Friday, August 9, 2019

When The Civil Society Fails To Root out Social Injustice To The Weaker Section, God Intervenes By Paving Ways For Legal Laws Against It


By S. Arshad, New Age Islam
08 August 2019
There is a lot of hue and cry over the Triple Talaq Prevention Bill passed by the BJP government. Muslim religious scholars and bodies call this an interference in the religious affairs of the Muslims. The government argues that the Triple Talaq is an injustice to Muslim women and so it has brought the Bill which has a provision of three years of imprisonment for the husband while the Muslim religious bodies hold that the Triple Talaq is approved by hadiths and Imams of Muslims. For a long time, feminist organisations of Muslims had been campaigning against Triple Talaq or instant Talaq. During recent years, some divorced women; victims of the practice of instant Talaq had moved courts of law pushing the government to bring the law on Triple Talaq.
Many Islamic scholars had already been campaigning against Triple Talaq with references from the Quran and also with references from the life of the holy prophet pbuh and the Sahaba. But the religious seminaries were adamant on their stand that the Triple Talaq had sanction from some imams and other religious scholars of the past. They present even some hadith in favour of their argument.
The Triple Talaq had been misused by illiterate men who were not aware of the rules of Talaq mentioned in the Q  uran. They only knew that their imams and muftis told that instant Triple Talaq was valid and permissible and so they divorced their wives at any pretext. In most of the cases, the husbands did not have justification for their action. Still, the muftis would tell them that since they spoke the word Talaq three times, the Talaq was valid and if they wanted to get their wife back they must go through halala. Therefore, the evil practice of halala was an offshoot of instant Triple Talaq. These two evils ruined the lives of millions of Muslim women. Statistics show that the incidence of divorce among Muslim women is twice the national average.
Unfortunately, even before the passing of the Bill, the religious scholars associated with Islamic seminaries did not show any change in their attitude and were not ready to bring reformation in Talaq laws. They were adamant on the validity of instant Talaq. This gave the government the scope to bring legislation on Triple Talaq. The holy companions showed flexibility in approach while dealing with the incidents of Talaq. The second caliph Hadhrat Umar had changed the law of divorce according to the contingency of the period to save married women from harassment. During the present period, when the instant Talaq is being misused rampantly ruining homes and lives of Muslim women, the ulema of the present day would also have done well to bring reforms by banning instant Triple Talaq. The Quran cleanly says: At-Talaqo Marratan (Talaq is for two times). (Al Baqarah: 229)
It means the husband will give Talaq twice at the prescribe periods and after Talaq on two separate occasions, the husband and wife should sit together and decide whether they still want to separate or get back. If they decide to reconcile, they should make amends and if they decide to get separated, they should do so with kindness. Here are the verses:
A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. (Al Baqarah:229)
But if their intention is firm for divorce, Allah heareth and knoweth all things.(Al Baqarah:227)
O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: (Al Talaq: 1)
The Quran at no occasion mentions Talaq thrice at one go. It advises both the husband and wife to make certain reconciliatory steps before making any decision. But here the conservative ulema have given the husband the tool of instant Talaq to illiterate and uneducated men to rampantly misuse it at the slightest pretext. And they present various flimsy arguments to justify the act. One argument is that killing a person with a sword is illegal and impermissible, but if a person kills his wife with a sword, he cannot say that he did not want to kill his wife, and the wife will not come alive because of his saying so. Similarly, if a man gives three Talaqs to his wife, the Talaq has occurred even if this form of Talaq is unwanted. But they ulema ignore the fact that killing the wife and divorcing the wife are not similar incidents. After a divorce, the wife is alive and can be taken back. The counter argument against their argument is that when a man is fasting and he eats to the full stomach by mistake, the mufti tells him that since he did not eat consciously or intentionally, his fast has not broken though the purpose of fasting is to remain hungry. Here, he is considered fasting though his stomach is full because it was not his intention to eat. But in the case of divorce, the mufti says that since he spoke out Talaq three times, the Talaq has occurred though the husband insists that he did not have the intention to divorce his wife.
The Quran clearly says that the husband should have firm intention for divorcing her wife: In Azamut Talaqa (But if their intention is firm for divorce). It means the divorce will not occur if the husband does not have firm intention. And one cannot have firm intention in a fit of anger, under the spell of wine, ganja or bhang or during severe illness. But the method of Talaq approved by our ulema and mufti are in violation of the enjoinment of the Quran. The ulema refused to see reason and did not show any change in approach to Talaq in the prevalent circumstances among the Muslim community.
Since it is the firm belief of the Muslims that all the political and social events on Earth are decreed by God, (Yudabbirul Amr) the passing of Triple Talaq Prevention Bill can also be regarded as God’s intervention as the Muslim civil society failed to take necessary steps to stop the misuse of triple Talaq. It is not the first time God has intervened to save the weaker sections of the society from the social injustice perpetrated to the female species by male chauvinism.
The evil practice of female feticide went on for decades leading to the killing of millions of girl children in mothers’ womb. Statisticians say that about 63 million women are missing and about 2 million babies go missing every year due to female feticide, malnutrition and other forms of discrimination against girls. In 1970, the government had passed bill allowing abortion in certain circumstances. This Act was rampantly misused to kill female foetuses leading to the killing of millions of girl children. When the civil society did not take steps to stop this evil and did not work to bring social reform to change the mindset of people, God had to intervene by paving the way for a law to make female feticide illegal. This stopped female feticide to a great extent thought the evil could not be rooted out completely.
Another instance of God’s intervention was the Prevention of Cruelty to women Act in 1983. Before that the practice of torture and killing of brides was rampant and millions of brides were killed due to this inhuman practice. The civil society could not stop this evil practice too and so finally God had to intervene by paving the way for the passing of the Prevention of Cruelty Act (498).
God loves all its creation. He even loves small insects as much as He loves human beings. So when He sees that men are doing grave injustice to the girls or women and the civil society is not doing anything to root out this injustice on its own, He paves the way for legislations and for that he brings those people in power who are instrumental in bringing such legislation. It is also a form of punishment to those responsible for ignoring the injustice and evil practices.
Now these so-called Muslim intellectuals have started saying that they have no objection to the law but the laws have wrong provisions. They should know that the law passed by the government is not of any Islamic country. So they should not blame the government of an un-Islamic country to bring a fool-proof legislation on Triple Talaq. If they did not want any interference from an un-Islamic government in their Personal Laws, they should have woken up and acted before the government acted.
At least, with the passing of this Bill, the shops of mullahs running Halala business will be closed and women will be saved from going through the indignity of Halala and blackmailing in the name of Triple Talaq.
S. Arshad is a regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com

Does Islam Justify Rebellion Perpetrated by Modern Terrorist Groups? هل يجوز في الإسلام البغي على الحكومة؟




غلام غوث الصديقي،نيو إيج إسلام
8 أغسطس عام 2019
قال ابن فارس: البغي: الباء والغين والياء، أصلان: أحدهما طلب الشيء، والثاني: جنس من الفساد...والأصل الثاني: قولهم بغى الجرح، إذا ترامى إلى فساد.. ثم يشتق من هذا ما بعده، فالغي الفاجرة....ومنه أن يبغي الإنسان على الآخر...وإذا كان ذا بغي فلا بد أن يقع منه فساد...والبغي: الظلم. (مجموع مقاييس اللغة لإبن فارس ص 144)
وقال زين الدين بن إبراهيم بن محمد، المعروف بابن نجيم المصري الحنفي: البغاة جمع باغ، من بغى على الناس ظلم واعتدى، وبغي سعي بالفساد، ومنه الفرقة الباغية لأنها عدلت عن القصد.. وفئة باغية خارجة عن طاعة الإمام العادل. (البحر الرائق لإبن نجيم، ج 5 ص 150)
قال الحصكفي: البغي لغة: الطلب، ومنه (ذالك ما كنا نبغ) وعرفا: طلب ما لا يحل من جور وظلم (الدر المختار للحصكفي ج4 ص 261)
قال ابن همام الحنفي: والباغی فی عرف الفقهاء : الخارج عن طاعة إمام الحق. والخارجون عن طاعته أربعة أصناف :
أحدها : الخارجون بلا تأويل بمنعة وبلا منعة، يأخذون أموال الناس ويقتلونهم ويخيفون الطريق، وهم قطاع الطريق.
والثاني : قوم کذلک إلا أنهم لا منعة لهم لکن لهم تأويل. فحکمهم حکم قطّاع الطريق. إن قتلوا قتلوا وصلبوا. وإن أخذوا مال المسلمين قطعت أيديهم وأرجلهم علي ما عرف.
والثالث : قوم لهم منعة وحمية خرجوا عليه بتأويل يرون أنه علي باطل کفر أو معصية. يوجب قتاله بتأويلهم. وهؤلاء يسمون بالخوارج يستحلون دماء المسلمين وأموالهم ويسبون نساء هم ويکفرون أصحاب رسول اﷲ صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم . وحکمهم عند جمهور الفقهاء وجمهور أهل الحديث حکم البغاة....
والرابع : قوم مسلمون خرجوا علی إمام ولم يستبيحوا ما استباحه الخوارج، من دماء المسلمين وسبی ذراريهم وهم البغاة. (ابن همام، فتح القدير، 5 : 334)
وقال ابن نجيم: وأما البغاة : فقوم مسلمون خرجوا علی الإمام العدل، ولم يستبيحوا ما استباحه الخوارج من دماء المسلمين وسبی ذراريهم. (ابن نجيم، البحر الرائق فی شرح الکنز الدقائق، 5 : 151)
قال ابن عابدين: هل البغي : کل فئة لهم منعة. يتغلبون ويجتمعون ويقاتلون أهل العدل بتأويل. يقولون : ’’الحق معنا‘‘ ويدعون الولاية. (ابن عابدين، رد المحتار، 4 : 262)
قال الحصكفي: ثم الخارجون عن طاعة الإمام ثلاثة : قطاع طريق... وبغاة... وخوارج وهم قوم لهم منعة خرجوا عليه بتأويل يرون أنه علی باطل کفر أو معصية، توجب قتاله بتأويلهم. ويستحلون دماء نا وأموالنا، ويسبون نساء نا ويکفرون أصحاب نبينا صلی الله عليه وآله وسلم. وحکمهم حکم البغاة بإجماع الفقهاء کما حققه فی الفتح. (حصکفي، الدر المختار، 4 : 262، 263)
ويستدل فقهاء الإسلام بأحاديث لتثبت معارضة الخروج على الإمام ومنها قول الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم: من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله ومن يعصني فقد عصا الله ومن يطع أميري فقد أطاعني ومن يعص أميري فقد عصاني. (رواه مسلم)
وقال صلى الله عليه وسلم لما سأله رجل: يا نبي الله أرأيت إن قامت علينا أمراء يسألوننا حقهم ويمنعوننا حقنا فما تأمرنا؟ فأعرض عنه ثم سأله فأعرض عنه ثم سأله في الثالثة فجذبه الأشعث بن قيس فقال صلى الله عليه وسلم اسمعوا وأطيعوا فإنما عليهم ما حملوا وعليكم ما حملتم (رواه مسلم)
وقال النبي عليه وسلم: يكون بعدي أئمة لايهتدون بهداي ولايستنون بسنتي وسيقوم فيهم رجال قلوبهم قلوب الشياطين في جثمان إنس قال حذيفة: قلت: كيف أصنع يارسول الله ؟ إن أدركت ذلك ؟؟ قال: تسمع وتطيع وإن ضرب ظهرك وأخذ مالك، فاسمع وأطع. (رواه مسلم)
وقال النبي عليه السلام: من كره من أميره شيئا فليصبر عليه، فإنه ليس من أحد من الناس يخرج من السلطان شبرا فمات عليه، إلا مات ميتة جاهلية. (رواه مسلم من حديث ابن عباس رضي الله عنه ورواه البخاري أيضا)
يجب الحفاظ على الهدف إلى إقامة السلام المتأصل في مثل هذه الأحاديث في عقول المسلمين العائشين في القرن الحادي والعشرين. ولتحقيق هذا الهدف في العصور الحديثة، لا بد لهم أن يفهموا أولا أن الذين يعيشون في ظل حكومة معينة ، غير عادلة أم ديموقراطية حقيقية، يجب أن يتبعوا الحكومة العادلة ويعيشوا بشكل سلمي. وليس من اللازم أن يحملوا الأسلحة ضد الحكومة بطريقة متمردة حتى خلال مواجهة أي نوع من التهميش أو الظلم. وبدلا من ذالك يجب أن يتحلوا بالصبر خوفا من أن بغيهم يؤدي إلى صراع. والسبب هو أن النبي عليه السلام نهى عن البغي حتى ضد الحاكم الظالم،  ناهيك عن الحكومة العادلة. ونلاحظ القاعدة الشرعية المجمع عليها "أنه لا يجوز إزالة الشر بما هو أشر منه، بل يجب درء الشر بما يزيله أو يخففه"، أما درء الشر بشر أكثر فلا يجوز بإجماع المسلمين. وتنطبق هذه القاعدة المجمع عليها أيضا على التنظيمات التي تشن كفاحا متمردا ضد حكوماتهم إذ يؤدي ذالك إلى شر أكبر، فإنها ترتكب جرائم غير إنسانية خارجة عن طاعة الإسلام.     
(ترجمه من الإنجليزية: نيو إيج إسلام)
       



Instant Triple Talaq is Gone; But Muslim Men Still Have a Lot of Privileges


By Arshad Alam, New age Islam
01 August 2019
The repeated references to Shah Bano affair of 1986 (in which the parliament bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of orthodox Mullahs) by the law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad made it amply clear that the Triple Talaq bill was meant to correct a historic wrong. The congress party in 1986 appeased the Mullahs by taking away whatever meagre rights the courts had granted to Muslim women. For the nation’s collective psyche, it was as if the religious concern of Muslims was above the constitution. Hindu religion had been legislated upon and changed according to the evolving times.
However, an insular Muslim politics, aided by a sectarian congress leadership saw to it that the Muslim religion became backward and regressive with the passage of time. A narrative arose within the majority that Indian Muslims somehow were treated differently and certainly when it came to their religion, they were a pampered lot. A certain resentment built up against Muslims over the years. The Muslim leadership was hardly concerned to rectify this perception that was building up amongst the majority community. So yesterday, when the law minister and others referred to Shah Bano, they were in fact telling their constituency that they have shown Muslims their place. That with the BJP in power, Muslims and their religion will not be judged differently by putting Islam on a pedestal as was done during previous regimes.
Of course, the politicians who were eager to see the passage of the bill couched it in terms of gender justice and equality. There is some merit in the argument that the bill is certainly a step forward in terms of granting Muslim women certain rights. However, no one seems to be convinced because this argument is coming from a party who very recently campaigned against gender justice in the Sabarimala case. More than gender justice, this is about showing Muslims their place in the new dispensation. And if Muslim women are to be used to make this point, so be it.
This however, is not take away the struggles of thousands of Muslim women and organizations like Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan who have campaigned against the abrogation of instant triple Talaq since even before this government came in power. They petitioned the congress government and various other so called secular custodians of our polity and culture but no one listened to them. They petitioned the courts and won a much deserved victory from the Supreme Court which abrogated the practices of instant triple Talaq. In their effort at lobbying they must have petitioned the current government too which is very much within their right. Petitioning the current government certainly does not make them members of the BJP and those accusing these activists of being the B-team of BJP are only themselves to blame for the mess in which the Muslim society finds itself today.
 Certainly I do not believe that BJP has the best interests of Muslim women at heart, but owing to a combination of factors and for reasons extraneous to the concerns of Muslim women, the bill has got passed and it will certainly have some beneficial consequences for Muslim women.
From the point of view of Muslim women’s struggle, this is just a partial victory. For a very long time, they have been demanding comprehensive reform within the Muslim family law to make it more gender equal.
For the moment though, Muslim women can hope that perhaps the new law will make men fearful and they will no longer utter triple Talaq at one go for whimsical reasons. What is also possible is the sheer misuse of the new law. Just like what happened with section 498A (domestic violence act), it is possible that a nexus of extortionists, lawyers and police might develop to blackmail Muslim men.
The only thing that Muslim woman has to do in this case is to report to the magistrate that the husband has given her instant triple Talaq. There is no need for a witness or any other corroborative proof, the statement of the woman would be sufficient to put the man behind bars. Of course, he will have legal recourse but given the state of judiciary in this country, it will take him years to prove his innocence. One can only hope that better sense prevails amongst Muslim women and they do not abuse the law which has been made specifically for their betterment.
However, Muslim men still possess the right to give unilateral divorce to their wives if they wish to do so. The only difference is that now they will have to stagger it over three months. Under Islamic law, women still do not have the right to divorce their husbands. The most that they can ask for is Khula, which is basically a requesting the husband for a divorce. Now, if the husband does not want to divorce his wife, then the wife is condemned to live with him. The only way out for women is to approach sharia courts but since these courts have no legal sanctity in India, any injunction passed by such quasi-judicial body has no merit in the eyes of law. Within no other religious tradition in India, men have so much power over their women in matters of divorce. Thus what is required is a comprehensive review of Muslim marriage and divorce laws with the express purpose of promoting gender equality. But this is better said than done.
Already, women activists are facing the brunt of community ire and are being accused of being anti-Islamic. This comes from the erroneous assumption made by many within the Muslim society that the sharia is immutable. Sharia literally means the path or the way that exists at a particular time in history. Thus sharia is basically the norm of any society at a given moment. Societies change and so do norms and there is no reason to believe that the sharia is cast in stone. If that was the case, then no legal change within Muslim majority societies would have happened. Indian Muslims must also shed their reluctance over changing the sharia. Any law which does not change with times is bound to create problems rather than help people. Because Indian Muslims have not changed their personal laws for many years, the same law has now become an impediment to their intellectual and social growth.
Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Can Muslims Force Non-Muslims To Convert To Islam? Why No Outrage Among Ulema On Reports Of Forced Conversions From Different Countries, Particularly Pakistan?


By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam
02 August 2019
The topic of forcible conversion to Islam has become the concern of mainstream media. Several cases of conversion to Islam are reported to have occurred around the world, particularly in Pakistan of young Hindu girls who are abducted, converted forcibly and married off to their abductors. This is extremely shocking because this violates the total Islamic prohibition of forced conversion.
Islam neither allows forced conversion nor accepts the faith of those who are forcibly converted to Islam. Forced conversion can’t create love and faith in one’s heart, as Islamic faith is not related to outward following of rituals, but rather it is a matter of acceptance by heart. Then how can one justify forced conversion? Why is there no outrage in the community of Muslim ulema at this mockery of our religion by Muslims themselves?
The Quran clearly prohibits forced conversion when it says, “There is no compulsion in religion. Surely, the guidance has become evidently distinguished from error. So he who rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped such a firm handhold that will never loosen. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (2:256)
In this verse, the Quranic phrase “La Ikraha Fiddinلا إكراه في الدين…” means “There is no compulsion in Religion”. The first word of the verse ‘La’ is ‘La Nafiya Li al-Jins’, a negative particle which specifically denotes ‘categorical negation’, i.e. no chance of any exception. Thus, the meaning of this Ayat is: every sort of compulsion, without any exception, is totally prohibited in the Islamic faith.
This is the basic principle of Islam upon which the idea of non-compulsion is built, guaranteeing religious freedom for all non-Muslims. Islam, as the Quranic verse says, has made its “guidance evidently distinguished from error” and therefore it does not force the people to convert to Islam. In other words, Islam invites people to accept Islam willingly, but it does not force them to do so. A number of Quranic verses support this view. Some of them are as follows;
“There is no duty upon the Noble Messenger except to convey the command; and Allah knows all what you disclose and all what you hide.” (5:99)
“And proclaim, “The Truth is from your Lord”; so whoever wills may accept faith, and whoever wills may disbelieve – We have indeed prepared for the wrongdoers [Zalimin] a fire the walls of which will surround them; if they plead for water, their plea will be answered with water like molten metal which shall scald their faces; what an evil drink it is; and what an evil destination is hell!” (The Quran - 18:29)
“And if your Lord willed, all those who are in the earth – every one of them – would have accepted faith; so, will you force the people until they become Muslims?” (The Quran -10:99)
This verse clearly implies that if God had willed, He would have caused only the believers to be born in the earth. Nothing was impossible for God. He revealed His signs to check the mankind, granting them the free-will to choose faith or unbelief.
The second half of the verse, “So will you force the people until they become Muslims?” is a rhetorical question which serves to emphasize that accepting the faith is a matter of choice. The Quran has used this rhetorical technique to guide the believers, while apparently addressing the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him). This part of the verse does not mean that the Prophet sought to compel the people to become believers, because God Almighty had prevented him from doing so.
This verse is meant to comfort the Prophet (peace be upon him) because he had worry and concern over whether his people will embrace his message and refrain from committing unbelief and sins, as the Quran refers to his concern, “Indeed there has come to you a Noble Messenger from among you – your falling into hardship aggrieves him, most concerned for your well being, for the believers most compassionate, most merciful” (9:128). God Almighty knows that His Prophet is concerned about the sins of the people and their fate in the Hereafter.
So, to comfort His Prophet, God says, “Possibly you may risk your life (O Prophet) by grieving, because they did not believe”. (26:3). This implies that instead of risking his life, the Prophet should remember that the state of the faith of the people whom he is commanded to address is a matter for God Almighty to determine and is not his concern. Therefore the only duty for him is to proclaim the divine message and not to force them to save them from the divine punishment in the Hereafter, as the Quran refers to this, “Your duty is only to convey, and it is up to Us to reckon” (13:40), “Therefore advise; you are only the one who reminds. You are not at all a guardian over them.” (88:21-22)
Allah commands His Prophet to invite the people to Islam with wisdom and fair admonition and in the best manner, with kindness, gentleness and good speech, as He says,
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair admonition, and argue with them in the kindest way. Your Lord knows best who is misguided from His way. And He knows best who are guided.” (Qur'an, 16:125)
 “Then if they turn away, (O Prophet), upon you is nothing but to clearly convey (the message).” (16:82)
What do the modern and traditional jurists and exegetes say about the forced conversion? Let us read some of them.
Imam Razi says in his commentary of the verse 2:256, “forced conversion is not permissible in the world because it is the house of trial. And because forced conversion to Islam invalidates the objective of trial and test. The example of this non-compulsive behaviour is also mentioned in the divine speech of God, “And say, “The Truth is from your Lord”; so whoever wills may accept faith, and whoever wills may disbelieve...” (18:29) (Mafatih al-Ghaib, Tafsir Razi, 2:256)  
Notably a famous classical jurist belonging to Hanbali school of thought, Ibn Qudamah al-Marquise writes, (translation from Arabic) “It is not permitted to force a non-Muslim to accept Islam. Such a person would not even be considered a Muslim until it is confirmed that he accepted the Islamic faith by his own free choice.” He also says, “The reason for the prohibition of any compulsion or coercion is the Qur’anic verse, “There is no compulsion in Religion” (see al-Mughni-)
Allama Ibn Kathir writes in his commentary on the verse 2:256,
يقول تعالى : ( لا إكراه في الدين ) أي : لا تكرهوا أحدا على الدخول في دين الإسلام فإنه بين واضح جلي دلائله وبراهينه لا يحتاج إلى أن يكره أحد على الدخول فيه ، بل من هداه الله للإسلام وشرح صدره ونور بصيرته دخل فيه على بينة ، ومن أعمى الله قلبه وختم على سمعه وبصره فإنه لا يفيده الدخول في الدين مكرها مقسورا . وقد ذكروا أن سبب نزول هذه الآية في قوم من الأنصار ، وإن كان حكمها عاما .
English Translation:
“Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.” (Ismail Ibn Kathir “Tafsir Al-Quran Al-Azim” English and Arabic versions, 2:256).
Abu Bakr al-Jazairi says, (لا يكره المرء على الدخول في الدين، وإنما يعتنقه بإرادته واختياره) “The people will not be forced to enter into Islam. They can embrace it on their will and pleasure.” (Aysar al-Tafasir, 2:256)
Imam Nasafi Hanafi says in the commentary of the verses (10:99-100), “if Allah the Most High wanted to compel all people to believe, then He would have done so and all the people would have believed in Him. But He has willed instead that they come to believe in Him by their own free choice”. (Abd Allah ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi, “Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqaiq Al-Tawil (the Arabic book of Tafsir)
It is reported that although the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this verse 2:256, the application of its message is general in meaning (Tafsir Ibn Kathir). Given the famous maxim "العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب", meaning, “Consideration is granted to the Generality of the Language, not to the Specificity of the Reason for Revelation”, it is proclaimed that this verse (2:256) is general in meaning and applies to all non-Muslims. Hence it means that none of the non-Muslims should be coerced to accept Islam. The rationale behind this generality is explained in this way: since the revelation has distinguished the path of guidance from the path of misguidance, it is now up to the will of people to choose the one or the other path and therefore accepting Islam because of compulsion would not benefit the convert in any way.
More significantly it is also reported that when Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) invited an old Christian woman to accept Islam, she said in reply: “I am an old woman nearing death.” Hearing this, Hazrat Umar did not force her to come into the fold of Islam. In fact, he recited this very verse 2:256 “There is no compulsion in Religion)” (Al-Nahhas “al-Nasikh wal Mansukh”)
When Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) granted security and protection to the citizens of Jerusalem, his covenant established the constitution of religious freedom (based on ‘There is no compulsion in Religion’) for all non-Muslims living in Islamic society.
This is reported by Imam Tabari that Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) made peace with the people of Jerusalem and wrote a single covenant for every village besides Jerusalem: “In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful. This is the covenant of security from the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Commander of the faithful, to the people of Jerusalem. He grants them safety for their lives, their property, their churches and their crucifixes, for their ill, their healthy, and their entire community. Their churches will not be occupied, demolished, or decreased in number. Their churches and crucifixes will not be desecrated and neither anything else of their property. They will not be coerced to abandon their religion and none of them will be harmed.” (Imam Tabari, ‘Tarikh al-umam wa al-muluk, 2/449
Shaykh Muhammad Mitwalli ash-Sha'rawi says in the commentary of 2:256,
فأصل التدين والإيمان بالله ألا يكرهك أحد عليه بل ادخل إلى الإيمان بالله باختيارك لكن إذا دخلت إلى الإيمان بالله فالتزم بالسماع من الله في "افعل" ولا تفعل. (تفسير الشعراوي ج 4)
The original religiousness and faith in God comes when no one compels you for that. You should enter into faith on your free will. However if you embrace the faith, you should obey “Do’s” and “Don’ts” mentioned in the Quran.” (Tafsir Sha’rawi, vol.4)
The afore-mentioned Quranic verses (Ayaat) and reports make it quite clear that forced conversion is not permissible. Hence the idea of forced conversion is baseless and can’t be justified. The reason is that forced belief is not sincere belief and that Islamic faith is not related to ritualistic practices or false statements, but rather it relates to the heart, and in matters of the heart, there is no scope for compulsion. Therefore, non-Muslims can’t be compelled to become a Muslim. In any case the idea of forcing someone to believe in something is absurd.
A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar), with a Sufi-Sunni background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator. He has also done B.A (Hons.) in Arabic, M.A. in Arabic and M.A in English from JMI, New Delhi. He is Interested in Islamic Sciences; Theology, Jurisprudence, Tafsir, Hadith and Islamic mysticism (Tasawwuf).

Triple Talaq Bill: Islamic Clerics Warn India May Turn into ‘Darul Harb’ Owing To ‘Forced Changes’ In the Shariah





By New Age Islam Special Correspondent
3 August 2019
Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan Barailwi has supported the law on Triple Talaq criminalising instant divorce as Shariah-compliant as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had also done this in its Book of Law as per articles in its mouthpiece magazines like Dabiq and Rumayyia.
The Indian Urdu press mostly controlled by the Islamic clerics is known for a very constrained space for the dissenting views on the Muslim personal law affairs. A review of the country’s Urdu dailies on the ongoing debate on ‘Triple Talaq Bill’ passed by the Rajya Sabha makes it self-explanatory. But this time, most of the Urdu press releases on this issue have put together assertions that cannot be simply dismissed.
The candid expression of dissatisfaction with and scathing criticism of the Triple Talaq Bill is rife in the Urdu press. For instance, Roznama Siyasi Ufuq, the Urdu daily published simultaneously from Delhi and Ranchi carried a detailed press note on why the Triple Talaq Bill is paradoxical and full of legal and theological contradictions.
Talking to the newspaper, Maulana Syed Ashraf Kichchawchchvi, founder and president of All India Ulema & Mashaikh Board, an apex body of Sunni-Sufi Muslims in India, questioned as to how the Triple Talaq Bill, which abolishes the practice of triple Talaq but also criminalises the husband at the same time, would help in the family’s domestic life. He asked: “When the Supreme Court has already struck down the practice, then what does the government intend by bringing a law to imprison and punish the Muslim husbands?”Kichchawchchvi further asks as to who will provide the allowance to the wife and her children as long as the husband is imprisoned and how can this law ensure that the malpractice will not happen? What is the guarantee of the couple living happily even after the husband is put behind the bars for three years? And not only the imprisonment, in many cases, he will have to suffer the harassments and custodial persecutions on the complaints from the wife and her relatives. “We do not reject the Triple Talaq Bill outright. But we demand a fair probe into the related issues and more nuances need to be studied to introduce a proper and more practical law on against the instant divorce. Otherwise, the law itself will appear ‘instantly framed’ and hastily decided just like the practice of the instant divorce (triple Talaq)”, he said.
 












Photo Siyasi Ufaq Urdu Daily
 Roznama Sahafat, another Urdu daily from Delhi published a report on why Muslims in India as well as the clerics are averse to the Bill. It quotes several ulema and community leaders who have called the Bill antithetical to the spirit of Indian Constitution. Mufti Abul Qasim No’mani, rector of the Darul Uloom Deoband has been quoted as saying: “The Triple Talaq Bill passed by the Rajya Sabha is not only a clear interference into the Islamic Shari’ah but also goes against the women’s rights. This law violates the religious freedom enshrined in the Indian constitution and has been brought, only on the strength of majority, at a time when thousands of women have showed their dissatisfaction against the law through the signature campaigns”.
In his criticism of the Bill Maulana Hasan al-Hashmi, founder of the A’alami RoohaniTehrik, has gone one step further. He says that despite the demographic majority of the Hindus in India, ulema declare the country as Darul Amn (land of peace). But the ongoing situation of interference in the Shariah-related affairs reeks of attempts to catapult it into “Darul Harb” (land of war)”, as reported in the fifth page of the daily Sahafat on the 1st August.
 









Photo Sahafat Urdu Daily
 As usual, the Urdu newspapers did not offer the space to dissent or divergent Muslim views on the issue of the Muslim Personal Laws. They have not published, so far, anything critical of the misplaced patriarchy, mullahs’ male chauvinism or violation of Muslim women's rights in the name of vile customs like the Halala. The vile practice of Halala is a direct result of the instant divorce being pronounced, without due deliberation that Islam asks Muslim husbands to engage in before making such an important decision. Thus, the editorial policies in almost all Urdu newspapers appear to be clergy-controlled.
Notably, an editorial in the reputed Urdu daily, Inqilab which has editions across the country, states that if the government intends to provide equal rights to Muslim women, it should first remove the religious stipulation from the Section 341 in the Constitution. “The religious terms in Section 341 hampers the Muslim community from availing the opportunities of progression open to other backward communities and classes like the Dalits," it said.
A sense of unanimity has prevailed in the Urdu press in support of the Muslim personal laws and for not allowing any interference in the Shariah law by the government. But at the same time, a note of introspection can also be seen in a section of the Urdu newspapers which confess that if the ulema had made the community abreast of the true Qur’anic principles of marriage and divorce, it would not have been an issue in India. However, in a brazen breach of the journalistic ethics, none of the leading Urdu newspapers has covered a progressive view on the Uniform Civil Code.
While the arguments against the Triple Talaq Bill are not wholly untenable and need not be rejected outright, there is a distressing development in the wake of the Bill passed in the Rajya Sabha and more so now after the Bill became an Act after the presidential assent. Now a man can be booked under new law for divorcing wife in one go (Talaq-e-Bid’at), even though the divorce will not be considered effective and irrevocable.
But on the other hand, and more regrettably, the self-declared custodians of Islam in India like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Darul Uloom Deoband, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Jama’t-e-Islami are warning that India may turn into Darul Harb(land of war) owing to the ‘forced changes’ in the Islamic Shariah. Such a declaration would make it mandatory for a Muslim to either migrate to other lands or fight against the state of India. Nothing could be more irresponsible than this. Even a mention of Darul Harb in the context of present-day secular, democratic India and in the present volatile situation is extremely dangerous. In its March 2009 fatwa issued after Bombay blasts Darul Uloom Deoband had said: “In Darul Harbterritory, jihad is legitimate.” The fatwa added that “India had ceased to be a Darul Harb with the end of colonial rule.” Now if it is again declared Darul Harb, will ulema be making Jihad in India legitimate?
The Indian Islamic perspective on the country’s jurisprudential status has always remained pro-democracy, peaceful and pluralistic. The mainstream ulema, mostly from Deoband, declared the independent India as Darul Mu’ahida (land of peace agreement), while some others termed it Darul Amn (land of peace) and a few modern Islamic scholars like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Maulana Manzarul Islam Azhari introduced India as Darul Da’wah (abode of Islamic preaching). They all have maintained pro-state positions on issues like Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir militancy.
One would have a hard time finding an A’alim/Fazil (Islamic theologian) in India who will not stand by the Indian establishment on issues like the anti-British jihad or now the anti-Pakistan surgical strikes. Even recently, ulema belonging to both Deobandi and Barelvi Islamic schools staunchly supported the surgical strikes of the Indian army in the wake of Pulwama terror attack. Maulana Shahabudin Razvi of All India Jamaat Raza-e-Mustafa, the Bareilly Qazi Maulana Asjad Raza Khan and the Deoband spokesperson Maulana Ashraf Usmani, all had openly supported the Indian army’s action. But an imprudent decision and hastily designed ‘reform’ like in the Triple Talaq Bill which stands untenable in several ulema’s views, as it abolishes the practice of triple talaq and criminalises the husband at the same, does not augur well in the long run.
Though there is no official declaration for India turning into ‘Darul Harb’, the theological grounds on which this declaration can be issued— interference in Muslims’ religious and domestic matters—have been pronounced by the Deoband clerics including Mufti Abul Qasim No’mani, rector of Darul Uloom Deoband and Maulana Mahmood Madani General Secretary Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind. The Urdu daily Sahafat carried a report on 1st August titled, “The Triple Talaq Bill is an interference in the Shari’ah-based Muslim personal laws”. It quotes Maulana Mahmood Madani as saying: “this bill will result into grave injustice against women and their permanent and irrevocable divorce which will also deter their remarriage. The imprisonment of the husbands will tell upon the wife, children and other dependent family members”. Madani accuses the Modi government of a wilful oblivion to the recommendations made by the community representatives. “We had clearly alarmed the government about the flaws and ill consequences of the Bill”, Madani claims in this report. He further says that ‘the government by brining such law is indirectly trying to impose Common Civil Court which aims at depriving Muslims of their religious freedom instead of doing justice towards women’.












But surprisingly, noted Barelwi leader in North India—Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, National President of Ittihad-e-Millat Council expressed quite a divergent opinion. He welcomed the Triple Talaq Bill as consistent and compatible with the Islamic Sha’riah. “The bill having been passed in the Rajya Sabha is actually the win of the Islamic Shari’ah as the instant divorce was against the will of Allah and His Prophet (pbuh) and whatever displeases the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be acceptable to Muslims at all”, he said. Maulana Tauqeer Raza further states that “those who did not adhere to the Ulema in this matter, will have to follow the Islamic rulings now under the pressure from the government”.









Indeed, the Barelwi leader Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan who is known for his announcement of a bounty of Rs 5 lakh on Tasleema Nasirn’s head in 2007 for her ‘blasphemy’ against Islam, is right in his assertion that the government’s Bill on Triple Talaq is Shariah-compliant. In fact, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had made a very similar clause in its Book of Law published by the Islamic State (ISIS) as per articles in its suspended magazines of ISIS like Dabiq and Rumayyia. It had ruled that whosoever utters the ‘un-Islamic’ instant divorce will be considered a criminal and punished in the same way as the second Caliph Umar al-Farooq (r.a) flogged men when they resorted to instant Talaq. This leaves us with the quandary whether India has also resorted to the same law on Triple Talaq as desired by the ISIS in its occupied lands?
The Sunni-Shafa’ee leader in South India Shaikh Aboobacker Musliyar, recently appointed as the Grand Mufti in India, reacted to the absence of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) MP Abdul Wahad during the debate on the Triple Talaq Bill in the Rajya Sabha. “MPs of opposition parties should act responsibly……The principal duty of an opposition party in this discussion was to question the Bill used for weakening the values of democracy”, he contended.

Will Revoking Article 370 End The ‘Islamisation’ Of Kashmir Issue? Time Cultural Confluence of Islamic and Sanskiritc Traditions— Kashmiriyat—Is Restored In the Valley!

Will Revoking Article 370 End The ‘Islamisation’ Of Kashmir Issue? Time Cultural Confluence of Islamic and Sanskiritc Traditions— Kashmiriyat—Is Restored In the Valley!




By New Age Islam Special Correspondent
 6 August 2019
The Kashmir issue has a triangle-kind relationship with the three sides: India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris themselves. But one wonders why the emotional relationship involving a large section of Muslims across the world and particularly in India is often showcased on the untenable religious grounds. Waqas Khan, a research scholar of Islamic studies at GIFT University Gujranwala (located north of Lahore) who has also studied at Jamia Darul Uloom in Karachi, writes:
“There are three sides to the Kashmir issue: India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris themselves. India has made the right decision for both Pakistan and India by revoking the unique status of Jammu and Kashmir. Let’s not forget that Pakistan has already taken this move in Gilgit-Baltistan.
Therefore, before the criticism of India's latest decision on Kashmir, you must consider your own actions as well”. He goes on to write on his Facebook wall: “As for Kashmiris, I personally do not consider Gilani and the Company as the rightful representatives of all Kashmiris. Kashmiris have never voted for them, nor have the majority of Kashmiris ever stood with them. On this basis, any statement made by him against India's recent move cannot be declared a statement of Kashmiris.” Khan concludes: “However, in times to come, the Kashmiris themselves will formulate their policies and every awakened person will have the moral responsibility to support them on humanitarian grounds. Until then, in my opinion, we should calm down and we must not try to become a ‘good Muslim’ or a ‘good Pakistani’ by bashing Imran Khan or Modi or anyone else. After all, we have many more painful issues to howl on”.
On 5 August, 2019, it was announced in the Rajya Sabha and on 6th August in the Lok Sabha that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is to be practically abrogated under the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 signed by President of India. The Gazette Notification states: “The Constitution Order shall come into force at once, and shall thereupon supersede Article 370 as amended from time to time.”
An array of reactions on the revocation of the Article 370— some purely political, some socio-political and some through a historical-cultural prism— are a separate part of the issue. What we must not overlook is the theological underpinnings on 5 August, 2019, that have unfolded over time. But little has been reflected on this part albeit it has had a significant place in the valley’s history and in the militant theology and politics.
A glance at the primary sources, or at least a thorough reading of secondary sources, would help us in an analysis of how and why the Kashmir issue was Islamised. According to the noted researcher on the South Asian Islamic history, Yoginder Sikand, in the decades after Independence, the Jamaat-e-Islami leaders insisted “a carefully planned Indian conspiracy was at work to destroy the Islamic identity of the Kashmiris, through Hinduising the school syllabus and spreading immorality and vice among the youth”.
Thus, Jamaat-e-Islami leaders in Kashmir launched an ideological onslaught on the prevailing Sufi and Shavite traditions in the valley, which were castigated as ‘elements enabling an atmosphere of inter-religious coexistence’, something antithetical to the very idea of Jama’at-e-Islami.
Shahid Lone, a Kashmiri writer and research scholar explains in his piece in The Caravan that it is a “bizarre claim that the Jama’at advocates the creation of an autonomous state of Kashmir governed by Islamic law. This is a flawed assertion ascribed to the Jama’at because it considers Kashmir an unfinished agenda of partition.”
Since its inception, the Jama’at has looked at the disputed territory through the prism of ‘pan-Islamism’. Through its mouthpiece magazines like Azaan and Mo’min, and in multiple resolutions passed by its advisory council, Jama’at has voiced the same concerns that led to the separation of the Jama’at-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir from its parent organization—Jama’at-e-Islami Hind, Lone argues. (1)
Yoginder Sikand writes in his research paper “For Islam and Kashmir: the prison diaries of Sayyed Ali Gilani of the Jama'at‐I‐Islami of Jammu and Kashmir”:
“Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, however, the JIJK [Jama'at-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir) began shifting towards a distinct radicalism, calling for an Iranian-style movement in Jammu and Kashmir to free the region from Indian control. Since then, the Jama'at has been in the forefront of the political struggle for the independence of Jammu and Kashmir from India. Today it is actively involved in the armed Kashmiri uprising, which it considers to be a jihad. In this, it has received the support of, among others, the Jama'at-i-Islami of Pakistan, which has long characterized the struggle in Kashmir as a religious war between Islam and disbelief (Kufr).” (2)
Indeed, Maulana Maududi, the Jama’at Islami founder-ideologue was very much inspired by Imam Khomeini, the ideologue and leader of the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution and he sought to achieve the same objectives in India. He was of the belief that Islam is essential for politics. In his understanding, secularism, nationalism and socialism, were influences of western imperialism, and it was incumbent and obligatory (Farz-E-Ain) to institute sharia (Islamic Law) to preserve the Islamic identity. He founded the Jama’at-e-Islami (JeI) in the British-occupied India in 1941 after the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) was established in Egypt in 1928, with an avowed inspiration from Maududi. At least in India, Sikand notes, JeI was the first of its kind organisation to develop "an ideology based on the modern revolutionary conception of Islam.”
Therefore, now in the days after the Article 370 has been abrogated, the Islamisation of the Kashmir issue will probably grow apace. More and more Islamo-supremacist, pan-Islamist political organisations and the so-called social and welfare movements will join the ranks of the JIJ&K. Though the Indian government has recently banned the Jama'at-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir for being "in close touch with militant outfits" and for “supporting extremism and militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, and elsewhere”, a lot more outfits will get involved in such subversive activities in the country intended to cause disaffection. More to the point, this is not the first time that Jama’at-e-Islami of J&K was banned. Earlier, it was banned in 1975, as it opposed the Indira-Abdullah accord by calling it as the “gross violation of UN resolution” and then again it was banned in 1990. However, the ban which was lifted in 1993 could not serve the purpose of curbing the religious extremism in the valley.
As an earlier article in New Age Islam reported, JIJ&K likened the Indian administration as “Pharaoh’s era” in Kashmir and it stated: “Indian forces have devised a sinister plan of genocide of Kashmiri youth on the same pattern the Pharaoh of Egypt had once ordered to kill the male infants of Bani-Israel in Egypt.” (3)
Now in the days after the Article 370 has been abrogated, the Islamisation of the Kashmir issue will turn the situation grimmer. More and more Islamo-supremacist, pan-Islamist political organisations and the self-styled social and welfare movements will join the ranks of JIJ&K.
However, the chief lesson that Muslims in India particularly need to learn from all this is that they must not heed the ‘Islamisation’ of the conflict zones in the world including Kashmir. We must stop the neo-clergy—mostly engineers, physicians and tech-savvy preachers with little idea of socio-cultural humanities and with nodding acquaintance of Islamic theology—from lecturing on how to maintain an ‘Islamic identity’ in India. We must closely look at our neighbour and the most Muslim-populated country—Indonesia—where Islam has been well contextualised, localised and even vernacularized, as an outcome of cultural interaction and re-interpretation of universal Islamic values according to socio-cultural realities and is popularly known as “Islam Nusantara”.  
An exclusivist Islamic identity which was never ever part of the syncretic valley of Kashmir has been deeply imbibed by the Jam’at-e-Islami and their ilk. It would take both the Indian Muslims and the state to exert more rigorous efforts to restore the ‘lost’ Kashmiriyat of Islam in the valley, by reclaiming cultural confluence of Islamic and Sanskiritc traditions, and not just by revoking the Article 370 in one stroke.
The complete integration of Kashmir in India is indeed long-cherished goal, and the historic decision to change the status of the state of J&K to Union Territory of J&K does offer a ray of hope to the majority of Indians. It will certainly benefit them in terms of immigration, investment and a firm central rule, but sorry to sound disappointing, it will not erase the three-decade old pan-Islamist ideology unless the lost Kashmiriyat is revived or a new kind of Kashmir founded on progressive values rather than the ethnic-religious identity is evolved. The Indian government has to contemplate whether the Article 370 has been virtually abrogated to restore Kashmiriyat or merely for providing other Indians opportunity for buying land in J&K for residence, investment and immigration. To this objective analysis, it’s not going to do much to help restore the Kashmiriyat—the idea that the radical Islamists have been fighting against in Kashmir for decades.
1.       “Rejoinder: The Jama’at and political Islam in Kashmir”, Shahid Lone, The Caravan, 17 July 2019
2.       “For Islam and Kashmir: The Prison Diaries of Sayyed All Gilani of the Jama'at-i-Islami of Jammu and Kashmir”, Yoginder S. Sikand, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1998.