Sunday, November 24, 2019

Cultural History: When We Teach History, It Should Not Be About Power Struggles, It Should Be About How Human Culture Was Gradually Built Up



By John Scales Avery, New Age Islam

18 November 2019

Reformed Teaching of History

Human nature has two sides: It has a dark side, to which nationalism and militarism appeal; but our species also has a genius for cooperation, which we can see in the growth of culture. Our modern civilization has been built up by means of a worldwide exchange of ideas and inventions. It is built on the achievements of many ancient cultures. China, Japan, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, the Islamic world, Christian Europe, and the Jewish intellectual traditions all have contributed. Potatoes, corn, squash, vanilla, chocolate, chili peppers, and quinine are gifts from the American Indians.

We need to reform our educational systems, particularly the teaching of history. As it is taught today, history is a chronicle of power struggles and war, told from a biased national standpoint. We are taught that our own country is always heroic and in the right. We urgently need to replace this indoctrination in chauvinism by a reformed view of history, where the slow development of human culture is described, and giving credit to all who have contributed. When we teach history, it should not be about power struggles. It should be about how human culture was gradually built up over thousands of years by the patient work of millions of hands and minds. Our common global culture, the music, science, literature and art that all of us share, should be presented as a precious heritage - far too precious to be risked in a thermonuclear war.

Culture, Education, Solidarity and Sustainability

Cultural and educational activities have a small ecological footprint, and therefore are more sustainable than pollution-producing, fossil-fuel-using jobs in industry. Furthermore, since culture and knowledge are shared among all nations, work in culture and education leads societies naturally towards internationalism and peace.

Economies based on a high level of consumption of material goods are unsustainable and will have to be abandoned by a future world that renounces the use of fossil fuels in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, a world where non-renewable resources such as metals will become increasingly rare and expensive. How then can full employment be maintained?

The creation of renewable energy infrastructure will provide work for a large number of people; but in addition, sustainable economies of the future will need to shift many workers from jobs in industry to jobs in the service sector. Within the service sector, jobs in culture and education are particularly valuable because they will help to avoid the disastrous wars that are currently producing enormous human suffering and millions of refugees, wars that threaten to escalate into an all-destroying global thermonuclear war.

Nor is a truly sustainable economic system utopian or impossible. To achieve it, we should begin by shifting jobs to the creation of renewable energy infrastructure, and to the fields of culture and education. By so doing we will support human solidarity and avoid the twin disasters of catastrophic war and climate change.

A New Freely Downloadable Book

I would like to announce the publication of a book, which reviews the lives and thoughts of some of the women and men who have contributed importantly to the development of chemistry, from ancient times to the present. The book may be freely downloaded and circulated from the following link:

http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Lives-in-Chemistry-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf

This book is part of a series on cultural history. Here are links the other books in the series that have, until now, been completed:






Other books and articles about global problems are on these links

https://wsimag.com/authors/716-john-scales-avery

I hope that you will circulate the links in this article to friends and contacts who might be interested.


Posted by at No comments:

Refutation of Jihadi Ideology In The Context and Structure of the Quranic Verse ‘Kill the Mushrikin wherever you Find them’ (9:5)- Part 4


By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam
16 November 2019
This is the fourth part of Refutation of Jihadi Ideology That Uses the Verse, ‘Kill the Mushrikin Wherever You Find Them’ To Justify Terrorism in 21st Century. Supported by the Hanafi principle ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, this part of Refutation is purely based on the contextual and structural analysis of the verse “Kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them” (9:5).   
According to the Hanafi Principles of Jurisprudence, one of the five situations in which the literal (Haqiqi) meanings are not taken is due to the ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’.
The Hanafi principle ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’ refers to the situation where the literal meaning of any word is dropped due to the context and structure (Siyaaq) of the speech (Kalam). There are some clues, in such a situation, which indicate that the literal meaning of the word is not meant.
For example the Arabic word “Rajul” literally means ‘an adult human male’. If anyone says to his enemy during war, “come to face me if you are a man (Mard)”—the prevailing situation indicates that it is not reference to his gender, but to his bravery. Here the literal meaning ‘a male human being’ is omitted due to the ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, that is, due to the context and structure of the speech.
Similarly if a person narrates the story of anyone’s bravery and says, “A man was fighting during a war. He was a lion”—here due to the context and structure of the sentence, the word ‘lion’ would not be taken for the literal meaning. It would not be said that the man was “a large wild animal of the cat family” but it would mean that the man was brave like a lion.
Based on this Hanafi-jurisprudential principle of ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, let us understand the word ‘Mushrikin’ mentioned in the verse “kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them” (9:5).
The literal meaning of the word “Mushrikin” means those who commit the acts of Shirk, that is, those who worship other than Allah Almighty and attribute an equal partner to Allah in His Essence (Zaat) and Attributes (Sifat).
The literal meaning of the word ‘Mushrikin’ mentioned in the verse 9:5 demands that all those who commit shirk should be killed. But the context and structure of the full relevant text of the verse 9:5 demands that only those who are religious persecutors, violators of peace-treaty and have restored the war should be killed. So based on the principle of ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, the literal meaning of the word ‘Mushrikin’ would be dropped here.
As for the context of the verse 9:5, we have discussed it in the previous parts along with some explanatory notes from the classical scholars. Briefly speaking here, the Mushrikin of Arab mentioned in this verse were those who had persecuted the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his followers for as long as 14 or 15 years in the city of Makkah. The Muslims continued to suffer heartless oppression, torture and abuse for thirteen years, yet they were not allowed to exact a measure of retaliation. Initially they were commanded to persevere patiently. During the thirteenth year after the declaration of his Prophet-hood, Allah commanded the prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions to migrate. They carried out Allah’s command worshipfully and migrated to Madina –nearly 300 miles away from Makkah. Still the animosity of the inveterate Mushrikin of Arab had not subsided. They inflicted fresh injuries on the Muslims; robbed them of the peace of mind and heart. When the aggression and ruthlessness of the Arab Mushrikin grew more hotly than ever, Allah granted permission to the believers to take up arms in their own defence.
As regards the structure of the verse 9:5, we should understand it from the verse 9:1, which reads “Absolution (i.e., renunciation) is declared from Allah and His Messenger to those Mushrikin with whom you had made a treaty of peace (but they breached the truce and restored the state of war)”. In the context discussed above we have seen the Mushrikin of Arab were the religious persecutors with whom, according to the verse 9:1, the peace-treaty was established but when they breached this truce, a divine “renunciation was declared”. Here an exception was also made to those who did not breach the truce as mentioned in the verse 9:4, “Except those Mushrikin with whom you made an agreement, who then did not show any latitude (in executing the truce) and who did not support (or reinforce) anyone against you. So fulfil the treaty with them till the end of the term. Surely, Allah loves those who fear Him”. This indicates that those who did not breach the truce were not commanded to be fought against. From the structure of all this divine speech it can be easily understood that they were fought not because they were Mushrikin but because they were the persecutors who even after making the truce breached it. This understanding is also supported by the verse which reads, “And if any of the Mushrikin seeks asylum with you, provide him with protection until he listens to the Words of Allah. Then escort him to his haven. This is because these people do not possess the knowledge (of the truth)” (9:6).
Given the context and structure of the divine speech, the literal meaning of the word “Mushrikin” would not be meant. Rather its literal meaning would be dropped and interpreted with explanatory notes that the Mushrikin mentioned in this verse were the Mushrikin of Arab who were religious persecutors and violators of peace-treaty. For the same reason we also come across such explanatory notes in the books of Tafasir written by the well-known classical scholars, Imam Baydawi, Allama Alusi, Allama Jassas, Ibn Hatim, Ibn Munzir and Suyuti etc.
Imam Baydawi says, “The word “Mushrikin” in the verse 9:5 refers to “Nakithin” which means those who breached the peace-treaty and restored the state of war. (Baydawi, “Anwar al-Tanzeel wa Asrar al-Taweel (The Lights of Revelation and the Secrets of Interpretation, V. 3, p. 71, 9:5- trans. from Arabic edition). In the same way, Allama Alusi also dropped the literal meaning of the word Mushrikin due to the context and structure of the divine speech and thus they interpreted the word “Mushrikin” as “Nakithin” (Alusi, Rooh al-Ma’ani, v. 10, p. 50, - 9:5, trans. from Arabic edition). Imam Suyuti writes, “Imam Ibn Munzir, Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu Shaikh (may Allah be pleased with them) have quoted Hazrat Muhammad bin Ibad b. Jafar as saying “These Mushrikin are Banu Khuzaima b. Amir who belong to  Bani Bakr b. Kananah”  (see Suyuti, Durr-e-Manthoor, V.3, p.655- translation from Urdu version). In the words of Allama Abu Bakr al-Jassas, “The verse (Kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them) was particular to the Mushrikin of Arab and does not apply to anyone else” (Ahkam al-Quran lil Jassas, V. 5, p. 270, translation from Arabic edition)
(Continued)
Other Parts of the Article:
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).
Posted by at No comments:

After The Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict, Time for Introspection and Reconciliation for Indian Muslims अयोध्या पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला: भारतीय मुसलमानों के लिए आत्मनिरीक्षण और मित्रता बढ़ाने का समय




न्यू एज इस्लाम विशेष संवाददाता
15 November 2019
राम जन्मभूमि बाबरी मस्जिद मुकदमे में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले से पहले प्रसिद्ध मुस्लिम संगठनों ने “हर कीमत पर अमन और सद्भाव कायम रखने का इरादा किया था चाहे निर्णय जो भी हो”l मुस्लिम बुद्धिजीवी जिन्होंने हिन्दू और मुस्लिम दोनों पक्षों को खुश करने के लिए लम्बे समय से चल रहे विवादित मामले में अदालत से बाहर समस्या का हल निकालने का मुतालबा किया था, उन्होंने देश में देर पा अमन कि खातिर यह ज़मीन हिन्दुओं के हवाले करने की अपील की थीl लगभग सभी मुस्लिम संगठनों ने राम जन्म भूमि बाबरी मस्जिद विवादित भूमि के संबंध में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का पालन करने का संकल्प लिया थाl लेकिन अब जबकि हिन्दुस्तान की आला अदालत ने हिन्दुओं को वह ज़मीन दे दी है जिस पर बाबरी मस्जिद की इमारत लगभग पांच सदियों से खड़ी थी, तो विभिन्न सुन्नी रहनुमा और उलेमा सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले पर “सम्मान और असंतोष” के बीच घिरे मालुम पड़ रहे हैंl
उनका कहना है कि हालांकि वह सुप्रीम कोर्ट का सम्मान करते हैं मगर वह ‘असंतोष’ हैं और अब किसी ऐसी अदालत पर भरोसा नहीं कर सकते जो ‘आस्था को मेरिट पर’ तरजीह देता हैl उनमें से कुछ के अनुसार तो अयोध्या का फैसला स्पष्ट ‘अन्याय’ पर आधारित हैl जैसे कि, आल इण्डिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के एग्जिक्यूटिव कमेटी के मेम्बर, मौलाना सैयद अतहर अली, मुम्बई के मर्क्जुल मारिफ एजुकेशन और रिसर्च सेंटर के सरबराह मौलाना बुरहानुद्दीन कासमी और इकरा फाउंडेशन के तहत चलने वाले दारुल कज़ा के मेम्बर मौलाना शुऐब कोटी उन मौलवियों में से हैं जो ऐसा दृष्टिकोण रखते हैंl
असल में सुन्नी मुस्लिम रहनुमाओं की एक बड़ी संख्या जिनसे उम्मीद थी कि बड़े दिल से इस फैसले का स्वागत करेंगे चाहे यह उनके हक़ में हो या ना हो लेकिन इसके उलट उन्होंने बाबरी मस्जिद की ज़मीन के नुक्सान पर अपनी नाराज़गी का इज़हार किया हैl उनमें से कुछ तो ऐसे हैं जो फैसले से पहले यहाँ तक तजवीज़ पेश कर चुके थे कि अगर फैसला उनके हक़ में आता तो वह हिन्दुओं को यह ज़मीन तोहफे के तौर पर देने को राज़ी हो जाएंगे और ऐसा करते समय वह दोसरे पक्ष पर किसी तरह का कोई शर्त भी नहीं रखेंगेl लेकिन मित्रता का यह इशारा जो भारत में हिन्दू मुस्लिम संबंधों का एक महत्वपूर्ण मोड़ साबित हो सकता था अब मंदिर के हक़ में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के हालिया फैसले के बाद कहीं खोता दिखाई दे रहा हैl इसका अंदाजा अयोध्या भूमि विवाद केस से संबंधित सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले के बाद भारत के विभिन्न सुन्नी इस्लामी उलेमा और रहनुमाओं के मिजाज़ से लगाया जा सकता हैl उन्हें इस बात का एहसास है कि उच्च न्यायलय ने उन्हें मायूस किया हैl जैसे—आल इण्डिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड (AIMPLB) ने स्पष्ट तौर पर इस फैसले को अस्वीकार कर दिया है, हालांकि उन्होंने नज़र ए सानी की दरख्वास्त दाखिल करने का फैसला किया हैl
दोसरी ओर आल इण्डिया मुस्लिम मजलिस ए मुशावरत (ए आई एम एम), मुम्बई में स्थित रज़ा एकेडमी, अंजुमन इस्लाम, जमात ए इस्लामी हिन्द (जे आई एच) के कुछ सदस्यों और हज़रत निजामुद्दीन औलिया दरगाह के कुछ खादिमों ने भारत की कौमी सलामती के मुशीर अजीत डोभाल के आवास पर उन से मुलाक़ात कीl मिस्टर डोभाल, प्रतिष्ठितमुस्लिम रहनुमाओं और विश्व हिन्दू परिषद के सदस्यों की तरफ से एक साझा बयान जारी किया गया, जिस में कहा गया कि “इस बैठक में शिरकत करने वाले इस हकीकत के गवाह हैं कि कुछ आंतरिक और बाहरी देश दुश्मन तत्व हमारे राष्ट्रीय हितों को हानि पहुंचाने के लिए वर्तमान परिस्थिति का नाजायज लाभ उठाने का प्रयास कर सकती हैं”l
यह बिलकुल स्पष्ट तौर पर अंदाज़ा लगाया जा चूका था कि अगर मुस्लिम पक्ष यह मुकदमा जीत लेती तब भी भारतीय समाज में कुछ ऐसे तत्व मौजूद होंगे जो उसे अपने राजनीतिक हितों के लिए प्रयोग करेंगे, और इस तरह साम्प्रदायिक तनाव बढ़ने का कारण बनेंगेl इसलिए इस बैठक में रहनुमाओं ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का सम्मान करने का संकल्प किया और देश के सभी नागरिकों से अपील की कि वह सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले की पालन करें, इस बात पर ज़ोर देते हुए कि “राष्ट्रीय हित दोसरे सभी मामलों पर तरजीह का दर्जा रखता है”l एक तरफ इस बैठक में शामिल होने वाले रहनुमाओं ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले को कुबूल करने में जिम्मेदारी, संवेदनशीलता और सब्र का प्रदर्शन किया तो दोसरी ओर मुस्लिम संगठन जमियत ए उलेमा ए हिन्द (जे यू एच) ने इस फैसले से असहमति का इज़हार किया और इसे “अन्याय” करार दिया और यह भी कहा कि इस में “ हकीकत और सबूत की खुली तौहीन” थीl इसलिए इस बैठक में शिरकत की दावत कुबूल नहीं कीl यह बात उल्लेखनीय है कि जमीयत ए उलेमा ए हिन्द अमन की दावत देने, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का एहतिराम और मुकम्मल सहयोग करने का यकीन दिलाने में आगे आगे थाl जमियत ने “समाज को और अधिक यकीन दिलाने” के लिए केन्द्रीय अर्ध सैनिक बल की तैनाती का मुतालबा भी किया थाl
इस तरह अयोध्या से संबंधित सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले पर भारतीय मुस्लिम नेतृत्व में दो दृष्टिकोण सामने आए हैंl एक नजरिया कहता है सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का पुर्णतः सम्मान और बिना शर्त सहयोग दिया जाए तो वहीँ दोसरा नजरिया इस फैसले को चैलेन्ज किये बिना असहमति का इज़हार करता हैl
इस दूसरी नज़रिए का धार्मिक दृष्टिकोण यह है कि दरो दिवार एक बार मस्जिद हो गई तो वह हमेशा मस्जिद ही रहती हैl उनका मानना है कि इस्लामी शरीयत के अनुसार केवल दरो दिवार ही नहीं बल्कि ज़मीन भी कयामत तक मस्जिद कहलाएगी जिस पर बाबरी मस्जिद की इमारत स्थापित थीl वह मानते हैं कि वह जगह जहां मस्जिद थी वह विश्वयी सम्मान का हामिल है और हमेशा के लिए धार्मिक पवित्रता का दर्जा रखेगीl लेकिन इस नजरिये के उलेमा यह समझने में असफल है कि एक ढांचा जिस पर विवाद हो वह इस्लामी इबादत के लिए किस तरह मुनासिब हो सकता हैl इसका औचित्य इस्लामी शरीयत की रौशनी में भी नहीं मिलता जिस शरीयत के उद्देश्य की बुनियाद पांच महत्वपूर्ण और नेक उमूर के हुसूल पर आधारित हैं, जिस में सबसे आला महत्व का हामिल जान की हिफाज़त हैl
उल्लेखनीय बात है कि शरीयत ए इस्लामिया में विभिन्न समस्याएं हैं जिनमें जमाने के हालात की रियायत करते हुए परिवर्तन नमूदार होती है और इस तरह सुहुलत व आसानी का दरवाज़ा मुस्लिम उम्मत के लिए हर दौर में खुला रहता हैl अक्सर फुकहा ए किराम के नज़दीक इस सुहुलत और आसानी के बुनयादी कारण हैं: जरुरत, हाजत, हर्ज और तंगी को दूर करना, उर्फ़, मसलिहत, फसाद को दूर करना और उमूम ए बलवाl
सख्त ज़रूरत पड़ने पर कुछ ऐसे मौके हैं जहां जान, माल, अक्ल, नस्ल और दीन की रक्षा के लिए समस्याओं में आसानी और सहूलत की राह निकालने के लिए हराम व हलाल के मसले में सुहुलत की गुंजाइश रहती हैl इन सब मामलों की सुरक्षा ही असल में शरीयत के मकासिद में से हैl इसलिए अगर बाबरी मस्जिद और राम जन्मभूमि के समस्या पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के हालिया फैसले की स्थिति में अगर हम यह मान भी लें कि ठीक है मस्जिद की ज़मीन हमेशा मस्जिद ही रहती है तब भी हमें शरई उद्देश्यों पर नज़र करनी पड़ेगी जिनका उद्देश्य दीन, जान, माल, इज्ज़त व आबरू की हिफाज़त, हर्ज और तंगी दूर करना और समाज में अमन व शांति कायम करना हैl इन उद्देश्यों और मकासिद कि रौशनी में अगर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले को मान लें तो समझ लें कि हम ने शरीयत का उचित खयाल रखाl यह फिकही कायदा भी याद रखना चाहिए कि الضرورات تبیح المحظورات अर्थात ज़रूरतें कुछ निषेधताओं को भी मुबाह (जायज) कर देती हैंl इसका मतलब है कि हमें सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले को शब्दशः स्वीकार करना चाहिएl हालांकि इस फैसले को कुछ लोग रीजोलुशन मानते हों लेकिन फिर भी यह शरीयत के मकासिद के बिलकुल मुताबिक़ और जिससे भारत के हज़ारों लाखों देशवाशियों की जानों की सुरक्षा होगीl अगर इसे स्वीकार नहीं किया जाए तो तबाही और हज़ारों जानों के नुक्सान होने का खतरा हो सकता है और इस तरह यह मामला शरीयत के मकसद की खिलाफवर्जी का कारण होगाl


Posted by at No comments:

After The Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict, Time for Introspection and Reconciliation for Indian Muslims





New Age Islam Special Correspondent
14 November 2019
Ahead of the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, prominent Muslim organisations had resolved to "maintain peace and harmony at all cost, whatsoever the verdict maybe." Muslim intellectuals who had called for an out-of-court settlement in the protracted dispute to make both Hindus and Muslims happy, appealed to hand over the land to the Hindus for the sake of lasting peace in the country. Nearly all Muslim organisations had vowed to abide by the SC judgment the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed land. But now when India's top court gives Hindus the site on which the Babri masjid stood for close to five centuries, several Sunni leaders and clerics seem to waver between ‘respect’ and ‘dissatisfaction’ at the Supreme Court verdict. They say that while they respect the SC verdict, they are 'unhappy’ and can no longer trust a court which favours 'faith over merit'. Some of them have even declared the Ayodhya judgment as a clear 'injustice'. For instance— Maulana Syed Ather Ali, executive committee member of the All India Personal Law Board, Maulana Burhanuddin Qasmi, head of Mumbai's MarkazulMa'arif Education and Research Centre and Maulana Shoaib Koti, member of the Dar-ul-Qaza run by the Iqra Foundation are some of those clerics who are of the same view.
In fact, a large number of Sunni Muslim leaders who were expected to welcome the judgment with a big heart, in the case of it being both favourable and unfavourable, express their ‘unhappiness’ over the loss of the Babri land. Some of them had even proposed that they would be willing to gift the land to Hindus if the verdict comes in their favour, and in doing this, they would not put any condition on the other side. But this gesture of pure goodwill which might have been a turning point in Hindu-Muslim relations in India, is no longer seen after the SC verdict in favour of the Hindu temple. This can be gauged from the mood of several Sunni Islamic clerics and leaders in India, after the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute case. They feel that the highest court has let them down. For instance—All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has categorically turned down the decision, though they have decided not to file the review petition.
On the other hand, some members of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), the Mumbai-based Raza Academy, Anjuman-I-Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) and some custodians of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya Dargah attended a meeting with India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval at his residence. A joint statement has been issued by Mr. Doval and the eminent Muslim leaders, including members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which said, “Those attending the meeting were alive to the fact that certain anti-national and hostile elements, both within and outside the country, may attempt to exploit the situation to harm our national interest.”
It was patently clear that even if the Muslim side had won the case, there are always certain elements in the Indian society who would use it to serve their political interests, thereby leading to escalation of communal tensions. Therefore, the leaders in this meeting resolved to honour the decision of the Supreme Court and appealed to all countrymen to abide by the SC verdict, emphasizing that “the national interest overrides all other considerations.
But while the leaders who participated in this meeting, exhibited a sense of responsibility, sensitivity and restraint in accepting the verdict, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH), one of the largest Muslim organisations, has expressed disagreement with the verdict and termed the ruling “unjust” and said it was in “utter disregard to the truth and evidence”. Therefore, it did not accept the invitation to participate in this meeting. It is worth mentioning the Jamiat was in the forefront in calling for peace and full support and respect for the impending SC verdict. JUH had also demanded the deployment of central paramilitary forces to give “more assurance to the community”.
Thus, there have emerged two viewpoints in the Indian Muslim leadership on the SC judgment on Ayodhya. One calls for complete respect and unconditional support for the verdict and the other expresses dissatisfaction without challenging the verdict outright.
The theological contention of the latter is that, a structure once a Masjid is always a Masjid. It's not just the structure according to the Islamic Shariat, but also the land on which it stands. For them, the site where the Babri Masjid stood is of universal sanctity and remains holy for eternity. But the clerics of this view fail to understand how a controversial structure can be the appropriate space for Islamic worship. This contention cannot be justified even by the Islamic Shariah, which is based on the attainment of five chief noble objectives, on top of which is Hifz Al-Nafs (protection of life).
According to Imam al-Shatibi, the legal ends of Islamic law "are the benefits intended by the law: the attainment of good, welfare, advantage, benefits and warding off evil, injury, loss of the creatures".
It is worth mentioning that numerous rulings of Islamic Sharia are changed or concessions in Islamic laws are granted according to changing circumstances of the time and thereby the door of easiness and concession is always open for Muslim Ummah of every age. The basis of changes in such rulings, according to majority of Muslim jurists, revolves around the seven fundamental principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. They are 1) Zaruriyat (absolute necessities), 2) Hajat (necessity), 3) Daf’e Haraj (removing difficulty), 4) ‘Urf (recurring practices of a large number of Muslims), 5) Maslahah (interest/benefit), 6) Izala Al-Fasad (elimination of corruption), 7) Umum-E-Balwa.
Absolute necessities (Zaruriyat) are classified in what preserves one’s faith (din), soul (Nafs), wealth (Maal), mind (Aql) and offspring (Nasl). Some jurists add the preservation of honour to these five popular necessities. Preservation of these necessities is the objective of Islamic Sharia. So in the context of SC’s judgment on Babri Masjid-Ram Janam Bhoomi, even if we believe that a land once a Masjid is always a Masjid, we will still have to take into consideration the objective of Islamic Sharia which preserves one’s life, removes difficulty, eliminates corruption and ensures social interest. This will be in line with the Fiqhi maxim “Necessities cause the prohibited things to be permissible”, (الضرورات تبيح المحظورات)”. That means we must accept SC judgment which, as per some opinions, is a resolution and in conformity with the objective of Islam in preserving lives of Indian civilians. If this resolution is not accepted, there might occur corruption and loss of lives and thereby a violation of objectives of Islam.    
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
Posted by at No comments:

After The Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict, Time for Introspection and Reconciliation for Indian Muslims





New Age Islam Special Correspondent
14 November 2019
Ahead of the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, prominent Muslim organisations had resolved to "maintain peace and harmony at all cost, whatsoever the verdict maybe." Muslim intellectuals who had called for an out-of-court settlement in the protracted dispute to make both Hindus and Muslims happy, appealed to hand over the land to the Hindus for the sake of lasting peace in the country. Nearly all Muslim organisations had vowed to abide by the SC judgment the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed land. But now when India's top court gives Hindus the site on which the Babri masjid stood for close to five centuries, several Sunni leaders and clerics seem to waver between ‘respect’ and ‘dissatisfaction’ at the Supreme Court verdict. They say that while they respect the SC verdict, they are 'unhappy’ and can no longer trust a court which favours 'faith over merit'. Some of them have even declared the Ayodhya judgment as a clear 'injustice'. For instance— Maulana Syed Ather Ali, executive committee member of the All India Personal Law Board, Maulana Burhanuddin Qasmi, head of Mumbai's MarkazulMa'arif Education and Research Centre and Maulana Shoaib Koti, member of the Dar-ul-Qaza run by the Iqra Foundation are some of those clerics who are of the same view.
In fact, a large number of Sunni Muslim leaders who were expected to welcome the judgment with a big heart, in the case of it being both favourable and unfavourable, express their ‘unhappiness’ over the loss of the Babri land. Some of them had even proposed that they would be willing to gift the land to Hindus if the verdict comes in their favour, and in doing this, they would not put any condition on the other side. But this gesture of pure goodwill which might have been a turning point in Hindu-Muslim relations in India, is no longer seen after the SC verdict in favour of the Hindu temple. This can be gauged from the mood of several Sunni Islamic clerics and leaders in India, after the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute case. They feel that the highest court has let them down. For instance—All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has categorically turned down the decision, though they have decided not to file the review petition.
On the other hand, some members of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), the Mumbai-based Raza Academy, Anjuman-I-Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) and some custodians of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya Dargah attended a meeting with India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval at his residence. A joint statement has been issued by Mr. Doval and the eminent Muslim leaders, including members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which said, “Those attending the meeting were alive to the fact that certain anti-national and hostile elements, both within and outside the country, may attempt to exploit the situation to harm our national interest.”
It was patently clear that even if the Muslim side had won the case, there are always certain elements in the Indian society who would use it to serve their political interests, thereby leading to escalation of communal tensions. Therefore, the leaders in this meeting resolved to honour the decision of the Supreme Court and appealed to all countrymen to abide by the SC verdict, emphasizing that “the national interest overrides all other considerations.
But while the leaders who participated in this meeting, exhibited a sense of responsibility, sensitivity and restraint in accepting the verdict, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH), one of the largest Muslim organisations, has expressed disagreement with the verdict and termed the ruling “unjust” and said it was in “utter disregard to the truth and evidence”. Therefore, it did not accept the invitation to participate in this meeting. It is worth mentioning the Jamiat was in the forefront in calling for peace and full support and respect for the impending SC verdict. JUH had also demanded the deployment of central paramilitary forces to give “more assurance to the community”.
Thus, there have emerged two viewpoints in the Indian Muslim leadership on the SC judgment on Ayodhya. One calls for complete respect and unconditional support for the verdict and the other expresses dissatisfaction without challenging the verdict outright.
The theological contention of the latter is that, a structure once a Masjid is always a Masjid. It's not just the structure according to the Islamic Shariat, but also the land on which it stands. For them, the site where the Babri Masjid stood is of universal sanctity and remains holy for eternity. But the clerics of this view fail to understand how a controversial structure can be the appropriate space for Islamic worship. This contention cannot be justified even by the Islamic Shariah, which is based on the attainment of five chief noble objectives, on top of which is Hifz Al-Nafs (protection of life).
According to Imam al-Shatibi, the legal ends of Islamic law "are the benefits intended by the law: the attainment of good, welfare, advantage, benefits and warding off evil, injury, loss of the creatures".
It is worth mentioning that numerous rulings of Islamic Sharia are changed or concessions in Islamic laws are granted according to changing circumstances of the time and thereby the door of easiness and concession is always open for Muslim Ummah of every age. The basis of changes in such rulings, according to majority of Muslim jurists, revolves around the seven fundamental principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. They are 1) Zaruriyat (absolute necessities), 2) Hajat (necessity), 3) Daf’e Haraj (removing difficulty), 4) ‘Urf (recurring practices of a large number of Muslims), 5) Maslahah (interest/benefit), 6) Izala Al-Fasad (elimination of corruption), 7) Umum-E-Balwa.
Absolute necessities (Zaruriyat) are classified in what preserves one’s faith (din), soul (Nafs), wealth (Maal), mind (Aql) and offspring (Nasl). Some jurists add the preservation of honour to these five popular necessities. Preservation of these necessities is the objective of Islamic Sharia. So in the context of SC’s judgment on Babri Masjid-Ram Janam Bhoomi, even if we believe that a land once a Masjid is always a Masjid, we will still have to take into consideration the objective of Islamic Sharia which preserves one’s life, removes difficulty, eliminates corruption and ensures social interest. This will be in line with the Fiqhi maxim “Necessities cause the prohibited things to be permissible”, (الضرورات تبيح المحظورات)”. That means we must accept SC judgment which, as per some opinions, is a resolution and in conformity with the objective of Islam in preserving lives of Indian civilians. If this resolution is not accepted, there might occur corruption and loss of lives and thereby a violation of objectives of Islam.    
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
Posted by at No comments:

Teachings of Islam: Responsibilities of Muslims on Universal Children’s Day




By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam
14 November 2019
The 14th November marks universal Children’s Day. However we can celebrate every day as Children’s Day by practicing beautiful teachings of Islam associated with the rights of Children.
He who does not show mercy upon children is not a practical Muslim. If we have not done so far anything good for children, at least we should start now on this special day and continue it till our last breath. For that matter, we should first recall their rights.
The Quran says, “And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” (17:31).
It was reportedly a common practice in parts of pre-Islamic Arabia to kill new-born girls for fear of the shame or liability or out of poverty. The context of the verses (17:31 and 6:151) specially denotes prohibition against slaying one’s children out of fear of poverty and assures God’s provision. However this command is general in its nature and applies to all children and for all reasons. That means it is prohibited to kill children for any reason. This general deduction of the divine ruling is supported by another verse 17:33 which reads, “And Do not kill the soul that Allah has made inviolable...”.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have said, “He is not one of us who does not have mercy on your young and does not respect our elders” (SunanTirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Al-Adab al-Mufrad)
It is mentioned in another hadith, “Be just among your children, and be just among your children.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, SunanNasai)
The Prophet is reported to have said, “When I stand for prayer, I intend to prolong it but on hearing the cries of a child, I cut it short, as I dislike troubling the child's mother”. (Sahih Bukhari, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, SunanNasai)
It is narrated by Hazrat Aisha that “A Bedouin came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said, "You (people) kiss the boys (children)! We don't kiss them." The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I cannot put mercy in your heart after Allah has taken it away from it.” (Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-Adab al-Mufrad)
From the studies of the Quran and Sunnah we learn what the rights of parents are over their children, both biological and foster children. Some of these rights are mentioned below.
Parents are duty-bound to feed, clothe and protect their children until they reach maturity. They need to respect, love and educate their children. All children deserve equal treatment but special treatment can be done to a child who is in dire need or handicapped or blind. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal says that “preferential treatment of a child is permitted if he or she is handicapped while others are not” (al-Mughni vol.5, p.605)
Parents must work hard so as to provide adequately for children in inheritance. It is reported in a Hadith, “it is better for parents to leave their children adequately-provided (financially) than to leave them in poverty”.
Parents are duty-bound to provide their children with both Islamic and modern education. In particular they should teach them basic beliefs about faith and worship, high moral qualities, rights of human beings, relations with Muslims and non-Muslims, and all other teachings of Islam required for their survival and attainment of divine blessings in both the worlds (Duniya and Aakhira). They also need to be provided special training for upholding human values such as peace, harmony, mercy, tolerance, patience and benevolence, for the time being.
This is briefly how we should celebrate children-day every day. However we should not forget on this Children’s Day to recall the basic rights of those children who are caught up in warfare. They have nothing but to experience the same horrors as their parents. During the last decade we have seen the heightened dangers for children due to developments in warfare. According to UNICEF report, “child victims have included 2 million killed, 4-5 million disabled, 12 million left homeless, more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents, some 10 million psychologically traumatized”. The children are killed not just in the crossfire but they are also likely to be specific targets. In particular, Syria, Yemen, Palestine and Africa have seen the deadliest attacks over children in crossfire as well as in target killings. The 15th November is a special day for children but it is extremely difficult for us to celebrate it, if we as human beings fail to prevent such forms of deadliest violence.
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).
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Is Taqiyya Used to Deceive Non-Muslims?


By Kaniz Fatma, New Age Islam
05 November 2019
The word ‘Taqaiyyya’ literally means ‘fear, caution, carefulness, guarding against danger, or wariness. In Islamic terminology, the term refers to a precautionary denial of religious belief in cases of potential persecution, constraint and when there is a possibility of harm.
However, Taqaiyya has become commonplace in social media and journalistic discourse, particularly since 9/11, because Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace and Jihad is mainly a struggle against one’s own evil desires, whereas non-Muslims can see that many Muslims are engaged in killing each other as well as non-Muslims in several parts of the world. They also see that when the leader of so-called Islamic State “Khalifa” al-Baghdadi and his followers said that “Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day; it has always been a religion of war,” Muslim ulema and media remained largely silent,as if they agreed with him. It has also become easy now, in the present internet age to get acquainted with Islamic history which is strewn with episodes of war and atrocities of all sorts.
Muslim hereditary kings that wore the religious garb of being a Khalifa engaged in brutal atrocities of all kinds on their own people as well as others. Non-Muslims today can also read classical theological books in which Jihad is described as a fight against infidels who refuse to accept Islam. So, when Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace and Jihad is mainly against one’s own nafs or negative ego, non-Muslims take it as an example of Taqaiya. 
This, however, is not the case. Muslims speak from their heart. They are saying only what they have been taught in their homes and schools. They are saying only what they believe in, regardless of what militant Jihadis may be saying and doing.
Let’s now see in some detail what Taqiyya stands for; it’s history, meaning and usage.
Taqaiyya is mostly practiced by Shias when they are subject to persecutions or compulsion. Taqaiyyya, though not so much common among Sunnis, is permitted under certain conditions such as threats to life, loss of property; while martyrdom in such cases is more honourable.
The studies of Islamic traditions suggest that Taqaiyya is agreed upon by scholars of several schools of thought in Islam. Sunnis restrict it to deal with non-Muslim persecutors and when under compulsion and persecution, while Shia scholars also justify it to deal with Sunni Majority Muslims and other necessary issues.
Sunni scholars allow Taqaiyya only under utmost compulsion and when there is fear of persecution. A popular exegete of the Quran Al-Tabari comments, “if anyone is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him because God takes his servants as their hearts believe” (also quoted in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, 134)  
Imam Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad Al-Ghazali writes in his masterpiece and the most authoritative book on Islam, IhyaUlum Al Din(“The Revival of the Religious Sciences”), “safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that must be observed and that lying is permissible only when the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is at stake”.
But after the 9/11 attacks, a blame is often made by writers and commentators on social websites and in mainstream media that Muslims use Taqaiyyato deceive non-Muslims for the objective of expanding their religion. This is mainly a misunderstanding of the word Taqaiyyya.
The Orientalist Stefan Jakob Wimmer explains that Taqaiyya is not a tool to deceive non-Muslims and spread Islam but instead a defensive mechanism to save one’s life when it is in great danger, such as Muslims' lives during the Reconquista. Similar views are shown by Jakob Skovgaard-Petersen from the University of Copenhagen. (Wikipedia)
To sum up, Taqaiyyamay be exercised under utmost conditions of persecutions or life-threatening situations but it is not allowed for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in any other interactions. The use of Taqaiyya for expanding the religion of Islam is incompatible with Islamic objectives, as it corrupts the soul of Islam based on submission, truth, mental and spiritual purity. Islam teaches Muslims to be straightforward in their dealings with others, both Muslims and non-Muslims. The Quran clearly condemns the acts of lying and deception in several verses;
“...then He will judge between us in truth. And He is the Knowing Judge” (30:26). At a place, the Quran terms ‘lying’ a disease of the heart which gets worse if left uncorrected, “In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease: and for them is a painful punishment because they habitually used to lie” (2:10), “Allah does not one who is a transgressor and a liar” (40:28), “This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness..”.
Such teachings of the Quran make it incumbent upon us not to deceive anyone by lying or cunning, then how can Taqaiyya be allowed to deceive non-Muslims?!
Non-Muslims should understand that Muslims are speaking from their heart when they make claims of peace and a permanent struggle against one’s own evil desires that they have to wage as Jihad. However, people must distinguish between Islam and Muslims. Islam is one thing and Muslims quite another. This is actually the case with all religions and philosophies. Christianly is a region of forgiveness and turning the other cheek, but Christians are the only people to have used atom bombs on peaceful citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to speak of killing six million Jews in the Holocaust and innumerable pogroms, massacres, genocides and atrocities of all sorts. Can we blame Christianity for these atrocities? I suppose not. Same is the case with teachings of Islam and the practices of Muslims. Muslims do not practise Taqaiyya, except in extreme cases of persecution and only to save their lives.
Posted by at No comments:

Muslim Organisations And Aligarh Muslim University VC Appeal Muslims To Accept Impending Supreme Court Verdict On Ayodhya With A Big Heart


By New Age Islam News Bureau
05 November 2019












Anticipating verdict of the Supreme Court on the Ramjanmbhoomi- Babri Masjid title suit Muslim organisations, clerics and intellectuals have issued appeals to the people of the country, particularly to the Muslim community, to accept the verdict with respect and maintain peace and harmony in the country.
On November 3, the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat held a meeting which was participated by the heads of Muslim organisations, Muslim parliamentarians and intellectuals. President of Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind, Maulana Arshad Madani, former Chairperson of National Commission for Minorities, Wajahat Habibullah, President of Jamat-e-Islami Hind, Sadatullah Hussain and former MP Shahid Siddiqi. Current parliamentarians Jawed Hasan and Imran Hasan were also among the participants.
All the participants unanimously asserted that the verdict of the highest court on the Ayodhya title suit must be accepted with utmost respect and peace and harmony should be maintained at any cost.
The resolution passed in the meeting said,
"We appeal to all countrymen to face the situation with patience and endurance and avoid any kind of provocation and incitement and also stick to peace and optimism whatever be the circumstances."
On November 4, the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, Prof Tariq Mansoor also released an appeal to the AMU fraternity to maintain peace and harmony on the campus in particular and in the country in general. He appealed to the Muslims toreceive the verdict of the highest court of the country with respect and peace.
The appeal says:"The verdict in the Ayodhya case is likely to be delivered soon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is the duty of all sections of society to show utmost respect to the decision of the highest court and not to give a statement or indulge in any activity which may vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the university campus, city and country. It is time to show the world that we Indians believe in the rule of law and will accept the decision of the highest court with maturity and respect.
I also caution all especially our peace loving and cultured students against rumours, false propaganda and fake news on social media. We must all exercise maximum restraint and maintain good will and amity all over the country. We are a nation of diverse cultures, languages, religions with a rich heritage and our great strength is unity in diversity."
The verdict of the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya land dispute case is expected soon and both the Hindu and Muslim communities are waiting for the verdict anxiously. The government has tightened security to maintain law and order after the delivery of the verdict.
On November 3, another Muslim organisation, All India Markazi Majlis-e- Chishtia, Hyderabad, held a meeting in which the representatives of the Majlis and other dignitaries participated and unanimously passed a resolution appealing to all Muslims to accept the verdict of the SC on Ayodhya issue in true Islamic spirit. The meeting was held under the leadership of Maulana Muzaffar Ali Sufi Chishti, Secretary of Majlis. The resolution said that the verdict would be welcome whether it is in favour of Hindus or Muslims. It further said that the verdict will be a historic one and will put to rest for once and all the longest land dispute in Indian history. Maulana Soofi said that the issue should not be seen as a religious issue but as a land dispute. He also appreciated the efforts of the RSS, BJP and other Hindu organisations to maintain peace and harmony before and after the judgement. He particularly applauded the statement of Minority Affairs Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqwi in which he said that there was no need to celebrate the verdict. Maulana Muzaffar Ali Soofi further appealed to all the Sajjada Nasheens of Sufi shrines and imams of mosques to spread the message across to maintain peace and harmony and not to indulge in any anti-Islamic and anti- social actvity in the country find the remedy of the issue within the confines of the Constitution and the Law.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)