced in Imam Nawawi’s classical work “al-Majmu’ Shrah al-Muhazzab”.
Significantly, the vast literature of Islamic jurisprudence does not mention blasphemy as consistent part of the Islamic penal code. But the Pakistani Supreme Court’s 57-page verdict offers several references to the Qur’anic verses and Hadith traditions in support of punishing the blasphemers. But at the same time, it gives crucial key observations, such as these:
·         "Islam may tolerate anything but it teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression, and violation of the rights of other human beings the Qur’an  speaks about, from the very beginning”.
·         "If our religion of Islam comes down heavily upon the commission of blasphemy, then Islam is also very tough against those who level false allegations of a crime".
·                      "It is a well-settled principle of Islamic law that one who makes an assertion has to prove it. Thus, the onus rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt throughout the trial."Thus, the bench noted that the prosecution was unable to successfully prove its case.
Notably, the apex court’s verdict has strongly rejected the lower court’s judgment in this case and rather critiqued it for failing to “give a fair judgment in the light of clear Qur’anic injunctions”. The verdict quotes Surah Al-Maida’s verse that requires believers to "persistently stand firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do”.
Similarly, this verdict makes another strong reference to the Qur’an:
"So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, acquainted" (Surah Al Nisa: verse 135).
Thus, the verdict argues that the personal vendettas should not be used to accuse anyone of blasphemy. In addition to citing the Qur’an, the judgement also referenced Shakespeare's King Lear, saying Asia was "more sinned against than sinning."
In conclusion, the Pakistani Supreme Court’s verdict on the Christian lady accused of blasphemy Asia Bibi, does consider the blasphemy as punishable and its law as immutable. However, it only says that “unless proven guilty, through a fair trial, as provided for in the Constitution and the law, every person is considered innocent, irrespective of their creed, caste and colour”. It again quotes a verse from Surah Al-Ma’aidah:
 “….. he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. ……”. (Qur’an 5:32)
------
Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur'anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

The Misconstrued Concept of Hijrat and the Position of Indian Ulema



By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam

 10 October 2018

No Indian Islamic cleric denies the significance of Hijrat (migration) in the early period of Islamic history. But to some clerics, Hijrat is mandatory (Wajib) even today for the Muslims living in the democratic countries. For liberal democracy is akin to Kufr in their view. Such toxic notions of the Hijrat are actually political tools which the extremist outfits use to further their political ends. Highlighting the Muslim marginalisation in countries like India, the extremist Islamist preachers indoctrinate the gullible Muslim youth mostly belonging to poor Muslim families who can be unconsciously trained to serve their political agendas.

Recently, I came across a written Friday sermon (Khutba-e-Juma') issued by the All India Imams Council on the occasion of the ongoing Islamic month of Muharram. This Islamic sermon seems to have been circulated to all mosques which come under this council across the country. Entitled as "Muharram and Hijrat", the Friday sermon begins with this verse from the Qura'n:

“Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him]”. (9:36)

Then, the sermon details the rewards for migration (Hijrat) for a just Islamic cause but at the same time, it has subtly tried to link the migration and martyrdom in the path of Allah. Thus, the sermon shows how some clerics convince the gullible Muslim youth that martyrdom in the path of Allah is same as migration or Hijrat in Islam and so the rewards that are promised for martyrs are also promised for them. But in reality, they are violating the essential message of the Quran that clearly says:

“And do not confound the truth with vanity, and do not conceal the truth wittingly.” (Al Baqarah: 42)

In fact, the main point of Hijrat in Islam in the early Prophetic era was the fact that Muslims were not allowed to profess and practice their Religion in Makkah. But the Constitution of India guarantees the enjoyment of full freedom to profess and practice any religion and propagate it. Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25-28 of the Constitution of India.

After the conquest of Makkah, in the 8th year after the Hijrah, most people in the Arabian Peninsula embraced Islam. It was around this time that Prophet (pbuh) said: “There is no more Hijrat (migration) after the conquest [of Makkah]”. (Sahih al-Bukhari: 2912). Today, this Hadith should be viewed as one of the Islamic exhortations of why Muslims in the democratic countries like India do not need Hijrat at all.

This Prophetic saying encouraged most Muslims, since then on, to stay where they were and worship the Almighty. Freedom to worship the Almighty and practice Islam was the main reason of Hijrat in the early period of Islam and when the necessity was met, migration was prohibited. It is for this reason that migration [Hijrat] from India to elsewhere is not legally binding for anyone, as India constitutionally ensures freedom to worship and practice Islam. The similar point can also be deduced in the explanation of the following verse of the Quran:

“And to Allah belongs the East and the West. So wherever you [might] turn, there is Allah’s Entity. Indeed, Allah is All-Encompassing and the All-Knowing.” (2:115)

In fact, the extremist theological justification for Hijrat emanates from the view that the non-Muslim majority countries like India are ‘Darul Kufr’ (land of disbelief), which is completely erroneous and untenable. Twisting the early Islamic terminologies which the medieval Ulema coined in the backdrop of political situations, the present-day extremists misperceive them and consider every country where the Islamic Shariah is not enforced as Darul Kufr or Darul Harb (land of war). Nearly all Islamist extremists believe that the people of these countries may be fought by an Islamic expedition (Ghazwa) in order to conquer their territories.
But this jihadist argument is rebutted by the theological classification of territories made by early Islamic jurists which was not intended to justify Hijrat against the non-Muslim lands. Rather, it served as a legal basis upon which certain jurisprudential (fiqhi) rulings were implemented on Muslims. 
The 6th century renowned Hanafi Islamic jurist Imam al-Kasani (r.a)—who authored one of the most authentic reference works on the Hanafi law “al-Bada’e al-Sana’e”—writes in this book which is taught as text book in most Indian Madrasas: “What is meant by designating the word “dar” (abode) with Islam and Kufr (disbelief) is not Islam and disbelief per se, but the state of security or insecurity. Moreover, the relative juristic rulings are not based on Islam itself or Kufr (in this case), but on the security or insecurity.”
This position is further reinforced by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah revered as an important Imam in the Sunni Islamic tradition. He clearly endorsed the above traditional Islamic position in this statement: “This is the opinion held by the majority of scholars [Ulema]. It is crystal clear that Muslims jurists made their opinions according to Fiqh al-Ma’alat (the Islamic law which takes into consideration the outcomes of actions).” [Ibn Qayyem Al-Jawziyyah, Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimmah 2/873].
Thus, the medieval Islamic terms--Dar ul-Islam, Dar ul-Kufr and Dar ul-Harb--are null and void today. They are abrogated by the new world order, constitution, international covenants, peace treaties and international relations. They might have been relevant during the third and fourth Islamic centuries, but not in the 21st century.
The origin of the term ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ is related to the situation when non-Muslim states on the border of Muslim-majority states interfered with the religious freedom of the Muslims, which gave them an excuse for migration (Hijrat) or intervention by the neighboring Muslim states to defend their rights or to support migration or rebellion by the Muslims. It was on these grounds that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other Indian Ulema had declared the British India Dar ul Harab, arguing that the British rulers interfered with the religious freedom and security. Therefore, they had also provided justification for Hijrat. 
But the post-independence India is neither Darul Kufr nor ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ as it provides a strong Constitution and by and large a peaceful environment for all its citizens to exercise their religious rights freely. 
Since the security and peace treaty are fully guaranteed in the Constitution of India, the rulings of Darul Islam or Darul Kufr are no longer of any theological application here. The authentic Islamic jurisprudential position is that if Muslims peacefully coexist with other people enjoying safety of life and security of the religious freedom anywhere in the world, any such territory cannot be termed as Darul Harb. Therefore, the independent India is declared as Darul Mua’ahda (abode of peace treaty) or Darul Sulah (abode of reconciliation) in the Islamic jurisprudential (Fiqhi) terms.
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, an established Islamic cleric who popularized the concept of Darul Mua’ahda for India, motivated Muslims towards the territorial nationalism rather than creating a nation based on religious considerations. In 1937, Maulana addressed a political meeting in Delhi and made this clear statement: “Today a nation is made on the basis of the country. If there are different religions in the country, the nation does not become different”.
Similarly, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, an erstwhile Indian Islamic scholar, premised that nations across the world including Arabs and Turks were struggling against the colonialism and thus he called for the Hindu-Muslim unity for an integrated and independent India. He collaborated with his contemporaries among the Hindu Bengali freedom fighters in upholding this nationalistic cause.
Maulana Azad referred to this non-violent cooperation against the British in conjunction with the Hindu co-nationalists as Jihad (struggle) in his Islamic epistemology, as Ayesha Jalal, an acclaimed Islamic historian, has candidly explained this in her paper titled, “Striking A Just Balance: Maulana Azad As A Theorist Of Trans-National Jihad”. Jalal traced the link between anti-colonial nationalist thought and a theory of jihad in early twentieth-century India. “It was in the context of the aggressive expansion of European power and the ensuing erosion of Muslim sovereignty that the classical doctrine of jihad was refashioned to legitimize modern anti-colonial struggles”, she writes. Focused on the thought and politics of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, as a major theoretician of Islamic law and ethics, this essay recalls him as a “secular nationalist” while at the same time as the most celebrated theorist of a “trans-national jihad”.
It was around this time that some Indian Islamic clerics issued a fatwa declaring the British India as Dar-ul-Harb (land of war) and thus calling Muslims for Hijrat to a country which could be seen as Dar-ul-Salam (land of peace). The call for Hijrat was also given by the Ali Brothers who initiated the Khialfat Conference on December 1919. This call was supported by several Muslim clerics. But the main idea was to get Afghan help to fight off the British in India. Consequently in August 1920, thousands of Muslim families migrated to Afghanistan.  Reportedly, the Afghan king had asked Indians (both Hindus and Muslim) to migrate to Afghanistan to free India from the colonial clutches of the British.
But even then, the well-established Indian Ulema did not declare Hijrat mandatory (Farz) or obligatory (Wajib). Neither the Ulema of Deoband nor the Barelwis categorically issued any fatwa for Hijrat. Nationalist Muslim leaders like Maulana Azad were more focused on heralding the Non-cooperation movement rather than the Hijrat calls. Here again, the idea was that there was no option left for Indian Muslims except to engage in an anti-British Jihad (struggle for freedom) or migrate to a safer place.
After 71 years of the independence, the doctrine of Hijrat is discussed among the many old graves which are being dug up now. One of the considered questions that the extremist elements often raise to draw out the Indian Muslim community is whether it is obligatory for Muslims to migrate from India, as it does not remain Darul Amn (land of peace) or Darul Mua’ahda and turns into Darul Harb again. Basically, their argument is that no longer does India guarantee religious freedom and security. What happens when most Muslims start feeling insecure on grounds of religion?, they ask.
Thus, the radical narrative of Hijrat is largely based on promoting the victimhood mentality. An aggressive social media campaign is underfoot to promote a mindset of victimhood among Muslim youths. This sometimes influences the gullible and immature minds of even the educated youth with little religious literacy.
These social media campaigns not only show the current regime of India as ‘unjust’ and ‘tyrant’ but also term it as system of manifest error (Fisq o Fujur), prevailing oppression (Zulm) and dominating disbelief (Kufr al-Ashad)—prerequisites for the legitimacy of the Hijrat in Islam. But an antidote to this victimhood narrative is completely missing from our discourses today. However, the theological consensus (Ijma’a) of the Indian Ulema is that Hijrat is not binding for Indian Muslims even if the situation is believed to be so. Their premise is that Hijrat is now abrogated in the Independent India by International Law and Constitution supported by the consensus of the majority of authoritative Islamic scholars.
Several years ago, a noted Muslim politician and thinker in India, Syed Shahabuddin had articulated it in his article for Mainstream Weekly. I reproduce some excerpts:
"The Indian state is governed by a Constitution which grants religious freedom not only to profess a religion but also practice and propagate it. There may be local or occasional interference here and there but the state is fully committed to religious freedom in every sense of the term. Such a state simply cannot be ‘Dar-ul-Harb’."
"Moreover, today international relationships are bound by international law. All states are bound by the UN Charter. Differences among states have to be resolved through prescribed procedure and not by force. Neither can any state act unilaterally. Therefore, no foreign state, which claims to be Muslim or defender of Islam, can intervene in the internal affairs of another state on the plea that religious freedom of Muslims is being curbed. You've the option to raise the matter within UN."
"Muslim Indians enjoy equal political and legal rights. They have the freedom to place their grievances before the legislature and the executive or take recourse to the judiciary. So far from being ‘Dar-ul-Harb’, India is a ‘Dar-ul-Aman’ (land of peace) and a ‘Dar-ul-Muwahida’ (land of compact)." 

 -------
  Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur'anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi


How Imran Khan Will Set Up Medina-Like Islamic Welfare State?



By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam
02 August 2018
Pakistan’s 19th prime minister-in-waiting and the chief of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan avers that he has envisioned an Islamic welfare state as was set up in the holy city of Medina by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Here’s his exact quote:
"My inspiration comes from the last Prophet who set up an ideal welfare state in Medina. I want Pakistan to become like that. A humanistic not an animalistic state," he said in a speech made from Bani Gala in Islamabad. “I want to share the kind of Pakistan I envision – the type of state that was established in Madina, where widows and the poor were taken care of,” he added.
Thus, in his 31-minute address to his nation, the cricketer-turned-politician has flaunted his ‘ambition’ to create an Islamic welfare state where his guiding principles will be the same as adopted by the holy Prophet in setting up one of the “greatest civilisations”. “I pledge to our people that I will introduce a system that is for the masses, all policies will be for the people and not for the elite,” he vowed. “I will live humbly. So far we have seen that everyone who comes to power changes. That will not happen with me,” he promised.
Even before the general election, the PTI's manifesto avowedly stated its 'mission' to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state in line with the humane and just principles that made the foundations of Misaq-e-Madina—a written charter of human rights in state of the Prophet (pbuh).
What is particularly interesting to note that Imran Khan referred to Misaq-e-Madina (or the Covenant of Madina) which particularly ensured protection of religious minorities in a Muslim-majority state. It is unclear whether he will deliver on his promise. But I would like to weigh in on what Imran Khan meant by governing as per the Madinite Islam and how the Indo-Pak Islamic scholars should view this. Notably, some of the prominent Muslim intellectuals in India have appeared quite optimistic about this. Professor Akhtar ul Wasey, President of Maulana Azad University of Jodhpur has written an op-ed piece in Roznama Rashtria Sahara welcoming Khan’s ambition to create an ‘Islamic welfare state’ as a well-intentioned gesture for peace and pluralism. Similarly, Dr Zafar ul Islam Khan, chairman of Delhi Minorities Commission was recently quoted in the Urdu daily Inquilab favouring the ‘peace overtures’ of Pakistan over ‘India’s reluctance in holding the talks’.
But given Pakistan’s self-styled Nizam-e-Mustafa (the Prophetic system of governance) which is already brazenly violated in the country, several questions emerge on this. Deplorably enough, Pakistan was created as an Islamic nation on the basis of “Nizam-e-Mustafa”, but its constitution and many of its civil laws seriously violate the minority rights. Let alone the religious minorities in the country, not even Muslim minorities are safe. Basic human rights as enshrined in the Prophet’s constitution are brazenly violated day in and day out. Hence, the fundamental question is: Can an Islamic welfare state really exist in Pakistan? And, if Khan considers the Madina state a standard system of governance for a Muslim-majority country, then how his ambition is going to be different from the notions of many other political Islamic parties operating in Pakistan, all vying to re-establish an ‘Islamic state’?
To discuss these questions, first, let us recount the key preambles of the Madina Covenant or Misaq-e-Madina to the extent that its essence is not lost in paraphrasing:
•         The concept of one nation (Ummat-e-Wahida): All those who lived in Medina— Muslims, Jews, Christians, polytheists, pagans, tribes, clans, rich, poor, masters, slaves and others—belonged to one nation. It also included immigrants from Mecca, residents of Medina, neighboring tribes, and those who fought with and for them.
 •         Prevention of abuse in loyalty: Poor or rich, master or slave, high ranking or layman, black or white, or others; all citizens are equal before the law. It ensured an inclusive cooperation among all citizens to reject any abuse or misuse of the laws. Citizens were considered under this clause of the constitution as a beautiful piece of mosaic.
 •         Joint Defense: Muslims and non-Muslims should defend each other according to this constitution, and the rules and regulations were made out of careful consultation from the citizens and their representatives.
 •         Accountability: Whoever breaches or breaks any article in this constitution will lose the privileges entitled by this constitution and will meet the consequences, and no one carries the burden of the other.
•         Pluralism: Recognizing and accepting the special religious, traditional and cultural aspects of each component in a multi-cultural and pluralistic society.
These are some of the clauses of the Madina Covenant that made Medina a sacred state in the Islamic history. Composed of 52 articles, this document particularly stressed peaceful coexistence of different religious communities. Notably, it was not meant for only for the state of war but also for peaceful times.
The concept of Ummat-e-Wahida (“one nation”) through the terms of the Madina constitution clearly shows that the Muslims and non-Muslims whether from Makkah or Madinah were one community. Thus, this Prophetic principle recognized the “nation” for the first time in the history as a one indivisible unit, moving from the individual or the tribal life to the life of the single nation. It is not characterized by any particular religion, racism or tribalism. It rather ended racism and discrimination on the basis of religion:
“The Jews shall be responsible for their expenses and the Believers for theirs… The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery… The Jews of Banu Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa’idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha’labah, Jafnah, and Banu al-Shutaybah enjoy the same rights and privileges as the Jews of Banu Aws…”
(Source: Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, no. 16808 and see the whole constitution in Ibn Katheer’s biography, part 2, page 321, and Ibn Hisham’s, part 1, page 501.)
Significantly, the theological justification for Muslims to live with non-Muslims in a pluralistic society and particularly, to embrace the world’s largest secular democracy—India—came from the Madina Covenant.
Barbara Daly Metcalf, an expert on the history of Islam in South Asia, wrote that Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (1879-1957)—renowned Indian Islamic scholar and one of the profounder of “composite nationalism” (Muttahida Qaumiyat) campaigned for democracy and national integration on the very basis of the Madina Charter. He contended: “Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the fourteenth year of his Prophethood, formed a united front between the Companions and the resident Jews of Medinah based on a written constitution that brought them together” (See Maulana’s book Islam and Composite Nationalism).
Now consider Imran Khan’s vision of the Islamic welfare state. He has averred that welfare states do exist in Europe today, but has produced no modalities to turn the war-torn Pakistan into an 'Islamic welfare state'. Khan has only buttressed that his guiding principles will be the same as adopted by the last Prophet in setting up one of the "greatest civilisations". Thus, he merely flogged off his story of inspiration emanating from the Misaq-e-Medina. “Though our society is totally opposed to it, we will run Pakistan on the same principles as the state of Medina”, Imran said as reported in Samaa TV.
But there are many implications in big statements like this. Some would argue that Meccan Islamic principles, as compared to the Madinite period of Islam, was more pluralistic, peaceful and inclusivist, though under compulsive circumstances. However, the Islamic state in Madina witnessed an aggressive phase including Ghazwas (Islamic battles), enactment of blasphemy laws, extradition of Jews and Christians, abrogation of the peaceful verses of Qur'an such as La Ikraha Fid-Deen (“No coercion in matters of Religion”). This is the view of almost all political Islamist parties in Pakistan. What’s to be seen now is whether Imran Khan goes by the true model of the Medina-like welfare state placed by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself or by the one that is taken hostage by extremist ideologues in Pakistan.
Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur'anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad’s Silence on Extremist Groups in Kashmir Is Disappointing


By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam
19 July 2018
 







High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein
------
A critical appraisal of the 49-page report on alleged human rights violations in Kashmir authored by the UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad
It appears that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is obsessed with its contentious report on the alleged human rights abuses in Jammu & Kashmir. In yet another dismissal of India’s criticism of the UN Kashmir report, the OHCHR says it is ‘deeply disappointed’ at India’s reaction to the first-ever UN report on Kashmir.
Over a month after the High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein released a report cataloguing alleged human rights violations in J&K, his office denies any collusion with Pakistani activists. It also criticizes the Indian media for clubbing a Canada-based Pakistani-origin imam Zafar Bangash’s claim that the High Commissioner Zaid Ra’ad had been in contact with him while the report was being prepared. “Nefarious conspiracy”, “Pakistan-authored report”, “fallacious”, “mala fide”—these are some of the accusations levelled by numerous Indian media outlets against the UN Human Rights Office for our publication last month of the first-ever UN human rights report on Kashmir”, the OHCHR writes in its press briefing note on Kashmir.
(ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23383&LangID=E)
Tellingly, India sharply rebutted the UN report on Kashmir as recently as July 9 in a debate at the Security Council, where Pakistan referred the matter. It lodged a formal complaint with the world body. After Pakistan raked up the issue at a UN session repeatedly in many weeks, India categorically stated that the report was "clearly biased" and not even fit to be considered by the members of the human rights body. India’s deputy permanent representative to UN disparaged the report as “reflecting the clear bias of an official who was acting without any mandate whatsoever and relied on unverified sources of information”. While the defence minister of India called the report as “baseless”, the External Affairs Ministry deemed it violative of India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Earlier, Indian army chief Bipin Rawat also issued similar remarks: "I don't think we need to speak on the United Nations report on Kashmir”.
However, India was not alone in its rejection of the OHCHR report. Six more nations rejected the report; two from Asia (Bhutan, Afghanistan), one from Africa (Mauritius), one from Eurasia (Belarus), and two from Latin America (Cuba, Venezuela). The report was discussed and dismissed by all these countries during the ‘General debate on the overall update of the High Commissioner on the situation of Human Rights worldwide and on the activities of his office’ at the Human Rights Council.
The reason why India and many other countries took the report with a pinch of salt is not difficult to see. A critical appraisal of the 49-page report prepared by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) unravels its fallibility based on 'unverified information'. Both the motif and timing of the report were rightly questioned.
That this ‘probe’ into alleged human rights violations in Kashmir was headed by the Jordanian diplomat and the outgoing chief of OHCHR Zeid Ra'ad is the major cause of concern. While Zeid acknowledged the “political dimensions” of the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, it is disappointing to note that he has been close to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which unreservedly supports Pakistani stance on Kashmir. Moreover, he was recently photographed with the Syed Faiz of Pakistani Hurriyat and some other leaders from Pakistan and POK. Such occurrences led to question as to where his findings were coming from. The OHCHR’s clarification that “individuals often ask to be photographed with the High Commissioner, and he often politely obliges” does not stand to scrutiny. Having acknowledged the “political dimensions” of the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, his one-sided personal ties and informal interactions are untenable. The UN High Commissioner’s mandate clearly states that he should conduct his work respecting “sovereignty, territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction of member states”. But what surprised the global observers of the Indo-Pak conflict on Kashmir is that Zeid was seen with Syed Faiz Naqshbandi, the convener of All Parties Hurriyat Conference, Islamabad.
No wonder then, Naqshbandi appreciated the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office in his latest oral statement submitted during the ongoing 38th session of the Human Rights Council. He said, “We are gravely concerned by the increasing pressure against human rights defenders in occupied Kashmir, for cooperating with the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights.” The full text of his statement can be accessed here:
(kmsnews.org/news/2018/07/04/naqshbandi-calls-for-protection-of-rights-defenders-in-iok/)
There are legitimate concerns about why Zeid is seen as an ‘ally’ in Islamic countries including Pakistan. He is arguably referred to as ‘blue-eyed friend’ and an ‘avid advocate’ for the cause of ‘Aazad Kashmir’ at UN.
On Mar 9, 2018, a Pakistani news channel Neo Tv Network published photos of Zeid R’ad al-Hussain meeting with Awais Ahmad Khan Leghari, a Pakistani politician and Special Envoy of the PM on Kashmir in his bid to highlight the Pak narrative of the Kashmir issue. Zeid thanked the Special Envoy for ‘briefing’ him on the human rights situation, as widely reported. Interestingly, the Pakistani TV channel concludes that the recent report which is first of its kind report released by the UN is an indirect outcome of the meeting between Zeid and Awais. It reports: “On the occasion of Burhan Wani’s killing, Awais Leghari visited Geneva to meet with Zeid al-Ra’ad in order to brief him about Burhan Wani and the Kashmir issue. Only two months after this meet, the UN has broken its 50-year-long silence on the Kashmir dispute, and the credit goes to Zeid al-Ra’ad al-Hussain.” (Source: youtube.com/watch?v=WmNMPrnOhRI)
This background of the OHRC report on Kashmir raises a pertinent question: Did Zeid look at Kashmir through the same prism as the OIC (Organisation for Islamic Cooperation) where Pakistan flogs off its story every year?
It is not just being a ‘blue-eyed friend’ of the OIC and Pakistan as well as a royal family member of Jordan that raises doubts about Zeid Ra’ad's suitability for being the OHCHR chief. Many other factors render him ‘unfit’ for this lofty position.
Jacob Mchangama, the director of a Copenhagen-based think tank focused on human rights and rule of law, details the reasons why Zeid is the wrong man for the job of a United Nations human rights advocate. In his piece for Foreign Policy on June 26, 2014, he questioned Zeid’s credentials to defend free speech in the sphere of religion, where this right is constantly under attack at both the national and international level.  “There are grounds for concern about how Ambassador Zeid will treat what is arguably the most consequential human right: the right to freedom of expression”, he wrote. (foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/26/the-scandal-of-ambassador-zeid/)
More to the point, Zeid is a former member of the Royal Jordanian Desert Force (also known as the Royal Jordan Bedouin Force) which is reportedly responsible for border patrol and enforcement of Jordan's frontiers with its desert neighbours. According to Amnesty International's 2017-2018 report on Jordan, over 50,000 Syrian refugees forcibly held in the desert at the Jordanian border by its border forces.
A particular question had to be asked in this regard: why did the UN high commissioner for human rights make it a ‘special report’ so selectively, while it does not cite any resolution of the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council or the Security Council as the mandate for it? Worse, Zeid’s report refers to LeT, JeM and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen as "armed groups" while they are all listed as terrorist organisations by the Security Council.
Rampant violations of human rights are being perpetrated in the Kashmir valley at the hands of extremist groups and separatist leaders who believe in Pakistan’s two-nation theory. But the UN high commissioner brazenly overlooked all this in his 49-page report. Those who do not believe in the radical Islamic concepts like ‘jihad-e-Kashmir’; global Islamic caliphate and Ghazwat-ul-Hind (Islamic battle against India) face fatal discrimination in Kashmir.  Any traditional Kashmiri Muslim who rejects Wahhabism is targeted by extremist groups. But the UN human rights report maintained deafening silence on this grave violation of human rights.
Anything sagacious that Zeid has authored in this report is a bunch of thoughts like this:
“The political dimensions of the dispute between India and Pakistan have long been centre-stage, but this is not a conflict frozen in time. It is a conflict that has robbed millions of their basic human rights, and continues to this day to inflict untold suffering”…… “This is why any resolution of the political situation in Kashmir must entail a commitment to end the cycles of violence and ensure accountability for past and current violations and abuses by all parties, and provide redress for victims”. (ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23198&LangID=E)
But even in these lines, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has egregiously violated his mandate by wholly ignoring the scale of violence being peddled by extremist outfits.
One of the major reasons why human rights in Kashmir are in melancholy is religious militancy. Faith-based insurgents have perpetrated grave human rights violations in a large section of the clergy-controlled Kashmiri populace, where secular educational institutions are not welcome.
Ansar Ghazwat ul Hindi, an avatar of Al-Qaeda ideology in the valley promotes medieval concepts and exclusivist online narratives to radicalize the Kashmiri youths. Dukhtaran-e-Millat, an all-woman group advocates ‘full-veiled jihad’ to establish ‘Islamic’ rule in Kashmir and has supported Kashmir's two-decade long insurgency, declared secular education akin to Haram (forbidden) much like the Boko Haram which translates into ‘western education is Haram’.
Recently, a school bus carrying children was attacked in militant-infested Shopian district of South Kashmir. Kashmir has potential to produce scores of Malalas, but the Kashmiri parents see an increased risk for their daughters, when schools in different areas of the state have experienced attacks from the militants.
Shujaat Bukhari, an acclaimed journalist, was the latest victim of such extremist designs. He began to speak for peace and reconciliation in Kashmir on international forums, thus he met the fatal death just as many other intellectuals have in the past. At this critical juncture, it is distressing to see human rights bodies like the UN human rights council undermine their own credibility by wholly ignoring the violent militancy in the valley.
Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur'anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.