Thursday, April 18, 2019

Who are the Momineen and the Muslimeen?




By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
10 April 2019
Allah’s religion was revealed step by step spread over an estimated 70000 years. Mankind is different from every other creation in its cognitive abilities which makes it capable of immense good as well as immense evil. Unlike every other creation that is governed primarily by instinct, man can free himself from even his instinct to make moral choices based on a learned moral code. The instinct of every creation is to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Man, while following a moral code, makes choices that avoid seeking pleasure such as consuming intoxicants or indulging in adulterous sex and disregard pain when sacrificing self-interest for the greater good of society. The purpose of a moral code is to restrain man from indulging in pleasure seeking activities that harm the society or self, and encourage making sacrifices for the good of society, while allowing seeking pleasure which is good for self and society and avoiding pain which is harmful to self without any benefit to the society. The moral code from religion enabled us to develop trust in strangers through shared values from religion and cooperate in large numbers without which we may not have survived as a species, let alone made such progress.
The moral code is counter intuitive as it goes against our instinct. The benefits from following it became known only after following it for thousands of years as a religious duty. To implement the moral code, required coercing people through a system of harsh punishments for contravention which is why many of the prophets were also rulers. The revelations from Allah from time to time, were appropriate for each period and limited by the stage of civilizational development. Initially, it was the bare law, and very few rules, then came the fuller law followed by teaching man to connect with God through prayers, followed by a fuller explanation of the law and the best way to follow it. This process came to an end with the revelation of the Quran which contains the perfected and complete religion.
(16:101) When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
By the time the Quran was revealed, the benefits to the individual and the society from following the moral principles from religion were understood, and mankind became grateful to God for the guidance and followed it out of reverence for and love of God. Coercion was no longer necessary and therefore Allah decreed in the Quran:
(2:256) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.(257) Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

It is now no longer necessary to blindly follow the religion of Allah or to be coerced into following it. It is now possible to wilfully and deliberately choose to follow it based on firm conviction in its truth from the clear evidence of the progress mankind has made step by step, by following the progressive revelations from Allah. A person who chooses to do so, is a Momin.
The Momin
Before the Quran was revealed, belief was blind and coerced to a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the stage of civilizational development. The meaning of Momin then was one who believes and has faith in Allah and His religion.
After the revelation of the Quran, compulsion and blind belief is no longer necessary as “Truth is made to stand out clear from Error”. Momin therefore now means a person who has conviction in the truth of Allah, His religion, His Messengers, His angels, His Books, and the Day of Judgment, based on reason and the Signs or Ayats of Allah in the Quran.
The meaning of “Taqwa” was similarly “fear of Allah” earlier, but in the Quran, it more appropriately means “heedfulness”
The Muslim
Claims of belief, faith and conviction are not enough, and must be reflected in complete submission to the religion of Allah which is what makes a person a Muslim. A Momin can yield to temptation and become a kafir which is the opposite of Muslim. The prayer is therefore always to die as a Muslim because that is the ultimate goal of a Momin.

 (7:126) …Our Lord! pour out on us patience and constancy, and take us in death unto you as Muslims!
 (15:2) Again and again will the kafaru wish that they had been Muslim.
(16:89) One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
(16:102) Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
 (27:38) He said (Solomon to his own men): "Ye chiefs! which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me as Muslim (in submission)?"
 (28:53) And when it is recited to them(the devout Christians), they say: "We believe therein, for it is the Truth from our Lord: indeed we have been Muslims  from before this.
 (41:33) Who is better in speech than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says, "I am of those who are Muslim "?
(43:69) (Being) those who have believed (amanu) in Our Signs and been Muslim.   
(46:15) …."O my Lord! Grant me that I may be grateful for Thy favour which Thou has bestowed upon me, and upon both my parents, and that I may work righteousness such as Thou mayest approve; and be gracious to me in my issue. Truly have I turned to Thee and truly I am Muslim."
 (51:36) But We found not there any just Muslim persons except in one house(house of prophet Lut): 
(68:35) Shall We then treat the Muslimeen like the Mujrimin (People of Sin)?       

One Who Is Not A Muslim Is Not A True Momin
(24:47) They say, "We believe and have faith (aamanna) in Allah and in the messenger, and we obey (wa atana)": but even after that, some of them turn away: they are not (really) Momineen.
(29:11) And Allah most certainly knows those who believe (aamanu), and as certainly those who are Hypocrites.

A true Momin is also a Muslim. A Momin may or may not be a perfect Muslim, if swayed by temptation, arrogance or selfishness to transgress the limits prescribed by Allah, which is why the verses address the believers and warn them against becoming kafir by their behaviour.
(9:90) And there were, among the desert Arabs (also), men who made excuses and came to claim exemption; and those who were false to Allah and His Messenger (merely) sat inactive. Soon will a grievous penalty seize the Kafaru among them.

The Kafaru referred to in the verse are those who professed belief and called themselves Muslim. They were disobedient rebels.

(2:254) O ye who believe! Spend out of (the bounties) We have provided for you, before the Day comes when no bargaining (Will avail), nor friendship nor intercession. And the Kafirun, they are the Zalimun.

Who are the Kafirun and the Zalimunin in this verse? Those who do not spend out of the bounties provided by Allah. The Kafirun and Zalimun refers to the addressees of the verse who are the believers who show their ingratitude to Allah for the bounties provided to them by not spending. They are ingrate rebels.

 (2:264) O ye who believe! cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury,- like those who spend their substance to be seen of men, but believe neither in Allah nor in the Last Day. They are in parable like a hard, barren rock, on which is a little soil: on it falls heavy rain, which leaves it (Just) a bare stone. They will be able to do nothing with aught they have earned. And Allah guideth not the Kafirin.

The Kafirin in this verse are otherwise believers, but those who spend their substance to be seen of men. Such men will not be guided


(4:37) (Allah loves not) those who are niggardly or enjoin niggardliness on others, or hide the bounties which Allah hath bestowed on them; for We have prepared, for the Kafirin a grievous punishment.

The verse 4:29 begins by addressing the believers and verse 4:37 is covered by the same address to the believers in 4:29.

(3:130) O ye who believe! Devour not usury, doubled and multiplied; but fear Allah; that ye may (really) prosper.(131) Fear the Fire, which is prepared for the Kafirin:

It is the believers who devour usury who are asked to fear the fire and such believers who devour usury are the Kafirin.

        In all the verses above, most translators translate Kafirin as “those who reject faith” or as “disbelievers” which is incorrect because the addressee is the believer and he cannot be a both a believer and one who rejects faith or a disbeliever!  The fact of the matter is that, since the addressee of the verse is the believer, Usury etc is Kufr for him but not for the disbeliever. Else the addressee would have been all of mankind or “the Children of Adam”.

Why Is There Not A Single Verse Of The Quran Addressing The Muslims?
The Quran provides guidance to those who need guidance and a Muslim is by definition one who submits to the religion of Allah. The Quran therefore addresses the “Believers” to tell them what they need to do and avoid doing to become Muslim. We can therefore speak of non-practicing believers, but a non-practicing Muslim is an oxymoron.
Those who are Muslim but not yet Momin
             A person may be attracted to Islam while not yet a believer and may accept (Aslamna) to follow its tenets. Such a person is a Muslim while not yet a Momin. This is why even one who is an agnostic, can be a Muslim, if he follows the moral code like any believer.
(49:14) The desert Arabs say, "We believe (āmannā)”. Say, "Ye have no faith (lam tu'minū); but ye (only)say, ´We have submitted our wills to Allah (aslamnā),´ For not yet has Faith (l-īmānu)entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
              It is better therefore to be a Muslim but not a Momin, rather than be a Momin but not a Muslim. The deeds are more important than belief. The best is of course to be a Momin as well as a Muslim for belief and conviction make our deeds better.
Man’s Moral Equipment
What guides man in making choices are his instincts, emotions, beliefs of right and wrong and reason. The Quran is also called the “Furqan” or the Book containing the criterion or distinction between right and wrong. The moral principles from religion have permeated society and are the basis for all our laws. A child learns moral behaviour the same way it learns a language through interaction with its environment. The parents and the people around teach through verbal and non-verbal cues, behaviours that meet with their approval or disapproval, which gives the child the sense of right and wrong. The study of the Scriptures is a formal form of learning from an authentic source.
When faced with a choice, a person may be pulled by his emotions in the opposite direction to what his beliefs tell him is right. The person experiences cognitive dissonance. If he chooses what is right, his resolve to choose what is right is strengthened. Always choosing what is right overriding his desires, makes the person progressively develop a liking for what is right and a dislike for what is wrong. Acting like a Muslim then becomes his nature or instinct. However, if he succumbs to temptation, and assuages the cognitive dissonance experienced by rationalising his choice, and continues to do act in this manner always, he becomes a hypocrite, and over a period starts believing that what he is doing is right and more enlightened than what the “foolish Muslims” do. In between are persons who succumb to temptation but are filled with remorse, repent, and correct their behaviour.
Both behaviours lead to permanent changes, and the right behaviour makes a person a Muslim and the wrong behaviour a Kafir. The Kafir progressively becomes immune to all evidence and arguments of what is right and wrong and it is as if he has become “deaf, dumb and blind”.
What Motivates A Muslim To Do Right And Avoid Wrong?
Progressively, a Muslim develops a liking for all that Allah likes and a dislike for all that Allah dislikes and his moral equipment then is in perfect harmony with his Muslim self. The more he acts as a Muslim, the happier he becomes and any shortcoming becomes distressful.
What Is The Function Then Of The Dire Warnings Of Punishment And The Good Tidings Of Rewards In The Quran?
There cannot be a punishment in the Hereafter without a warning in this life and therefore the warnings are necessary if there is to be punishment in the Hereafter.
The description of rewards and punishments serve as a measure of relative merit/demerit of the act for a Believer/Muslim. It helps in scrupulously avoiding the more heinous crimes/sins and practising the more virtuous deeds. For example, the two most heinous sins/crimes for a believer are as follows:
Associating partners with Allah is an unforgivable sin although not a punishable crime.
Shameful deeds and especially adultery.
The minimum requirements to be considered a Muslim are:
Devoutly offering Salat
Freely spending in charity with grace.
That the above are the most important is not self-evident and cannot be known unless informed through the consequences of not practicing what is commanded and not avoiding what is prohibited.
A Believer/Muslim is also human and not perfect and subject to forgetfulness, laziness, carelessness, self-indulgence etc., and he must know what is important from what is less important so that he scrupulously practices what is important and avoid what is most heinous.  He also knows that no matter how much of a Muttaqi he is, he is still imperfect and needs Allah’s forgiveness.
The primary motive for all human action remains his pleasure-seeking nature and avoidance of pain and suffering. The desire to excel in all virtuous deeds and avoid what is prohibited is also a desire to maximize his pleasure in the Hereafter in the rewards of Heaven and avoid the suffering from Hell-fire. These good tidings of rewards and warnings therefore function as incentives and disincentives.
Are The Good Tidings And Dire Warnings Then A Form Of Compulsion?
Only a disbeliever who has absolutely no idea of what motivates a believer will argue that the good tidings and dire warnings act as “compulsion”, and therefore, there is compulsion in religion. As explained, a Muslim progressively develops a liking for all that Allah likes and a dislike for all that Allah dislikes and his moral equipment then becomes perfectly tuned with his Muslim self. The more he acts as a Muslim, the happier he becomes and any shortcoming becomes distressful. He is driven by a desire to excel and focuses on all that is most important without wilfully neglecting anything.
The evil persons or the Kafir are also driven similarly, but they repose their faith in what gratifies them in the immediate, and by the “virtues” of selfishness, of self-centeredness, of individualism, the benefits of thieving, cheating, grabbing, defrauding, self-indulgence, lying, hypocrisy etc. The difference between the two is that while the Muslim is driven by virtue, the Kafir is driven by vice, and each one is satisfying his cultivated self which is why the Quran says that it is not Allah who wrongs the Kafir but they wrong themselves.
Related articles:

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

Religion Requires the Humbleness to Adapt




By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
15 April 2019
To begin with, religion was completely counter intuitive and went against instinct, as every religious rule or law requires curbing what gives man pleasure to avoid what is harmful to self or society, and doing what may be painful or disagreeable, for the greater good of the society. Over a period, through practice under compulsion, man learned the great benefits of following the religion and became a willing follower.  Allah has civilized mankind through progressive revelations and finally revealed the Quran which contains the complete and perfected religion to Muhammad (pbuh), the seal of the prophets.
Was the final revelation completely clear and understandable, or were certain parts still counter intuitive and required faith to follow? Adaptation is different from following based on reason. We adapt to our environment over which have no control, or to a religion under compulsion or to the religion because we have faith in it although not everything is clearly understood. Faith therefore plays an important part, when not every rule of religion is clearly understood, until it is understood. Those with faith who make sincere efforts to understand, will gain understanding, and those without faith may lose their way.
Take for example, the permission to have sex with female slave. To us, it sounds morally reprehensible and unacceptable, but then this was allowed. What could be the justification? To find the answer requires:
1. Not being in denial or rejecting the clear meaning through the many devices of “interpretation” that the scholars have developed to take whatever meaning is convenient to them. The first step is to accept, that what sounds morally reprehensible was in fact allowed.
2. Complete faith in Allah, that if this was allowed, then the permission to have sex with female slave was in some way morally superior to disallowing it, although not obvious.
3. Look for all the evidence which explains why this was so.
I have gone through such an exercise and the result was the following article:
Did The Prophet Face Similar Dilemmas?
There is clear evidence in the Quran that not every revelation was to the Prophet’s liking, or was immediately understood as what was good. For example:
(11:12) Perchance thou mayest (feel the inclination) to give up a part of what is revealed unto thee, and thy heart feeleth straitened…….
The Quran does not make clear what the Prophet was uncomfortable with. It is enough for us to know that there was a part that made him uncomfortable.
Fighting Was Disliked
(2:216) Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
This verse is addressed to the Prophet because he disliked fighting, or maybe it is his followers who are being indirectly addressed through him because many of them disliked fighting. There is plenty of evidence that fighting was not what any of the Muslims wanted including perhaps the Prophet, but were forced into it, by the revelations from Allah. This may have been from a fear of annihilation because they were numerically inferior and no match for their enemy.
Compromise with Polytheistic Beliefs Rejected
The following verses are referring to the satanic verses that were immediately cancelled by Allah. However, Satan could succeed even though only for a while, because the Prophet desired reconciliation to conflict. Any compromise with polytheism in religion was however firmly rejected by Allah.
 (22:52) Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:
(53) That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in a schism far (from the Truth):
(54) And that those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur´an) is the Truth from thy Lord, and that they may believe therein, and their hearts may be made humbly (open) to it: for verily Allah is the Guide of those who believe, to the Straight Way.
(55) Those who reject Faith will not cease to be in doubt concerning (Revelation) until the Hour (of Judgment) comes suddenly upon them, or there comes to them the Penalty of a Day of Disaster.
Beating Was Distasteful
Verse 4:34 advises beating as an option and as a last resort to correct a wife who is negligent about guarding her modesty in the husband’s absence. This however was against what the Prophet had wanted. The following is from Muhammad Asad’s notes on verse 4:34.
“It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim)  
 According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the Qur'an-verse 4:34 authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (Ghayr Mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the  views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.”
We know from modern studies however, that Common Couple Violence is an effective tool for conflict resolution among young couples, and verse 4:34 may have corrected the behaviour of many women and saved many marriages. This wisdom is however not immediately available even to a Prophet and requires acceptance based on faith.
Pitfalls to Avoid
There are many Muslims who lack faith and lose their way. The lack of faith comes from arrogance and looking down upon the Quran as an outdated “seventh century” Book, rather than as the eternally valid revelations from Allah. This is not a new phenomenon and has been a common failing of all those with a little learning.  In the tenth century, many “Muslim” philosophers turned against religion studying the works of Greek philosophers, little realizing that all the philosophers put together did not, and indeed could not have produced a single moral principle. The fact that these moral principles could now be understood by them based on reason made them think foolishly that these could have been produced by men like themselves. They jumped to the conclusion that the prophets were only philosophers and there was no god and no revelations! It appears to be a law of Allah, that arrogant fools will lose their way, unless they pay heed whenever they are made to see the truth, and make efforts to correct themselves.
Naseer Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in responsible positions for over three decades. He is a frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com

Prevention and Cure for Apostasy




By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
12 March 2019
What are the characteristics of a disbeliever? The Quran uses the metaphor of a rock to describe the heart of one who rejects belief in Allah.
(2:74) Thenceforth were your hearts hardened: They became like a rock and even worse in hardness. For among rocks there are some from which rivers gush forth; others there are which when split asunder send forth water; and others which sink for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
(2:264) .....They are in parable like a hard, barren rock, on which is a little soil: on it falls heavy rain, which leaves it (Just) a bare stone. They will be able to do nothing with aught they have earned. And Allah guideth not those among the kafirin.
The heart of a believer in contrast, is like soft fertile soil which comes alive with copious vegetation when a little rain falls on it and is covered with green. It is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth.  On it can grow well-planted orchards full of beauty and delight.
The rain is the mercy from Allah in the form of His revelations in the Book with which you can grow well-planted orchards of beauty and of delight by following Allah’s religion. In other words, with a heart that is open to Allah’s religion, you can, with the mercy of Allah, mould your lives to become like the ample yielding fruit trees for the benefit of all.
The rain can work only on fertile soil and not on hard rock. Hard rocks will remain barren no matter how much rain falls on them.
What can a person do to?
•        Keep his heart soft and prevent it from hardening
•        Softening a hardened heart?
The heart of every human is soft to begin with and hardens only when he becomes a zalim or wilful wrong doer.
(30:9) .....there came to them their messengers with Clear (Signs). (Which they rejected, to their own destruction): It was not Allah Who wronged them, but they wronged themselves. (30:10) In the long run evil in the extreme will be the End of those who do evil; for that they rejected the Signs of Allah, and held them up to ridicule.
 (45:23) Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will ye not then receive admonition? (24) And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture:
To keep the heart soft, the way is:
1. Seek Allah’s Forgiveness Excessively
“Truly, Allah loves those who repent, and He loves those who cleanse themselves.” (Quran, 2:222)
 “But surely the righteous will be in the midst of gardens and springs, receiving what the Lord will give them; for they used to do good before that. They used to sleep but a little of the night; and at the dawn of the day they sought forgiveness…” (Quran, 51:16-19)
 “Ask forgiveness (from) your Lord. Indeed, He is Oft-Forgiving. He will send down (rain from) the sky upon you (in) abundance, And provide you with wealth and children, and make for you gardens and make for you rivers.”(Quran, 71:10-12).
Seeking Allah’s forgiveness excessively by saying “I seek forgiveness from Allah” or the short Arabic “Astaghfirullah” is the surest way to keep the heart soft. Seeking forgiveness of Allah requires humbling oneself. The one whose heart is hardened may ask “for what should I seek forgiveness when I do no wrong?”  When we recite “Astaghfirullah”, we should consciously think of the things for which we need Allah’s forgiveness. The list of such things is very long. For example:
•        For not being grateful enough for Allah’s bounties. Think of the violence that we practice on our environment for making our life comfortable. How wasteful we are. How many species we have wiped out and continue to do so by our extravagance.
•        For not doing all that is commanded by Allah
•        For the misery in this world while we are prosperous because we do not do enough for others or because we are party to the exploitation of others through wars that our nation wages to keep itself rich.
Say sorry whenever you wrong another even if you are the boss of the other. Spend a few minutes before going to sleep and reflect on the wrongs of the day and make proper amends
2. Practice Charity Excessively
Do an act of kindness that brings a smile, wipes a tear, gives strength and courage to the depressed,  anything that makes a difference to another person’s life, every day. The heart of one who practices excessive charity can never harden.
3. Be Grateful To Allah and To Everyone Who Is Good To You
But if ye count the favours of Allah, never will ye be able to number them (14:34). Therefore, thank Allah for his bounties excessively.
Allah is swift in rewarding those who serve Him with gratitude (3:144)
(14:7) And remember! your Lord caused to be declared (publicly): "If ye are grateful, I will add more (favours) unto you; But if ye show ingratitude, truly My punishment is terrible indeed."
(39:7) If ye reject (Allah), Truly Allah hath no need of you; but He liketh not ingratitude from His servants: if ye are grateful, He is pleased with you.
Do you count your spouse as among the gifts/blessings of Allah? Thank Allah for it and let your spouse know how you are grateful to Allah for granting you such a great blessing. A happy married life is among the greatest blessings and this is only for those who are grateful.
 Gratitude to Allah is expressed by:
Performing regular prayers
Excessive remembrance and praise of Allah
Counting each of the blessings and thanking Allah
Obeying the commands of Allah
How to Soften A Heart That Is Hardened?
(6:46) Say: "Think ye, if Allah took away your hearing and your sight, and sealed up your hearts, who - a god other than Allah - could restore them to you?" See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); yet they turn aside.
The most important step is to recognize that there is a problem and decide to do something about it. Say to Allah what your problem is and seek Allah’s help in resolving it. There are rocks through which “rivers gush forth; others there are which when split asunder send forth water; and others which sink for fear of Allah”, so there is always hope.
Contemplate on the wrongs that you have done, repent, and seek Allah’s forgiveness. If doing so brings tears to your eyes, then your heart is that rock when split asunder, sends forth water. If you truly feel ashamed, then you are still that rock which sinks with shame at the thought of Allah. There is hope for you.
Practice all the things described above and constantly seek Allah’s help.
The Pitfalls That Lead To Hardening Of The Heart
To criticise one’s religion, the Quran and their Prophet is looked upon by many Muslims as a proof of their being “open-minded”,  of their being “moderate” and “non-literalist”. To overlook parts of one’s scriptures is necessary for the followers of other religions whose scriptures have been partially abrogated and are no longer tenable but not for the followers of the “perfected and complete religion”.  If a person does not think that Islam is “perfect and complete” then he should have the integrity to leave it. The followers of other religions do not have to contend with a claim from their scriptures that these contain the “perfect and complete’” religion, and therefore, it is not a question of integrity for them to follow a part and ignore a part. They remain persons of integrity while exercising choice. For a Muslim, whose religion claims both perfection and completeness, what choice does he have but to accept and follow the entire religion or leave it entirely? The choice is truly binary for a person of integrity while choosing to follow or choosing to reject a religion which claims both perfection and completeness. A Muslim cannot be like others accepting what he likes and rejecting what he does not like.
Those among the Muslims who try to straddle the fence are hypocrites who will lose faith completely and become apostates. The followers of other religions are not wrong in overlooking parts of their scriptures and doing so is virtuous because a part of their scriptures was only meant for a period.
While all moral precepts have come from religion, political philosophies have taken some of these and idealized and romanticized certain concepts beyond what is good for the individual and the society but packaged these as the ideal to strive for. These “synthetic ideals or values” are thrust down on people by aggressive politics. Religion being revelations from Allah is based on the “principle of things” and what contributes to our happiness as an individual and as a society best. It is not based on what sounds great or what is considered politically correct and makes for good copy or optics in a campaign for political office.  If your starting point is therefore a set of unshakable positions or articles of faith outside of Islam, then you do not need Islam. Leave it alone and follow your “synthetic values”. The people of other religions, for example, have confined their religion to the personal sphere and removed it from defining their criminal, judicial and the administrative systems and defining the rules for waging war and even personal laws on inheritance, marriage, divorce etc. This makes eminent sense for them because their scriptures are silent on inheritance, divorce and many other matters.  The guidance on war in their scriptures is abrogated and no longer tenable. Islam is different. It is the “perfected and complete religion”. If you don’t believe in it, leave it. There is no compulsion in religion.
The way to approach Islam for any person is to do so with an open mind and initially accept its claims at face value or with faith. When you do so, and come across Ayats or verses that you find disagreeable vis-à-vis the synthetic values from some political philosophy, then the best course is to:
•        Make sure that you have got the meaning right
•        Every moral precept was counter intuitive to start with and has become received wisdom only after believing in it and practicing it. Some of the things that the Quran says may likewise be still counter intuitive for you. Examine the meaning as a lawyer would to see if the correct meaning is justifiable and if so, under what circumstances. This will help you understand better and see both justification and wisdom in it. Seek Allah’s guidance through prayer. You will find the right answers. Allah never lets down a genuine seeker of the truth who approaches with faith and humility. However, if you have the attitude that you know better and the Quran is after all only a seventh century book, then Allah allows such conceited fools to go astray.
If you do find what the Quran says is irreconcilable with your “values”, then do yourself a favour and exercise the option of leaving Islam. Do not become a hypocrite saddling the fence neither believing nor disbelieving. You may still be rewarded for your good deeds and your integrity as long as you do not blaspheme the religion as an apostate.
911 is a defining moment in many ways. It has also given birth to a new category of Muslims who like to call themselves “moderate”. President Bush is on record imploring people to reject conspiracy theories: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th” which he said were “malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.” What Bush desired has become an article of faith for the post 911 moderates to distinguish themselves from the rest. They declare “we are with you” to the other threat by Bush “either you are with us or with them”. Truth simply does not matter to such Muslims. These Muslims will question the Qur’an, the Prophet and Allah but not the official story of the US government on 911. They will steadfastly deny the truth.  If belief in the official story has become an article of faith for such Muslims, then it is polytheism and rejection of the truth or Kufr.
The other defining characteristics of the “moderates” are to be seen to be questioning the religion, Quran, Allah and the Prophet. They make a virtue of it. They define “literalism” as belief in the entire Quran and make a virtue of arguing for the excising of many verses from the Quran.  The western society is paranoid of Shariat and Jehad. These “moderates” therefore reject the verses of the Quran on these subjects to become acceptable.  Such people will surely sink deeper and deeper into denial until they reach a point of no return. There is neither hope nor cure for them and the word of Allah will come true.
(16:107) This because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not guide the Kafir.(108) Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed.(109) Without doubt, in the Hereafter they will perish.
(30:52) So verily thou canst not make the dead to hear, nor canst thou make the deaf to hear the call, when they show their backs and turn away.(53) Nor canst thou lead back the blind from their straying: only those wilt thou make to hear, who believe in Our signs and submit (their wills in Islam).
(30:58) verily We have propounded for men, in this Qur´an every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the kafaru are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."(59) Thus does Allah seal up the hearts of those who understand not.

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

Jihad and the Allure of Balakot




By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
23 March 2019
Ever since India’s strike on a Jaish e Muhammad (JeM) camp, there is much spotlight on Balakot. Indeed Balakot is not just the name of a place; rather it is fundamentally an idea, the dissection of which remains central to decoding the narrative of Islamists of much of South Asia. The selection of Balakot by the JeM is not just for strategic consideration, but is also a symbolic continuation of the first jihad that saw so called martyrdom in action at this place. The characters were different but the cause and the underlying motivation was the same. And this motivation was to reclaim the land of al-Hind for Islam as it was supposedly under ‘Islamic rule’ back in the historical past. It is interesting to understand the trajectory of this first jihad which purportedly wanted to throw out the British from India. But perhaps more importantly, it is important to understand the central character who led this so called jihad movement. 
A mightily maverick character called Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi and some of his followers like Shah Ismail were responsible for what is known as the mujahidin movement. Various interpretations of the fatwa issued by Abdul Aziz exist, including one by Sir Syed which expressly states that he (Abdul Aziz) never intended to fight the British and that the fatwa was primarily to ask Muslims to engage themselves in non-Islamic practices like interest since the country was no longer governed by Islamic precepts. Of course, the anxiety over the waning of the ‘Islamic regime’ started with Shah Waliullah, who in his infinite wisdom invited Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and establish ‘Islamic’ rule once again. For his successor, Abdul Aziz, the British power seemed much closer for comfort and that’s why he proclaimed in his famous fatwa that India had become Dar Al Harb or enemy land and therefore jihad became necessary for Muslims.
The most important person to heed this call for jihad was Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi.  Perhaps a mercenary in the rag tag army of Amir Khan, Sayyid Ahmed indulged in wanton looting and destruction of property during his days as a ‘warrior’. As his many hagiographies suggest, this looting was legitimate as per the Islamic theological position of raiding enemy property witnessed during the formative years of Islam. It so happened that Amir Khan was eventually domesticated by the British and bought over by making him lord over a small patch of land. For reasons which are not very clear, Sayyid Ahmed left the company of Amir Khan and shifted briefly to Delhi. Here, under the influence of Abdul Aziz, he would make some followers who would be loyal to him throughout his life. One of them was Shah Ismail who would emerge as the intellectual ideologue of the so called mujahidin movement. As for Sayyid Ahmed, he remained incorrigibly non-literate throughout his life and all attempts to teach him the letters came to a naught. No matter what the various hagiographies tell us about the mysterious reasons behind his inability to read and write, the fact remains that leader of the mujahidin movement remained illiterate throughout his life yet was followed by people who were highly literate and theologically trained.
Despite the popular rhetoric that Sayyid Ahmed waged a jihad against the British, there is hardly any concrete evidence that he planned to do anything remotely like declaring a war against the British. His journey to Afghanistan went through some of the important cities of India like Patna and Calcutta, where he received obeisance from many Muslims. All through this while, it was the British who gave him easy passage throughout India and eventually oversaw his migration into Afghanistan. If the British wanted, they could have easily arrested him, something which they did to many others fighting for the freedom of the country. There is one possibility: that the British did not consider him too much of a threat. However, what looks more plausible is that the British effectively used him to wage war against the Sikhs. And for this reason alone, he and his preaching were tolerated by the British. Eventually, they were able to convince Sayyid Ahmed that the ‘real’ jihad should be done against the Sikhs, who were allegedly killing Muslims and burning down mosques. There is perhaps no other explanation as to why Sayyid Ahmed would be left free to preach against the British but eventually declare a jihad against the Sikhs.
Sayyid Ahmed remained a bully at heart. Once in Afghanistan, he started enforcing his conception of the Sharia. This meant, among other things, covering of women from head to toe and asking the locals not to take bath in lakes without their clothes on. He also started forcing the local Afghans to pay him a tribute, calling it the religious tax or the Zakat. At times, he is known to have publically whipped men and women for not obeying his orders. Perhaps he thought he was doing the right thing by following the practices of the first caliphs of Islam. The trouble was that Afghan culture was much more rooted than the so called Arab culture which is what Islamic Sharia is all about. The local chieftains started protesting against this new caliph and his new mores and eventually conspired with the Sikhs to deceive him at Balakot where he died battling the Sikhs.
But Balakot is not just the name of a place. It is also an idea. An idea which still captures the imagination of many Indian Muslims and mostly the Ulama. Ali Mian Nadwi, wrote two full volumes of his biography where he heaped fulsome praises on Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi. It is important to note that the Nadwa seminary is a very influential and important madrasa of Indian Muslims. A critique of Nadwi’s position on the so called jihad of Sayyid Ahmed is yet to be published which can only mean that by large Nadwi’s position on the first so called jihad movement still remains the accepted position. In the same fashion, the madrasa at Deoband too has not come up with a critique of Sayyid Ahmed’s position. Rather, they have tried to justify in all possible ways the tract of Shah Ismail called the Taqwatul Iman, which condemns the popular expression of Islamic religiosity in the subcontinent. I have personally spoken to many Barelwi Ulama, who are very critical of the text written by Shah Ismail, but they justify the jihad movement of Sayyid Ahmed. Thus, there seems to a consensus among the different maslaks of Indian Muslims that the jihad movement of Sayyid Ahmed was truly Islamic and that is a model worth emulating. Till the time this consensus exits, the idea of Balakot will not be defeated. 
Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com     

New Zealand Terror Must be Condemned but Don’t Overlook How the Left is Helping the Muslim Right




By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
08 April 2019
The deadly attack which left around fifty Muslims dead in New Zealand was correctly called a terror attack by its premier. Intended, with precision to strike terror within the immigrant population, the target this time were Muslims but it could have been any other group making up the emerging multicultural mosaic of New Zealand society. Amidst the widespread condemnation of the barbaric event, we saw the Prime Minister don the Islamic veil as a show of solidarity with Muslims. Not just the prime minister, but prime time news anchors did the same as did many others who came to show solidarity to Muslims at the first Friday prayer after the attack. However, certain things within these series of events need to be called out. In doing so, one is not arguing that empathy should not be shown to victims of terror attacks but then the symbols that one chooses should not end up misrecognizing the problem.
First Things First: There was certainly an attempt by sections of informed Islamists to use the attack to parade Muslims as the victims of Islamophobia. This is not to deny the existence of Islamophobia in much of the western world today but then we should also not forget that this word has become abused to such an extent that even genuine criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour is labelled Islamophobic. Thus if one of critical of Islamists’ attempt to enforce gender segregation, then one is conveniently labelled an Islamophobe. This is sinister politics, the object of which is to silence any critique of criticism of Islamists themselves. Post New Zealand, this has found new traction and will most certainly be used no just to curb genuine disapproval of Islamist politics but more importantly will be used to stamp out dissenting voices within Muslim society itself.
Secondly, the choice of the veil as a signifier of Muslim society also needs to be called out. May be the prime minster was genuinely interested in showing empathy with Muslims, but then why chose the veil to do that? The choice of the veil gave legitimacy to the Islamist claim that the veil is an essential element of Muslim religion and tradition and that one cannot be a Muslim without either donning the veil or respecting it. The problem with this understanding is that in large parts of Muslim society, the veil is considered a symbol of oppression by Muslim women and increasingly by organised group of men as well. In Iran and elsewhere, Muslim women are currently challenging the patriarchy enforced veil as the prime symbol of their subordination.
Jacinda Ardern, being a politician on the left, should have been aware of such struggles within the Muslim world. By privileging the veil, she has thrown her weight behind Islamists and traditionalists who think that Muslim society will collapse without the veil being enforced. She has belittled the myriad contributions that Muslim women are making to change the status quo within their respective societies. In short, she has let down the progressive politics within Muslim societies. One is tempted to ask if there was no better way to show solidarity with Muslims? Why is that if she went without the veil, she would become any less empathetic to Muslim suffering?
It must be understood that the veil is not an Islamic requirement according to the Quran. It is first and foremost a political symbol which was first enforced post the Iranian revolution. Following this, the veil was adopted as part of the Sunni Wahhabi ideological drive to extend their hegemony within the Islamic world, mostly funded by petro dollars. The Islamist veil, far from representing Muslim piety, is actually an expression of political Islam. What is worse is that in Jacinda Ardern, we have a woman who is helping in the normalization of patriarchy within Muslim societies. She must have scored brownie points with the Arab Salafists and conservative Iranians, but has utterly failed her Muslim sisters who are engaged in a daily struggle against patriarchal oppression by resisting the veil. She has utterly failed someone like Nasrin Sotoudeh, the brilliant Iranian lawyer who was condemned to 38 years in prison and 148 whip lashes for defending those women who refused to wear the veil.
The veil is not a trivial issue. While it may be a ‘choice’ for a privileged few in the west, for the vast majority of Muslims, it is forced and therefore a garment of subjugation. It is being increasingly felt that the left in the west has been more than willing to accommodate the regressive version of Islam in the name of protecting minority rights. Such an understanding can be counter-productive in the long run. If the left starts defending Islamist practices such as the veil and sex segregation in schools, then it is actually making space for the right wing anti-Muslim agenda in their own societies. By being soft on homophobia which is rampant within Muslim societies and which has theological justification, the left is only digging its own grave as in the long run, voices which are critical of such regressive tendencies within their societies will have no option but to articulate their resentment through a right wing platform.
However, it seems that the left is committed not to learn any lessons. In the name of protection of minority rights, it is currently engaged in ‘outlawing’ Islamophobia in countries such as Canada. Notwithstanding what is meant by such a nebulous term like Islamophobia, one thing is clear that it will have a negative bearing on the voices of dissent and reform within Muslim societies. In the name of protecting Muslims, the left will end up advocating the causes and concerns of those Muslims who actually have been responsible for the mess that Muslim societies find themselves into.
Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com         

Pulwama, Before and After




By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam
04 March 2019
The recent terror attack on the security forces in Kashmir is a grim reminder that that all is not well in the state. The appearance of ‘normalcy’ was shred to pieces by the powerful IED explosion which killed more than forty of our security forces. The suicide blast was owned by Jaish e Muhammad, which operates from across the border in Pakistan. It is a no-brainer to point out that there was a massive intelligence failure which led to this premeditated murder. But what needs to be underlined is that this is also a political failure. Over the years, the military has been able to neutralise scores of militants from different ideologies but then the military can only do that much. It cannot and should not acquire a political role for itself. It was incumbent on the civilian governments to start a political dialogue with different stakeholders in Kashmir. It makes perfect sense that India does not want to bring Pakistan onto to the negotiating table. But then, what stops it from negotiating with its own people? Granted that some of those people would insist of having Pakistan on board. Then, what stops the government form talking directly to the people of Kashmir? What stops it from talking directly to youth of the valley? It appears that the Indian state has no long term vision through which it can effect the harmonious integration of this country with the rest of the country. There is no need to forge a ‘people to people’ contact with Pakistan but what stops our government from starting a students’ exchange program between Kashmir and the rest of India? Till the time there is an ad-hoc policy on Kashmir with no long term view, a solution to the state’s problem will never be found.
Alienation runs deep in this state, particularly amongst its youth. Caught between a security apparatus and an increasingly conservative and radical interpretation of Islam, they have little manoeuvring space in the valley. There is very little space, for example, for Kashmiri youth to indulge in any creative pursuit of their choice. The problem is not that they do not want to: there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. However, the political situation in the valley is such that they cannot afford to express their free and frank opinion on a range of issues. On the one hand, there is growing perception that only one kind of Islam is the correct way of orthopraxy. On the other hand, despite its pious proclamations, various governments have done little to help create an environment where such youthful articulations are possible without fear. As a result of this, young people are forced to think in a straightjacket way and most of the time, their discussions revolve around a master signifier called Islam.
Their grievances are real: fake encounters, sexual violence, and almost total unaccountability of the police and armed forces. Elected governments have been tossed over like cards; the popular will has been crushed under the might of various governments. But then there are various perspectives through which such things can be discussed. The problem is that the public sphere in the valley allows only one kind of discourse to be privileged over all else. All those who have another point of view are under heavy pressure not to identify with any other narrative. It is perhaps this absence of plurality of political articulations that makes a young Adil Ahmad Dar susceptible to vicious propaganda, motivating him enough to commit such an act of carnage. In order to understand such a motivation, it becomes important to closely analyse his ‘farewell’ video and message encoded therein.
It is impossible to objectively define a terrorist strike. Most of the time, a terrorist for one country is a martyr for another. Amidst this seeming confusion of what defines an act of terror, it is important to understand the self-identification and the motivation of the terrorist himself. The video made by Adil Ahmad Dar and his handlers leave no doubt as to where the motivation for this kind of grizzly attack lies. And that motivation seems to be primarily religious. Dar makes no bones about the fact that it is incumbent on Muslims to fight the Kafirs (unbelievers) who in this case are the Hindus. In the video, we do not have any distinction between the Indian state and a religion called Hinduism, both are understood as one and the same and fused together in a narrative which argues that Muslims have been exploited and repressed for years under a Hindu rule. The Hindus are called as cow piss drinkers who must be eliminated.
What is more worrying is that the suicide bomber believes in the concept of Ghazwa e Hind. According to this doctrine (which is narrated in a Hadis), the end time will not come till the time Islamic forces have not captured al-Hind, which is synonymous with the whole of India. Those who think that this must be a fantasy of some deranged souls need to think again. Repeatedly, Maulana Masood Azhar, the chief of Jaish e Mohammad and a host of other religious authorities have proclaimed their belief in the Ghazwa e Hind. It is as if they consider it as the cardinal truth of Islam.
For a young mind like Adil Ahmad Dar, such a reading of Islam becomes the legitimation for conducting war against the Indian state which is identified as ruled by unbelievers. For those like him, blowing oneself to smithereens is an act of supreme sacrifice for the Muslim cause which assures a place in heaven. The very opening sentence of the video reminds us of the certain passion of this young mind when he proclaims that he will surely be reaping the pleasures of heaven very soon.
There is certainly some truth in the arguments that militant groups active in Pakistan are majorly responsible for turning this young person into a suicide bomber. However, there is a need to underscore that certain theological precepts may also be responsible for what ultimately became of him. And that’s why there is an urgent need to question such theological discourses which makes someone prone to violence. Without putting an end to such pernicious reading of Islamic theology, it will be difficult to stop another Pulwama.
Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

Monday, January 21, 2019

Removing A Misconception And Arrival of Muslims In India भारत में मुसलामानों का आगमन और एक ग़लतफ़हमी का निवारण




गुलाम गौस सिद्दीकी, न्यू एज इस्लाम
एक ग़लतफ़हमी जिसकी चपेट में प्रख्यात व्यक्तित्व, प्रसिद्ध व प्रभावी राजनीतिज्ञ बहुत अधिक आ रहे हैं और जनता के मस्तिस्क पर प्रभाव डाल रहे हैं वह यह कि भारत में इस्लाम का प्रचार प्रसार दमन व उत्पीड़न के माध्यम से हुआl इस ग़लतफ़हमी के समर्थकों की लम्बी सूची तैयार की जा सकती है मगर यहाँ यह उद्देश्य नहीं बल्कि संक्षिप्तता की बंदिशों का लिहाज़ रखते हुए इस ग़लतफ़हमी का निवारण आवश्यक हैl
पहले तो ग़लतफ़हमी के विभिन्न अर्थ पर ध्यान दीजिये वह यह हैं छल, कपट, धोखा, झांसा और भूल चूक इत्यादि (फिरोजुल लुगात)l अगर यह वास्तव में भूल चूक या अज्ञानता का मामला है तो इस पर कोई शरई मवाखज़ह (पूछ ताछ) नहीं शर्त यह है कि वास्तविकता का ज्ञान प्राप्त हो जाने के बाद इस भूल चूक से त्वरित रूप से रुजूअ (वापसी) कर लिया जाए लेकिन इस ग़लतफ़हमी से छल करना, कपट और धोका देना उद्देश्य है तो मैं समझता हूँ इसका रूहानी इलाज किया जाए और यह केवल वास्तविक बनाने वाले (ख़ालिक ए हकीकी) के इरशादात ही से संभव हैl
अल्लाह पाक कुरआन में इरशाद फरमाता है: (وَقَدْ مَكَرَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَلِلَّهِ الْمَكْرُ جَمِيعًا) अर्थात “और उनसे अगले फरेब कर चुके हैं तो सारी खुफिया तदबीर का मालिक तो अल्लाह ही हैl” (सुरह अल रअद १३:४२)
अल्लाह पाक का इरशाद है: (وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا فِي كُلِّ قَرْيَةٍ أَكَابِرَ مُجْرِمِيهَا لِيَمْكُرُوا فِيهَا ۖ وَمَا يَمْكُرُونَ إِلَّا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ) अनुवाद: “और इसी तरह हमने हर बस्ती में उसके मुजरिमों के सरदार किये कि उसमें दावं (मक्र) खेलें और दावं नहीं खेलते मगर अपनी जानों पर और उन्हें शउर नहीं” (सुरह अल इनआम: ६:१२३)
अल्लाह पाक का इरशाद है: (يُخَادِعُونَ اللَّهَ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَمَا يَخْدَعُونَ إِلَّا أَنفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ) “फरेब दिया चाहते हैं अल्लाह और ईमान वालों को और वास्तव में फरेब नहीं देते मगर अपनी जानों को और उन्हें शउर नहींl” (सुरह अल बकरह २:९)
प्रश्न यह है कि आख़िर गलतफहमी पैदा करने का उद्देश्य क्या है? भारतीय जनता को इस बात से धोखा देने का उद्देश्य क्या है कि इस्लाम जबरदस्ती के माध्यम से फैला या मुसलामानों ने जबरदस्ती के माध्यम से इस देश में इस्लाम फैलाया? क्या वह इसके माध्यम से यह साबित करना चाहते हैं कि मुसलमान फसादी हैं और स्वयं अमन के सफीर? याद रखिये कभी कभी अमन के प्रचारक को इस बात का एहसास नहीं होता कि वह स्वयं फ़साद फैला रहे होते हैंl कुरआन ए पाक ने इस वास्तविकता को खूब स्पष्ट अंदाज़ में बयान फरमा दिया हैl
अल्लाह पाक का इरशाद है: (وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ  أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ) अनुवाद: “और उनसे कहा जाए जमीन में फसाद ना करो, तो कहते हैं हम तो संवारने वाले हैं, सुनता है वही फसादी हैं मगर उन्हें शउर नहीं” (२:११,१२)
जैसा कि ऊपर गुजरा कि इस छोटे से गुलाम की लेखन का मूल उद्देश्य एक गलतफहमी का निवारण है लेकिन इसके संदर्भ में कुछ बिंदु भी लेखनी में लाना अपने विषय के हक़ में बेहतर समझता हूँl इन बिन्दुओं का संबंध उन कलम व फ़िक्र वालों से है जो भावनाओं के लय में बह कर एक वास्तविकता को दोसरी वास्तविकता के साथ बयान करने की ज़हमत गवारा नहीं करतेl इतिहास के पुस्तकों के अध्ययन के बाद मुझे इस वास्तविकता में कोई भ्रम नहीं कि भारत में इस्लाम के प्रचार व प्रसार में सूफिया और मशाइख की भूमिका बहुत महत्वपूर्ण रही है जो अवश्य सोने के पानी से लिखे जाने के काबिल हैl
लेकिन इसके साथ दोसरी वास्तविकता बयान करना बहुत आवश्यक है कि भारत में मुसलामानों की आमद का सिलसिला दौरे रिसालत मआब सल्लल्लाहु अलैहि वसल्लम में ही शुरू हो चुका था, फिर यह सिलसिला दौरे सहाबा व ताबईन में बरकरार रहाl फिर इसके बाद एक दौर वह भी रहा जब मुस्लिम सुल्तान व धनी लोग भारत में आए, भारत के विभिन्न क्षेत्रों में उनकी जंगें हुईं इन जंगों के असबाब व मोहरिकात की एतेहासिक विवरण में बहुत विरोधाभास हैं, जो स्वयं एक स्थाई विषय का मोहताज हैl विचारणीय बिंदु यह है कि इस्लाम की कुबूलियत का दारोमदार दिल से मानना और जुबान से इकरार करना है, तो जिस ने किसी हिंसा के सामने जुबान से इकरार तो कर लिया लेकिन दिल से ईमान नहीं लाया तो ऐसे व्यक्ति का ईमान अल्लाह पाक की बारगाह में स्वीकार्य नहीं है क्योंकि ईमान जुबान से इकरार और दिल से तस्दीक का नाम है अर्थात जुबान से इकरार करने के साथ दिल से मानना भी अनिवार्य हैl अगर यह मान भी लिया जाए कि किसी मुस्लिम बादशाह ने किसी व्यक्ति पर इस्लाम कुबूल करवाने पर जब्र किया तो ऐसी स्थिति में उसका इस्लाम स्वीकार करना अल्लाह की बारगाह में स्वीकार्य नहीं होगा दिल से मानना भी अनिवार्य हैl दोसरी महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि मुसलामानों के लिए कुरआन व सुन्नत की रौशनी में ईमान व इस्लाम के अहकाम का मसला हल करना होता है नाकि सुलतान और अमीरl ध्यान रखिये कि यहाँ मुस्लिम सलातीन व उमरा के आमाल से बहस नहीं बल्कि शरई स्रोतों का उल्लेख है और यह बात हम संक्षिप्त तौर पर जान चुके हैं कि शरीअत ने दीन में जब्र करने की अनुमति किसी को नहीं दीl
भारत में मुसलामानों का आगमन
प्रोफ़ेसर अब्दुल्लाह मलिक अपनी किताब “तारीखे पाक व हिन्द” में लिखते हैं:
“इस्लाम मज़हब की हैसियत से पहले दक्षिण भारत पहुंचाl मुसलमान व्यापारी और प्रचारक सातवीं शताब्दी ईसवी में मालाबार और दक्षिणी साहिलों के दोसरे क्षेत्रों में आने जाने लगेl मुसलमान चूँकि बेहतरीन अख़लाक़ व किरदार के मालिक और व्यापारिक लेन देन में विश्वासयोग्य साबित हुए थेl इसलिए मालाबार के राजाओं, व्यापारियों और आम लोगों ने उनके साथ सहिष्णुता का व्यवहार कियाl इसलिए मुसलमानों ने उप महाद्वीप पाक व हिन्द के पश्चिमी साहिलों पर निश्चित भूमि प्राप्त कर मस्जिदें निर्माण कींl और अपने दीन के प्रचार में व्यस्त हो गएl हर मुसलमान अपने अख़लाक़ और अमल के एतेबार से अपने दीन का प्रचारक था परिणामस्वरूप जनता उनके अख़लाक़ व आमाल से प्रभावित होती चली गईl व्यापार और प्रचार का यह सिलसिला एक शताब्दी तक जारी रहा यहाँ तक कि मालाबार में इस्लाम को पर्याप्त बढ़ावा प्राप्त हुआ और वहाँ का राजा भी मुसलमान हो गयाl दक्षिण भारत में इस्लाम को बढ़ावे का कारण यह भी था कि उस जमाने में दक्षिण भारत मज़हबी कशमकश का शिकार थाl हिन्दू धर्म के अनुयायी बुद्ध मत और जैन मत के कट्टर विरोधी और उनको जड़ से उखाड़ने में व्यस्त थेl इन परिस्थितियों में जब इस्लाम के प्रचारकों ने तौहीद बारी तआला का प्रचार किया और जात पात छूत छात को बेकार और मानवता के खिलाफ करार दिया, तो जनता जो हज़ारों वर्षों से तफरकात और इम्तियाज़ात का शिकार हो रही थी, बेइख़्तियार इस्लाम की ओर झुकने लगीl चूँकि हुकूमत और समाज की ओर से धर्म परिवर्तन पर कोई प्रतिबन्ध नहीं थाl इसलिए हज़ारों गैर मुस्लिम मुसलमान हो गएl (तारीखे पाक व हिन्द, प्रोफेसर अब्दुल मलिक, पृष्ठ ३९०)
प्रोफेसर अब्दुल मलिक के इस उद्धरण से पता चलता है कि भारत में मुसलमानों का आगमन नबी सल्लल्लाहु अलैहि वसल्लम के ६३२ ईसवी में पर्दा फरमाने के सत्तर अस्सी वर्षों बाद अर्थात सातवीं शताब्दी में प्रारम्भ हुआl दोसरी बात यह मालुम हुई कि मुसलामानों के संबंध भारत के राजाओं के साथ अच्छे थे, उनकी सहिष्णुता, अच्छे आचरण, दियानतदारी, निष्पक्ष व्यवहार ने भारत के निवासियों का दिल जीतने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका अदा कियाl
कुछ इतिहासकारों और कलमकारों ने भारत में मुसलमानों के आगमन को तीन या चार भागों में बांटते हैं, लेकिन मेरा विचार है उन्हें तीन दौर में बयान करना अधिक सही हैl वह तीन दौर यह हैं (१) दौरे रिसालत (२) दौरे सहाबा और ताबईन (३) दौरे सूफिया ए किराम व मशाइख ए इज़ाम
दौरे रिसालत और भारत में मुसलमानों का आगमन
कहा जाता है कि मालाबार के तटवर्ती क्षेत्र पर इस्लाम के आने से पहले अरब व्यापारी आया करते थेl यह सिलसिला अरब में इस्लाम के आने के बाद भी चलता रहाl भारत में आने वाले अरब व्यापारियों के माध्यम से राजा चीरामण पीरुमल को रसूलुल्लाह सल्लल्लाहु अलैहि वसल्लम के बारे में पता चला और फिर वह आप सल्लल्लाहु अलैहि वसल्लम की खिदमत में आकर इस्लाम में दाखिल हो गएl इतिहासकारों के अनुसार भारत में इस्लाम के आमद की यह सबसे पहली घटना थीl
राजा चीरामण पीरुमल का संबंध उपमहाद्वीप की चीरा साम्राज्य (केरला) से थाl इस्लाम कुबूल करने के बाद वह ताजुद्दीन नाम से प्रसिद्ध हुएl दरबारे रिसालत में जा कर इस्लाम कुबूल करने के बाद जब राजा चीरामण पीरुमल ताजुद्दीन देश में वापस आए तो उनके साथ कुछ सहाबा भी तशरीफ लाए, लेकिन सफ़र के बीच ताजुद्दीन रज़ीअल्लाहु अन्हु का इन्तेकाल हो गयाl वह सहाबा जो राजा चीरामण (ताजुद्दीन) के साथ थे जब भारत पहुंचे तो ताजुद्दीन के वारिस उनके साथ सम्मान और अच्छा आचरण करते थेl वह सहाबा कौन थे, उनके नाम क्या हैं, और आखीर क्यों अब तक इस पर शोध कार्य नहीं हुआ और अगर हुआ तो क्यों हमारी आँखों से ओझल है? शोधकर्ता व बुद्धिजीवियों को इस ओर ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता हैl
दौरे सहाबा व ताबईन और भारत में मुसलमानों का आगमन
राजा चीरामण (ताजुद्दीन रज़ीअल्लाहु अन्हु) के वारिसों में से भी एक बादशाह रसूलुल्लाह सल्लल्लाहु अलैहि वसल्लम से अनुग्रह प्राप्ति के उद्देश्य से मदीना तशरीफ ले गए थेl लेकिन उनके पहुँचने तक रिसालत का दौर खत्म हो चुका था और दोसरे खलीफा हज़रत उमर रज़ीअल्लाहु अन्हु का दौर चल रहा थाl जब वह बादशाह लौटे तो उनके साथ कुछ सहाबा व ताबईन की एक जमात भी भारत के क्षेत्र मालाबार तशरीफ लाइl उनमें सबसे प्रसिद्ध नाम जो एतेहासिक पन्नों में उल्लेख हुए वह हज़रत मालिक बिन दीनार रज़ीअल्ल्लाहू अन्हु हैंl इस बात पर असहाब का मतभेद है कि वह सहाबी हैं या ताबई, हालांकि जम्हूर उन्हें ताबई मानते हैंl हज़रत मालिक बिन दीनार का मज़ार शरीफ आज भी केरला राज्य में कासिर गौड़ जिले में मौजूद हैl अगर कोई शोधकर्ता या इतिहासकार हज़रत मालिक बिन दीनार और भारत आने वाले दोसरे सहाबा व ताबईन के संबंध में खोज व शोध करके अधिक विवरण पेश करें तो अवश्य यह इतिहास का एक कीमती सरमाया होगाl जब हज़रत मालिक बिन दीनार के साथ दोसरे सहाबा व ताबईन भारत तशरीफ लाए तो राजा चीरामण (ताजुद्दीन रज़ीअल्लाहु अन्हु) के वारिसों ने उन असहाब की बहुत खिदमत की, उनके साथ सम्मान से पेश आए और फिर उन वारिसों ने अपने पिता के नाम से एक मस्जिद निर्माण करवाई जो आज भी चीरामण पीरुमल जुमा मस्जिद के नाम से केरला राज्य में स्थित मीथाला गाँव में मौजूद हैl
इसके अलावा एक और घटना प्रसिद्ध है कि सकीफ़ कबीले से संबंध रखने वाले तीन सहाबी भाई दोसरे सहाबा की जमात के साथ भारत के शहर मुंबई के निकट चेम्बूर या संबुर नामक एक तट के निकट उतरेl कुछ सहाबा ने उसकी जगह रहने का निर्णय कर लिया दीन की तबलीग में लग गएl मगर जब बाकी सहाबा कुछ दिनों बाद अपने देश लौटे और हज़रत उमर रज़ीअल्लाहु अन्हु के पास पहुंचे तो हज़रत उमर ने उन सहाबियों को बिना मशवरे और बिना तैयारी के सफ़र पर जाने से रोक दियाl
सूफिया और मशाइख का दौर
पहले यह बयान करना आवश्यक है कि सभी सहाबा सूफी थे, लेकिन इसके बावजूद वह सूफी से प्रसिद्ध नहीं हुए क्योंकि सहाबियत का उच्च दर्जा मिलने के बाद उन्हें सहाबी के अलावा किसी और शब्द से जोड़ना उचित नहीं होताl जब हम सहाबी कहते हैं तो यह बात हमारे मन में होती है कि वह मुत्तकी व परहेज़गार भी हैं, शरीअत व तरीकत और हकीकत व मारफत की अच्छी पहचान रखते हैं, तो वह सूफी भी हैं, दीनदार भी हैं, अमानत दार भी हैं खुदा तरस और रज़ा जू भी हैंl लेकिन वह सहाबी नहीं मगर मुत्तकी व परहेज़गार औलिया माने जाते हैं उनकी ओर ही इस तीसरे दौर की निस्बत उद्देश्य हैl
जब भारत में मुस्लिम राजाओं और अधिकारियों के प्रवेश का प्रारम्भ हुआ तो उनके साथ साथ सूफिया ए माशाइख भी अधिक संख्या में आएl सबसे पहले भारतीय सूफिया में जिन्होंने अपने हुस्ने अख़लाक़, रवादारी, नर्म गोई और वुसअते फ़िक्र व नज़र से भारतीयों को प्रभावित किया उनमें कुछ उल्लेखनीय प्रसिद्ध नाम यह हैं: फ़ारसी भाषा में तसव्वुफ़ पर लिखी गई मूल्यवान पुस्तक कश्फुल महजूब के लेखक हज़रत दाता गंज बख्श हजवेरी, हज़रत शहाबुद्दीन सहर्वर्दी के शिष्य अज़ीज़ शैख़ जलालुद्दीन तबरेज़ी, हज़रत ख्वाजा गरीब नवाज़ मुइनुद्दीन चिश्ती अजमेरी, सैयद जलालुद्दीन बुखारी, ख्वाजा कुतुबुद्दीन बख्तियार काकी, बाबा फरीदुद्दीन गंज शकर, हज़रत निज़ामुद्दीन औलिया, हज़रत जलालुद्दीन सुर्ख पोश और बहाउद्दीन ज़करिया मुलतानी इत्यादि रह्मतुल्लाही अलैहिम अजमइनl इस इतिहास का इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि इन बुज़ुर्गाने दीन से पहले उपमहाद्वीप पाक व हिन्द में इस्लाम की शमा रौशन हो चुकी थीl
इन तीनों दौर में इस्लाम की तरवीज व इशाअत हुईl  सहाबा हों या ताबईन व तबा ताबईन, सूफिया हों या मशाइख सभी अल्लाह वालों ने सीरत रसूले करीम सल्लल्लाहु अलैहि वसल्लम से हुस्ने अख़लाक़, इखलास व नरमी और नेक किरदार व अमल की खुबसूरत शिक्षाएं प्राप्त की थी यही कारण है कि वह इन शिक्षाओं पर अमल करके भारतीयों के दिलों को जीतने में सफल हुएl उन्होंने दावत व तबलीग के मैदान में कभी भी शरीअत की मुखालिफत नहीं की क्योंकि शरीअत का उसूल है कि इस्लाम की दावत व तबलीग में जबरदस्ती की कोई जगह नहीं तो आप हज़रात ने कभी किसी पर जब्र नहीं कियाl
واللہ ورسولہ اعلم بالصواب