Glorious Role of Muslims in Indian Freedom Struggle

By Saquib Salim, New Age Islam 15 August 2022 Trailokya Chakravarty, Noted, “The Muslim Revolutionary Brothers Gave Us Practical Lessons Of Unbending Audacity And Inflexible Will And Also Advice To Learn From Their Mistakes” ----- Muslim freedom fighters of India ------ “The Musalmans of India are, and have been for many years, a source of chronic danger to the British Power in India.” - W W Hunter, an English official posted in India, in his famous book ‘The Indian Musalmans’, published in 1871. After 1947, Indian scholars wrote a ‘nationalist’ history of the Indian freedom struggle and for unknown reasons, they excluded Muslims. For the last seven decades, we have been reading a history of the Indian Freedom Struggle that has largely overlooked the contribution of Muslims. The generations brought up over this narrative believe that either the Indian Muslims were pro-British or aloof from the freedom struggle. In this age of social media, we find people questioning the patriotism of the Indian Muslims based on this false understanding of the freedom struggle. In fact, almost 30% of the total martyrs mentioned in ‘Dictionary of Martyrs of India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947)’ launched by PM Narendra Modi in 2019 are Muslims. We must take note that the dictionary does not account for the martyrs before 1857, which were in large numbers as well. Such falsehoods propagated in the name of history should be challenged. The British imperialism in India was resisted by the Indians right from its outset and the Muslims were the flag bearers of this resistance. The British took over Bengal administratively and economically after defeating the royal armies at the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the Battle of Buxar (1764). With their win over the Nawab of Bengal, the British started exploiting the Indians of Bengal province in an unprecedented fashion. Their ruthless loot resulted in a famine in 1770, which accounted for the deaths of one-third of the total population of Bengal. No wonder the first popular national resistance to foreign colonial rule arose in Bengal. A united front of Hindu Sanyasis and Muslim Fakirs rose up in arms against the British. The man who led this fight was, Majnu Shah, a Muslim Sufi from Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh). Majnu was a devotee of Shah Madar, Kanpur, and took up the cause of poor peasants on the advice of another Sufi saint, Hamiduddin. Almost 2000 Fakirs and Sanyasis, under his command, would loot the treasures of the British and British-backed landlords to distribute the money and food among poor exploited masses. From 1763 till his death in 1786, Majnu was the most dangerous threat to the British Empire in India. Fakir and Sanyasi forces killed several officers and soldiers of the British in guerrilla wars. After his death, Musa Shah took up the leadership of the movement. Hindu Sanyasi leaders, like Bhawani Pathak, were also there and fought alongside but the colonial records considered Majnu as the most threatening leader because under him Hindus and Muslims fought a united war. The ruthless British suppressed this movement a few years after the death of Majnu but the spirit of nationalism could not be killed. The suppression of the movement led by Fakirs in Bengal did not mean that they accepted defeat. Fakirs changed their strategy and joined Marathas and other anti-British forces at the turn of the 18th century. The first major mutiny by the Indian sepoys of the English East India Company Army in 1806 at Vellore, which is said to be the inspiration behind 1857, was planned by Holkars, sons of Tipu Sultan and brother of Nizam of Hyderabad with the help of Fakirs. In every cantonment in South India, Fakirs propagated the message of nationalism through religious sermons, songs and puppet shows. When the revolt broke out at several places including Vellore the Indian revolutionaries were led by Fakirs like Shaikh Adam, Peerzada, Abdullah Khan, Nabi Shah, and Rustam Ali. Scholar Perumal Chinnian writes, “the Southern conspiracy was supported by Fakirs and other religious mendicants. The conspiracy was established in all the army stations by them.” Within a few years, the British faced another challenge in the form of three distinct movements led by Syed Ahmad Barelvi, Haji Shariatullah and Titu Mir respectively. Born in Uttar Pradesh, Syed Ahmad toured a large part of the country and gained followers in Bihar, Bengal, and Maharashtra. His followers took up arms against the British and its allies in the areas adjacent to Afghanistan. The movement posed a challenge to the British for decades. The British painted the movement as a work of religious fanaticism while in reality, Syed Ahmad tried to forge an alliance with Marathas against the foreign rulers. After he died in 1831, Enayat Ali and Wilayat Ali, both from Patna, took up the leadership of the movement. The wars they led in the frontier region caused the death of thousands of soldiers of the British army. Haji Shariatullah and his son Dudu Miyan took up arms in Bengal to resist the tyranny of rich landlords. They led peasants to revolt against the indigo planters and other British agents. The movement they led is known as Faraizi movement. Titu Mir also led a movement of poor masses against the British-backed landlords. He formed his army and set up a popular administration. In 1831, Titu was killed during a battle with the British. Hundreds of his supporters were arrested and hanged, including his deputy, Ghulam Masum. Meanwhile, the Movement started by Syed Ahmad remained a grave danger to British rule in India. Enayat Ali, Wilayat Ali, Karamat Ali, Zainuddin, Farhat Husain, and others led an armed struggle against the British. In Patna, as soon as the news of the revolt of 1857 reached, all the prominent leaders were arrested before they could act. Still, Pir Ali launched a revolt in Patna. Though not a part of the larger movement himself the British believed that he had their support. Pir Ali, Waris Ali, and other Muslim revolutionaries were executed in Bihar during the revolt of 1857. The First War of the National Independence of 1857 had a long history of planning behind it. In 1838, the English government arrested Mubariz ud-Daula for plotting a nationwide revolt against the foreign rule. The investigations revealed that Raja Ranjit Singh, Gaekwars, Satara, Jodhpur, Bhopal, Patiala, Rohilla Pathans, and several Nawabs, rajas and Zamindars had agreed upon the plan. Raja Ranjit Singh had actually sent his troops to help Mubariz and contacted Persian and French powers for help. The plan, because of a few traitors leaked out, Mubariz was imprisoned where he died in 1854 and the revolt took place two decades later. In 1845, again a plan for a nationwide war of independence was discovered by the English. Khwaja Hasan Ali Khan, Malik Kadam Ali, Saif Ali and Kunwar Singh of Bihar were trying to raise a large army with the help of several royals like Bahadur Shah Zafar, Scindias, and Nepal Naresh. Again a few Indians sold themselves to the foreign rulers and told the English about this grand design to overthrow them. The role of Muslims in 1857 is no secret. The unity of Hindus and Muslims in 1857 threatened the British like never before and they resorted to a policy of divide and rule after that. Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah of Faizabad, Fazl-e-Haq of Khairabadi, Imdadullah Muhajir Makki of Muzaffarnagar, and Azimullah Khan, an associate of Nana Saheb, were prominent in propagating the need of taking up the arms against the colonial rule. For years before 1857, they were propagating these ideas among sepoys as well as civilians. The sepoys at Meerut revolted against their British masters on 10 May 1857. Leaders of these sepoys were Sheikh Peer Ali, Ameer Qudrat Ali, Sheikh Hasan ud-Deen, and Sheikh Noor Muhammad. More than half of the 85 sepoys, who revolted initially, were Muslims. The sepoys were soon joined by the civilians. And the revolutionaries marched on to Delhi and proclaimed Bahadur Shah Zafar as the emperor of India. Delhi was liberated. In Lucknow, Begum Hazrat Mahal took up arms against the British and led one of the longest resistance movements during the revolt. Maulvi Ahmadullah was also fighting the British with his forces and attained martyrdom during a battle. In his book on the revolt, Veer Savarkar dedicated several pages to the valour and martyrdom of Ahmadullah. In Muzaffarnagar, Imdadullah led a popular revolt with the help of Qasim Nanautvi, Rashid Gangohi, and others liberated Shamli and Thana Bhawan. A national government was set up. These revolutionaries were later defeated as the British recaptured the region. Nawab of Jhajjar, Abdur Rehman, was also hanged by the British for fighting for his motherland. The list is unending. The British records mention several Muslims who fought them in 1857. For example, an anonymous Burqa-clad Muslim woman killed several English soldiers in Delhi before getting arrested. In Bihar, Kunwar Singh was leading the revolt of 1857. Zulfiqar was one of his most trusted comrades with whom Kunwar was discussing every plan. After liberating Arrah the civil government installed by Kunwar had his most trusted allies and there were several Muslims. The government had “Shaikh Ghulam Yahea as Magistrate. Shaikh Muhammad Azimuddin, an inhabitant of Milky Tola in the town of Arrah, was appointed Jamadar (treasurer) of the eastern Thana: Turab Ali and Khadim Ali, sons of Dewan Shaikh Afzal, were made Kotwals (Police officers in charge of a city)” The revolt did not succeed. Bahadur Shah was exiled to Burma, several were hanged and many more were transported for life to Andaman. But, the zeal for freedom did not die. In 1863, tribal in North West Frontier Province stormed the British territories and entered into a war. The British, though registered a victory, had to face one of the stiffest military challenges. They lost more than a thousand of its English soldiers. Intelligence reports pointed towards a financier in Ambala. The man was Jafar Thanesri. During the raid police found several letters which established him as the principal financier of the war in NWFP. He channelled money, men and arms from different parts of the country to the war front. Yahya Ali of Patna and nine others were also charged for waging the war against the Queen. What followed was a series of arrests and trials across India. People were arrested in Ambala, Patna, Malda and Rajmahal. Ahmadullah, Yahya Ali, Jafar, Ibrahim Mandal, Rafique Mandal and others were arrested and transported to Andaman. These revolutionaries celebrated martyrdom over life, hence the British decided not to hang them but to send them to the Andamans. In 1869, Amir Khan and Hashmat Khan were arrested in Kolkata. Norman, the Chief Justice, sentenced them to the Andaman. The sentence was avenged by Abdullah by assassinating Norman in 1871 and after a few months Sher Ali killed the viceroy, Lord Mayo, in the Andaman . Bipin Chandra Pal, in his autobiography, credited these trials and killings as an important influence on his political career. Another famous revolutionary, Trailokya Chakravarty, noted, “the Muslim revolutionary brothers gave us practical lessons of unbending audacity and inflexible will and also advice to learn from their mistakes”. In Maharashtra, Ibrahim Khan, a Rohilla leader, and Balwant Phadke launched a guerilla war against the British. They provided a tough resistance through the 1860s and 70s, and threatened the British in south India. Meanwhile, in 1885, Indian National Congress (INC) was formed to voice the apprehensions of the emerging educated middle class. Badruddin Tayyabji and Rahmatullah Siani were two of the earliest members and presidents of Congress. Later on, M.A Ansari, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Hasrat Mohani, Abul Kalam Azad, and others remained associated with the largest political outfit of India. In 1907, peasants in Punjab started agitation against the canal colonies. Along with Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh, Syed Hyder Raza was one of its prominent leaders. The movement is seen as a precursor to later Ghadar movement. During the First World War (1914 - 18), the British intercepted three letters written on silk cloth. The letters were written by Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi to Maulana Mahmood Hasan and pointed towards a global plan to overthrow the British rule in India. Ubaidullah was named as one of the most dangerous Indians for the British in the Rowlatt Committee Report. He formed armed groups, preached anti-British ideas and formed a provisional government in Kabul. The Prime Minister of the government was Maulana Barkatullah. The government had to have an army as well, which would attack India to free it. But, the plan failed because of the leaked silk letters and the end of the World War. The plan was called Silk Letter Movement and 59 freedom fighters, mostly Muslims, were charged for waging the war against the Empire. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Abdul Bari Firangi Mahli, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Maulana Mahmood, Husain Ahmad Madni and M.A Ansari were few of them. Maulana Mahmood and Madni were arrested in Makkah and imprisoned in Malta. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who is often seen as a token Muslim in a largely Hindu dominated Congress, was a freedom fighter whom the British feared. His name occurred in different CID reports for planning armed revolutions. At least 1700 freedom fighters took oath to die for the cause of freedom as members of Hizbullah, a revolutionary organisation formed by Azad. Al-Hilal, a paper edited and published by him, was banned for propagating the revolutionary nationalist ideas. Azad established Darul Irshad, a madrasa, to popularise the anti-colonial ideas. For his organization, Hizbullah, Jalaluddin and Abdur Razzak were prominent recruiters, who also united Hindu and Muslim revolutionaries of Bengal. No wonder, Azad was jailed many times and was the President of INC when the Quit India Resolution of 1942 was passed. The Silk Letter Movement was not the only resistance movement during the World War. Ghadar Movement was another movement in which several Muslims took part and attained martyrdom. Rahmat Ali was hanged in Lahore for trying to instigate mutiny among soldiers. The efforts bore fruit in Singapore, when, in February, 1915, 5th Light Infantry consisting mostly Muslims from Punjab revolted. The soldiers captured Singapore for a few days. The revolutionaries were later defeated, captured and shot dead. Another misconception prevalent among Indians is that the Bengali revolutionaries were Hindus. Interestingly, the revolutionary organizations with Hindu religious overtones, like Jugantar and Anushilan had many active Muslim members. Sirajul Haq, Hamidul Haq, Abdul Momin, Maksuddin Ahmad, Maulvi Ghayasuddin, Nasiruddin, Razia Khatun, Abdul Kader, Wali Nawaz, Ismail, Zahiruddin, Chand Miyan, Altaf Ali, Alimuddin, and Fazlul Kader Chowdhury were few of the Bengali Muslim revolutionaries who took up arms along with Hindus. Many of them were sent to Andamans or killed. After the World War, the British introduced a draconian Rowlatt Act. The Indians protested against the act and many leaders were arrested. At Jallianwala Bagh people were massacred when they were protesting against the arrest of Saifuddin Kitchlew. The proportion of Muslims killed at Jallianwala was quite high. Around this time, 1919 onwards, Abdul Bari Firangimahli, Mazharul Haque, Zakir Husain, Mohammad Ali, and Shaukat Ali emerged as the mass leaders. Women like Bi Amma, Amjadi Begum, and Nishat al-Nisa also jumped into the freedom struggle. In Tamil Nadu, Abdul Rahim organised the workers during the 1930s against the oppressive colonial rule. V. M Abdullah, Sharif Brothers, and Abdul Sattar were other prominent Muslim leaders in South India who led nationalist movements and braved torture and imprisonments. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan led pathans posed a non-violent challenge to the British. In 1930, the British fired upon a crowd protesting against the arrest of Ghaffar Khan at Qissa Khwani Bazar, Peshawar. Hundreds of pathans laid their lives for the service of the motherland. Faqir of Ipi, Mirza Ali Khan, and Pir of Pagaro, Sibghatullah, raised their armies in the 1930s in Waziristan and Sindh respectively to fight the British during the World War. In a larger scheme of things, Subhas Chandra Bose and Axis Powers allied with their armies in order to liberate India. In 1941, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose escaped from house arrest. The man who played an important role in the escape was Mian Akbar Shah. Netaji reached Berlin and formed a Free India Legion. Abid Hasan, became his confidant here and served as secretary. Abid was his only associate who accompanied him on a famous submarine journey from Germany to Japan. In 1943, Netaji formed Azad Hind Sarkar and Azad Hind Fauj. Here several Muslims like, Lt. Col. Aziz Ahmad, Lt. Col. M.K Kiani, Lt. Col. Ehsan Qadir, Lt. Col. Shah Nawaz, Karim Ghani, and D.M Khan became ministers with important portfolios. Azad Hind Fauj faced reverses in war and its soldiers were taken prisoners by the British. Rashid Ali’s imprisonment became a symbol of Hindu Muslim unity when Hindus and Muslims across the political affiliations came out on Kolkata road demanding his, and other Azad Hind Fauj soldiers, release in 1946. The police fired upon the protesters killing dozens of Indians. Elsewhere, in Mumbai and Karachi, the Royal Navy revolted in support of Azad Hind Fauj. Anwar Husain was one of the prominent martyrs of this revolt as Colonel Khan led the soldiers in revolt at Mumbai port. India gained independence on 15 August, 1947. It was a costly affair. The cost was the Indian lives. The lives we paid were neither Hindu, nor Muslim. The lives belonged to the Indians. Those who laid their lives were Indians first, and Hindus or Muslims later. Here again, Muslim leaders like Allah Bux Somroo, K. A. Hamied, Faqir of Ipi, Abdul Qayyum Ansari, Abul Kalam Azad and others fought against the divisive communal politics of Muslim League to stop the partition. Tragically, more than seven decades later people have forgotten this important aspect of our freedom struggle and try to divide this great struggle along petty sectarian lines. Source: Glorious Role of Muslims in Indian Freedom Struggle URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/muslims-indian-freedom-struggle/d/127721 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

The Outdated Concept Of Darul Harb And Darul Islam: Is It Time For A New Political Language In Islam?

By Dr. Mohammad Ghitreef, New Age Islam 15 August 2022 Al-Marwerdy, Abu Yala, Ibn Taqtaqi, Farabi, Nasiri, Zia Barni, And Other Thinkers Are Cited By Our Academics And Political Theorists, Their Theories And Opinions Were Pertinent At The Time They Were Made, But They Are No Longer Relevant Main Points: 1. The concept of Darul Harb and Darul Islam has become outdated now, so Muslim scholars must also forsake this outlook. 2. There should be differentiation between principles and actual historical events. 3. And therefore, Islamic history must not be treated as a Shariah source at par with other textual basic Shariah ideals. 4. A new political language of Islam is the need of the hour. ---- Jafer bin Abitalib stood up and recited a few verses from the holy Quran's chapter Merry (19) in a persuasive and illuminating manner. The entire court became silent and was fascinated by the majestic Divine words. King Najashi eventually broke the serene and profound silence and addressed Jafar and his colleagues, the asylum seekers, saying, " vow! What magnificent and amazing words you spoke! Naturally, the source of both these verses and the holy Bible is the same. I'm happy to have you and your friends in my realm. Nobody can touch you here. Then he turned to Makkan emissary Amr and his delegation members and told them to return to Makka and not think of harming the Muslim migrants. The persecuted Muslim migrants to Abyssinia (Habsha) lived peacefully and freely in this welcoming land for an extended period of time under the blissful shadow of a Christian kingdom. The then king himself is reported to have become a Muslim, yet the kingdom by and large remained a Christian country. During the Muslim stay, it also once happened that a neighbourly country invaded Abyssinia. At this point of time the Muslim refugee minority not only made prayers and supplications for the Abyssinian army to be victorious but also physically joined the Abyssinian army, defended the country, and defeated the enemy. It is also to be noted that this Muslim minority stayed in Abyssinia for years and returned to Madinah after the conquest of Khyber. In the meantime, the Prophet (PBUH) did not tell them to start Jihad there and try to take over the country or to gain political influence in the Abyssinian court. This is setting a model for Muslim minorities around the world today. These Muslim minorities should try their best to prove beneficial to the respective countries and not become a political rivals posing a threat to majority community like the refugees of Abyssinia did. They stayed there for a long time, yet they were not ordered to engage in any fight with their hosts for capturing political power or some other mileage. So this was the first Muslim encounter with a major world religion, Christianity. It was an exceptionally positive cohabitation between the two big Abrahamic religions and unparalleled interfaith understanding between the two great cultures and two world civilizations. The prophet was encouraged by Divine massage to do that when it says: قل يااهل الكتاب تعالواإلى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم “O people of the book, come with us on a common platform between you and us.” (Quran,3:64) In Makkah, the prophet and his companions had been victims of severe religious persecution for 13 years. When they eventually migrated to Madina, the prophet did not leave any stone unturned to make positive contacts with the major faction of the people of the book; the Jewish community there. As a result, he engaged them into a negotiated fraternal agreement known as Meesaq e Madinah in Sirah literature. It was the earliest written charter of any state in human history, according to a prominent Islamic scholar like Dr. Hameedullah. It was the charter of a common city-state. With this charter, the citizens of Madinan city state invested final political authority in the hands of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) as the sole representative of the newly fast emerging Muslim majority community. However, safeguarding all the religious freedoms of Jews and giving them the status of the equal citizenry of that city-state. Ibn Hisham reported that the pact clearly declared that: وإن يهود بني عوف أمة مع المؤمنين،للمسلمين دينهم ولليهود دينهم ولهم ماعليهم “And the Jews of Bani Auf are a componential part of this Muslim nation. Muslims are free in their religion, likewise Jews are also free in their religion. As for responsibilities, it will be shared by both”. This generous handling of events and the friendly atmosphere did not persist for long, because on the one hand Makkan pagans attacked the fledgling Madinan state, and on the other, unanticipated Jewish defection, betrayal and hostilities at home. Soon, the blessed prophet was compelled to take action and take sword in his hand to defend his faith, community, and state. In the last phase of his life, the prophet faced a sustained foreign armed intervention in Arabia by the two big neighbouring empires; the Sasanids of Persia and the Byzantine of Rome. This resulted in hectic warfare with both empires immediately after his death. In the beginning, it was limited to defensive operations, but the best defence is considered a proactive attack on the advancing enemy. According to this principle, the Arab Muslims soon moved from defence to action. Small but enthusiastic and religiously fervent Bedouin Arab armies suddenly went out on a conquest spree. They were setting new rules, new parameters of morality, and a new cultural and civilizational bearing on the world. This is a concise summary of the political history of Islam, its effects and implications, as well as a history of political domination of it. In this regard, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad states: "Islam came for love and peace, but was met with hostilities and imposed battles; therefore, when it was assaulted, it retaliated back and did not retreat from the battlefield." The point that whether Islam's political norms and principles are drawn from its moral teachings and spiritual essence or from its political history is now the one that is asked most frequently. Scholars and Ulama have varying opinions on that. The consensus among all jurists and traditional Ulama is that Islamic Dawah history should be regarded as an unchanging source of Shariah in questions of politics. However, a select handful of modernist reformers, including Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, seem to believe that we should make a distinction between Islam as a whole and its checkered history too. Anyway, the question arises here, had Islamic history been different from what it turned out to be, what would be the net result? Whenever Muslim jurists, Ulama, and scholars in contemporary times discuss Muslim non-Muslim relations or write on Islamic political thoughts, they in this regard always start by dividing the world into two categories. Darul Harb (adobe of Kufr or fighting) and Darul Islam (adobe of peace). Along with some other sub-categories as Darul Ahd, Darul Aman, Darul Kufr, etc. Their treatment of the discussion and using these old terms have no relevance in contemporary times. Now the world has changed drastically. There is no caliphate, no Darul Harb no Darul Islam etc. All these things went to the dustbin of history with no possibility of return. Now only nation-states remain. Furthermore, this is also departing from parochial nationalism to a broader internationalism. This is why I think a new Islamic political theory should be evolved now. And as an essential part of the discourse a new political language is also needed to be invented and evolved. As the concepts of Darul Harb and Darul Islam etc., are not based on Quranic texts or derived from Hadees directly, they were the result of the fertile imagination of our jurists during the Abbasid period and a product of political circumstances in those times. One can’t deny that all the Islamic sciences were influenced naturally by the hegemonic Muslim mindset developed During Abbasid Caliphate. Similarly, the altered political landscape of today necessitates a fresh look at this issue. The point is that Muslim minorities around the world comprise nearly 40% of total world Muslim population. So in postulating any political principle this huge number cannot be ignored outrightly. Al-Marwerdy, Abu Yala, Ibn Taqtaqi, Farabi, Nasiri, Zia Barni, and other thinkers are cited by our academics and political theorists. Their theories and opinions were pertinent at the time they were made, but they are no longer relevant. So why do we persist in using those outdated theorems? ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Dr. Mohammad Ghitreef is a Research Associate with the Centre for Promotion of Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims of India, AMU Aligarh. URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/darul-harb-political-language-islam/d/127715 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

Afterthoughts On Salman Rushdie Episode

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 15 August 2022 Perceptive Readers Might Be Aware That The Pork-Eating, Non-Ritualistic Rushdie Didn't Relinquish Islam And God Until He Wrote The Satanic Verses ---- " Isn't it strange that for our religious symbols, totems and books, we kill those who never hurt us personally." These words of the French historian and orientalist Maxime Rodinson struck me like a blitzkrieg the moment I heard Rushdie was stabbed by a 24-yr-old young man who wasn't even born when The Satanic Verses hit the stands in 1988. This young zealot never met Rushdie and there was nothing personal, let alone enmity, between the two individuals. Yet, Hadi Matar thought of stabbing the great writer for disparaging his and scores of Muslims' fragile beliefs. Novelist Salman Rushdie ---- Once again the question, 'How can religious beliefs be so overwhelming as to instigate a fanatic to kill or hurt someone who never hurt him' is on the minds of all sane people in the world. This also engenders a corollary as to why more and more people are leaving religions and gods and calling themselves atheists. Mind you, it's not their schoolboy atheism or fashionable non-belief. It's a thoughtful and conscious decision, NOT taken in a state of anger or hurry. Seeing the zealotry and absolute insanity of the followers of all faiths and the extreme improbability of a Supreme Being, people, who can use their brains and think independently, are leaving faiths and gods to live peacefully. Perceptive readers might be aware that the pork-eating, non-ritualistic Rushdie didn't relinquish Islam and god until he wrote The Satanic Verses, which's actually a boring book and never intended to ridicule Islam. He was just an indifferent ' Muslim.' But when this book assumed perceived blasphemous dimensions and Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill him, he left Islam because he got disillusioned with the whole religious charade. Otherwise, if you remember, he even apologized and went on to call himself a ' born-again Muslim, ' though he later wrote that his conversion to Islam was his biggest mistake. The madness of Muslims all over the world alienated Rushdie from Islam, Allah and all man-made faiths and their fabricated gods. His 'educated' Muslim friends turned enemies just because they thought that Salman insulted Muhammad and Quran. Religious people hurt others more than irreligious people do. I was born a south-paw. I'm now an ambidexter. Once in Kuala-Lumpur (Malaysia) while eating with my left hand at a Muslim professor's place, I was nudged by the professor to use my right hand while eating as Muslims, esp. in Malaysia, consider it unIslamic if someone uses his/her left hand while eating. Otherwise also, Islam looks down upon those who use their left hand as they believe Iblees (Satan) is a south-paw. I'm still friends with that Malaysian Muslim, now in London, but I didn't forget that insult. A meaningless religious belief embittered our relationship. The same thing happened in India, when an 'educated' Hindu lady offered Prasad to me, I naturally extended my left hand. She didn't give me Prasad and still doesn't speak to me. Not to hurt foolishly religiously people of all faiths, I began to use my right hand though Muslim zealots cut the tip of my middle finger. Alas, they were never my enemies. It's your religious belief that makes you perceive the other person as your enemy. To all religious people, their so-called enemies and adversaries are actually perceived and presupposed foes. On this forum, one gentleman is pretty miffed with me. I'm a pariah to him because I criticize his faith, though personally we've never met. It's because of his inveterate religious beliefs that make him denigrate me. I don't mind, because I know that he's governed by Islam, Quran, Muhammad, Hadees and Sunnah. He's not to be blamed. His faith must be blamed. He's blinded by Islam and the obscure verses of Quan. This reminds me of Salman Rushdie's famous quote, " Something was badly amiss with the spiritual life of the planet......Too many demons inside people claiming to believe in god." Think over it and introspect. It's time for all the believers to reassess the patterns, peculiarities and potholes of their beliefs. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/rushdie-hadi-matar-zealot/d/127714 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

The Attack On Salman Rushdie Is Symptomatic Of The Malady Of Intolerance Islam Suffers From

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 13 August 2022 Islam Cannot Tolerate Criticism Esp. Coming From Those Who're Non-Muslims And An Apatheist To Boot ----- Rushdie is tended to after he was attacked during a lecture, on Friday, August 12 | AP ----- " The Abolition Of All Organized Religions Has Become Imperative. This Must Start With Islam, Followed By All Religions And Their Gods." Salman Rushdie, immediately after the fatwa in 1989 75-year-old, arguably the greatest living novelist Salman Rushdie was brutally attacked by a 24-year-old Shia Muslim extremist, Hadi Matar, in New York. Ironically, this stabbing incident vindicated his own words that, " The memory of religious fanatics lingers on and their hatred for the man who insulted their religion and god remains implacable. This rabid hatred is particularly obvious among Muslims for whom forgiveness for a sacrilegious act is a foreign word. " So chillingly and prophetically true! Even after thirty three years, Muslims haven't forgiven him for insulting Islam and Muhammad in his book ' The Satanic Verses.' The biggest joke is that in spite of a series of regular religious and blasphemous killings across the globe since the inception of Islam, the apologists and followers of this desert faith will still try to convince you that Islam is the religion of peace! My foot! Yours truly has been getting threats from MUSLIM zealots for many years. I lost the first phalanx of the middle finger of my right hand while saving my face from a knife-wielding Muslim zealot in Hyderabad, Deccan. Every day, I find my Inbox filled with hate mails mostly from Muslims from all parts of the world, who threaten to sever my head. Agreed, Hindu nationalists also dislike me. But I'm sure, they'll beat me but perhaps spare my life. And they did exactly that a few years ago! But if a fanatic Muslim assaults, my life will not be spared. Now the eternally unanswered question is: What makes Muslims so hardcore and why don't they believe in the dictum of let bygone, be bygone? Islam conditions its followers and benumbs their thinking. It's the only religion that institutionalises hatred against the followers of other faiths. It legitimises violence in the name of religion, Allah and its Messenger. Islam indoctrinates its followers in a way that they become forever convinced that it's the only true faith and all other faiths are false. What an obnoxious example of religious assertiveness, nay, monomania! Islam cannot tolerate criticism esp. coming from those who're non-Muslims and an apatheist to boot. That’s why, I'm an eyesore to most of the Muslims on this forum. They call me an Islamophobic atheist, one gentleman subtly suggests, why an atheist like me is invited to write on Islamic subjects as if writing on Islam is the fiefdom of only Muslims. Someone says that I spread deliberate lies against Islam with a hidden agenda. Why should that be their headache when a surprisingly sane, sensible and level-headed Muslim editor allows and pays me to write for his website? Do these fanatics patronize this website? Why can't a non-Muslim criticise Islam? That apart, coming back to Salman Rushdie episode, it's time, the whole world must realize that Islam has become a potential threat to the civilized world and the sane voices from this primitive and prehistoric faith must come together to reach a solution as to how to reform and revamp the whole religion, delete horrendous verses from the Quran and rein in the wayward zealots. Islam has already earned a very bad name for itself. Kill me if you want. To quote a poet from Aurangabad, "Patthar Ka Meri Simt Aana Zaroor Tha/ Main Hi Gunhagaaron Mein Ek Beqasoor Tha " (The stone was destined to be hurled at me/ As I was the only innocent among a posse of sinners). ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/rushdie-malady-intolerance-islam-suffers-/d/127705 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

Europeans Divided India, Forged EU For Themselves

By Saquib Salim, New Age Islam 13 August 2022 The Prime Minister of India has declared that 14 August will be commemorated as ‘Partition Horrors Remembrance Day’. It is a dedicated effort to remember the losses India has suffered in the violence followed by the declaration of the Partition of India in 1947. While it is important to remember the loss of lives, more imperative is to analyse the reasons behind the Partition. We, as a nation, need to introspect the foundations of divisive politics which had once partitioned our motherland and still threatens our national security. Indians moving between the two domains of India and Pakistan after partition ---- 75 Years of Freedom Europe since the conclusion of the Second World War (WWII) has tried to create cooperation among its member states at different levels of understanding. This cooperation is what we know as ‘European Union’. It must be remembered that the member states of the EU were the nations which colonised almost the whole globe during the 18th, 19th & 20th century. These very nations led by England created empires where ‘The Blood Never Dried’ for almost three centuries. After WWII, it became difficult to directly control these colonies in Asia, Africa and elsewhere and thus we witnessed, after 1946, gradual decolonisation of the former colonies. Most of the former colonies were able to win their freedoms in the next two decades. Colonisers left the colonies but they never wanted to shun their control over these areas. They knew that even if they did not control these regions directly, they could dominate their economies and politics by keeping them weak. This is where colonial powers used the time tested ‘Divide et impera’ (Divide and Rule) policy. The colonisers before leaving Asia divided into small unnatural nations, which would remain at perpetual war with each other. Was it surprising? No. In fact, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose prophesied this development at least a decade before in 1938. At Haripura, Netaji said, “It is a well-known truism that every empire is based on the policy of divide and rule. But I doubt if any empire in the world has practised this policy so skilfully, systematically and ruthlessly as Great Britain. In accordance with this policy, before power was handed over to the Irish people, Ulster was separated from the rest of Ireland. Similarly, before any power is handed over to the Palestinians, the Jews will be separated from the Arabs. An internal partition is necessary in order to neutralise the transference of power. The same principle of partition appears in a different form in the new Indian Constitution. Here we find an attempt to separate the different communities and put them into water-tight compartments. And in the Federal scheme there is juxtaposition of autocratic Princes and democratically elected representatives from British India. If the new Constitution is finally rejected, whether owing to the opposition of British India or owing to the refusal of the Princes to joining it, I have no doubt that British ingenuity will seek some other constitutional device for partitioning India and thereby neutralising the transference of power to the Indian people.” The fact that the English were controlling India by dividing its people into religious groups, castes, races and linguistic groups was well understood by the Indian revolutionaries. When General Friedrich Von Bernhardi wrote Germany and the Next War in 1911, it became a compulsory reading among Indian revolutionaries. The book went through seven reprints within three years of its first edition and inspired Ghadar Revolutionaries, People’s Movements, Socialists and Pan-Islamists alike. Bernhardi argued that England was reigning over Asia by dividing Turkish people and Indian people into small groups. He wrote, “in India, where some seventy millions of Moslems live under the English rule. England, so far, in accordance with the principle of divide et impera, has attempted to play off the Mohammedan against the Hindu population. But now that a pronounced revolutionary and nationalist tendency shows itself among these latter, the danger is imminent that Pan-Islamism, thoroughly roused, should unite with the revolutionary elements of Bengal. The co-operation of these elements might create a very grave danger, capable of shaking the foundations of England's high position in the world.” It doesn’t take a rocket science to understand that why Ghadar Party, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Ubaidullah Sindhi, Barkatullah, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Raja Mahendra Paratap and other revolutionaries exposed to European writings stressed on Hindu-Muslim-Sikh unity more than any other aspect. ‘Divide et impera’ was a well defined foundation of European politics. In the 18th century, famous philosopher Immanuel Kant defined the policy as - “if there are certain privileged persons, holding authority among the people, who have merely chosen you for their sovereign as primus inter pares, bring about a quarrel among them, and make mischief between them and the people. Now back up the people with a dazzling promise of greater freedom; everything will now depend unconditionally on your will.” The idea was simple. Make people fight among themselves and then act as a juror. All the warring groups will fight among themselves and the juror will be held in high esteem. Dr. Ilia Xypolia of University of Aberdeen, UK, in her influential paper, Divide et Impera: Vertical and horizontal dimensions of British imperialism, argues that “the British Empire deliberately introduced a ‘divide and rule’ structure in order to gain an advantage in existing or emerging hostilities between the local communities”. She argues that first the British Empire created divisions among Indians and then within these divisions created an elite class to control the masses. Xypolia writes, “British rulers adopted the ‘divide and rule’ policy allied to territorial separation through segregation and partition. The imperial governments divided populations into distinct groups on the basis of linguistics, religion, ethnicity and race.” She further points out, “The British government deliberately set up a ‘divide and rule’ structure in order to take advantage of the existing and emerging hostilities between the communities of the native population. The collaboration of the local native elites gave another dimension to the ‘divide and rule’ policies – a horizontal one. Therefore, the ‘divide and rule’ policy can be applied in two different ways. The first is where the foreign ruler divides the local population vertically, separating it into distinct communities, usually along religious, racial or linguistic lines. The second has a horizontal dimension because it occurs when the foreign rule divides the whole population or one community along class lines, thus separating the elites from the masses. The foreign ruler often divides a community or the whole population into a collaborating ruling elite and a resisting mass. The two different methods usually operate in a complementary manner.” What Xypolia studied was a well known fact to the Indian Revolutionaries like Netaji, Ubaidullah Sindhi and others. They were telling people that the British in order to weaken us would try to divide our motherland before leaving. Faqir of Ipi, an important ally of Netaji from Waziristan, kept calling Pakistan a part of the British Empire even after 1947. It was an understanding of European political thinkers that their hegemony over Asian civilizations like India, China, Arab, and Japan could sustain only if they were divided into small warring groups. Netaji understood this that was why he formed a Government of Undivided India in 1943. Today, our motherland has been divided into several pieces. Our land and people are divided. Since 1937, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have been taken away from our country and our power has been reduced. When Europe after WWII could try to build a confederation of cooperation (EU), why we cannot think of bringing our old regions back into a Union of Cooperation. This will again restore the glory of our motherland as ‘Golden Bird’. An Undivided India was the country for which Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose fought, Bhagat Singh laid down his life and thousands embraced martyrdom. Source: Europeans Divided India, Forged EU For Themselves URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/europeans-india-eu/d/127704 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

World Sanskrit Day: When Mughals Promoted Sanskrit!

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 12 August 2022 Sanskrit And Persian, The Language Of The Mughals, Are Siamese Twins ---- Picture courtesy: Mail Today' A scene from Akbar’s court. ---- Today ( August 12) is World Sanskrit Day. In these times and climes of linguistic poverty across the world and many languages either already dead or moribund, talking about Sanskrit sounds rather outdated and when one tries to associate its development with Mughals (the anathema to today's Hindu India), it's a veritable last straw on the camel's back. But the truth cannot be denied that Mughals did a lot to ameliorate the state and status of Sanskrit. 'Pseudo-nationalists' may hatch a plan to teach me a lesson for making this claim, but I'll request that they must read Audrey Truschke's " Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court." Though the author has made many factual errors (her own understanding of Persian and Sanskrit is questionable) and one can sense that her motives are a trifle dubious with a view to pleasing a particular political dispensation, certain facts are laudable. Before admiring Mughals for the promotion of Sanskrit, it must be mentioned that Sanskrit and Persian (the language of the Mughals) are Siamese Twins. Both are structurally, semantically and syntactically quite similar. So much so that if you know Sanskrit pretty well, you can pick up Persian within a fortnight and vice versa. Yours truly learnt Sanskrit through Persian and found both the tongues to be two sides of the same coin. If you read Krishna Das' ' Paarsiprakasa ' (also spelt as Farsi- Prakash), the syntax of both the tongues is very similar. Sanskrit word Tan ( body) becomes Tanam in Persian: Munbilam be Zakhm Na Saayad Tanam ( Nizami), Ashva (a horse) in Sanskrit becomes Aspa in Persian, Trishna ( thirst) in Sanskrit is Tishnagi in Persian, Shrigaal ( fox, Lomdi Or Siyaar in Hindi) is Shigaal/Shighaal in Persian. Here it must be noted that from the perspective of Syntax Formation ( Mafazir in Persian linguistics), both Sanskrit and Persian have ramification extensions. For example, the Sanskrit word ' Shrigaal' means a male fox and rather archaic 'Shrigeel' is a female fox. Likewise in Sanskrit, ' ShaGaal' ( with a Gaaf) is a male fox and ' ShaGHaal' ( with a Ghain) is a female fox. ' Abhra ' (cloud) in Sanskrit is ' Abra ' in Persian (Falak Abraalood Ast: The firmament is cloudy). ' Chibuk' ( 'Thodi' in Hindi and 'chin' in English) is ' Chabak' in Persian but enunciated at 'Shabak' while speaking. Sanskrit word ' Ritu ' (season) is ' Rut ' in Persian/ Urdu. The list is endless. Coming back to Mughals patronizing Sanskrit, one should read the prelude to Platt's ' Persian Dictionary for the students of Calcutta University,' 1910). The prelude describes how Akbar, Jahangir and particularly Dara Shikoh ( who learnt Sanskrit from the pundits of Banaras) promoted Sanskrit and Persian and encouraged the Brahmins and Jain scholars (who spoke Prakrit, a derivative of Sanskrit) in their court. Ramayana, Mahabharata and Upanishads were rendered into Persian and Dara along with Muslim scholars like Dafir, Shaista Khorasani, Tahmir, Farhaan, among others studied Panini's Ashtadhyayi to learn Sanskrit like native speakers. But the fact that Mughals unconditionally tried to encourage Persian is often airbrushed with a sinister motive. Alas, both the languages, Persian as well as Sanskrit, are no longer functional in the sub-continent. I'm still not sure, how many Muslims in India speak Persian as a colloquial language and think in it and how many Hindus know Sanskrit at a functional level and can speak it effortlessly. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-culture/sanskrit-mughals-persian-shiloh-/d/127699 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

Conflicting Perspectives on Blasphemy and the Practice of Taking the Law into One's Own Hands, Which Is Illegal and Punishable Under Islamic Sharia – Part 1

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam 11 August 2022 Taking the Law into Hands Is a Criminal and Punishable Act in Islamic Sharia Main Points: 1. Instead of being useful and offering solutions to the problems, a number of articles are merely contributing to confuse and frighten the public. 2. No average Muslim has the power to impose punishment on others, regardless of whether it is sanctioned by the Quran or a Hadith. Only an Islamic court or the Sultan of Islam has this power. 3. Some folks don't even think twice before charging that tragedies like the murder of Kanhaiyalal continue to occur because this Hadith is taught in madrasas. 4. Madrasas do not teach this Hadith as part of their curriculum, but those affiliated with mosques and madrasas should have responded to this accusation on social media. 5. Any issue deserves an effective reaction, and any ineffective effort to solve the issue is just a waste of time and energy. ------ Following the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, dozens of Indian Islamic scholars released condemnatory statements, all of which shared the same tenet that no one has the authority to take the law into their hands in Islamic Sharia. The Indian Islamic clerics who were featured in the report of the condemnation statements published on the website newageIslam.com did not examine the reliability and weakness of the chain of narration of the Hadith or whether it could or could not be used as evidence in the blasphemy case. However, all the Islamic scholars concurred that taking the law into one's hands is criminal and punishable under Islamic Sharia. ------ The Brutal Killing Of A Hindu In The Name Of Blasphemy In Udaipur Rajasthan Is Extremely Shameful, Reprehensible And Anti-Islamic: Muslim Organizations, Ulama And Personalities ----- In my view the most effective fatwa in this regard is the one that was issued by Mufti Saleem Noori from the Dargah Aala Hazrat in Bareilly Sharif. Citing the edict of Aala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza, this fatwa explicitly states that only the Islamic court and the Sultan of Islam have the power to punish blasphemers. Therefore, in the perspective of Islamic Sharia, anyone who takes the law into his own hands and punishes the offenders himself is not only a murderer but also deserving of punishment. This fatwa will surely be useful and beneficial to those who follow Aala Hazrat in putting an end to any radicalism connected to blasphemy. ------ Fatwa Of Aala Hazrat In The Context Of The Udaipur Incident: Anyone Who Takes The Law Into One’s Hands By Killing For Blasphemy In A Muslim Or Non-Muslim Country Would Be Punished According To Islamic Sharia ------- Some authors and speakers continue to provide the present-day heedless commoners with an incorrect evaluation of the authenticity and weaknesses of the Sanad (chain of narration) of the pertinent Hadith. It would be good if they instead informed the common people through gatherings, conferences, and Friday sermons that any Islamic punishment, regardless of whether it is supported by the Holy Quran, Hadith (Sunnah), Ijmaa, or Qiyas, can only be enacted by the Islamic Court or the Sultan of Islam and that neither of these entities exists in our country. In this situation, we are compelled to use one of the two alternative channels to address our issues: either we file complaints with the Indian court, or else we must be patient and surrender our problems and matters to our rightful owner, Allah Almighty. No Indian, Muslim or not, has the right to take the law into their own hands and judge for themselves, even if there is a delay in their complaint being registered or in receiving justice. This is because anyone who takes the law into their own hands is guilty and subject to punishment in the eyes of the Indian court. If our imams, scholars, and people who write, read, and comment on social media—regardless of their affiliation with any community, madrasas and religious institutions, modern educational institutions, colleges, and universities, or whether they are simply educated gentlemen—helped to publicise such basic truths, the problem under discussion or the troublesome issue of enforcing any Islamic criminal laws would be largely or completely resolved. However, instead of generalizing such clear-cut ideas and proposing solutions to problems, some people prefer to spread more confusion due to their lack of knowledge. Ever since the tragic murder of Kanhaiyalal, several articles, particularly those written in English, have been published that, rather than being effective and providing solutions to the issues, are only serving to confuse and worry the public. One of the key reasons for this is the varying opinions on the reliability and chain of narration of this Hadith. Some claim that though the Hadith that mandates the death penalty for blasphemers is weak and unreliable, it is still admissible because it is backed by further evidence, hence it must be implemented in the blasphemy law. They contend that when a weak Hadith is supported by greater evidence, it becomes authentic and acceptable in action-related topics. Others disagree, arguing that this Hadith is still weak and cannot be relied upon to guide action-related matters or blasphemy law. Some writings even go so far as to assert that this Hadith is fabricated. In other words, rather than offering any solutions to the associated problems, these writers have just served to add to the perplexity of common people through their conflicting writings. Notwithstanding the possibility that they did not intend to write such things with the unwelcome aim, it is necessary to make it clear that they are perplexed and unable to come up with a solution to the Blasphemy-related worry. Some men don't even hesitate to accuse that because this Hadith is taught in madrasas, tragedies like the murder of Kanhaiyalal keep happening. Despite the fact that madrasas do not teach this Hadith as a part of their curriculum, those affiliated with mosques and madrasas should have responded to this accusation publicly and honestly on social media. They should have emphasised that even if a punishment is sanctioned by the Quran or a Hadith, only an Islamic court or Sultan of Islam has the authority to impose that punishment and that no common Muslim possesses that authority, as was made clear in the fatwa issued from Bareilly. But how can one expect such a straightforward idea to be preached and spread by those who focus on obscuring the issues rather than offering a solution? Any issue deserves an effective reaction, and any ineffective effort to solve the issue is just a waste of time and energy. Those who devote all of their time and energy to the authenticity, weakness, admissibility or inadmissibility of the Blasphemy-related hadith cannot dispute that the Holy Quran makes it abundantly clear that adultery is punishable by a hundred lashes and theft by the amputation of hands. The Holy Quran, not any weak or authentic Hadith, is what validates the punishment for adultery or theft. Can these people then assert that the common Muslims have the authority to take the law into their hands and punish offenders like adulterers and thieves? I'm sure they won't ever be able to assert that. In this regard, they will have to cite Islamic jurisprudential principles as well as the opinions of the jurists and their forebears, whose teachings are also imparted to the students of Islamic madrasas. These principles state that regardless of whether a punishment is authorised by the Quran or a Hadith, only an Islamic court or the Sultan of Islam has the authority to impose it, and that no ordinary Muslim has the authority to take the law into his hands. I don't want to contrast Indian law with Islamic law. However, I'll use our country, as an illustration, to demonstrate that our country too has a death sentence law, even though it only applies to the rarest of rare offences. However, only our Indian courts have the power to sentence criminals to prison or death. No common Indian person has the authority to impose punishment on criminals by taking the law into his hands. Any Indian who takes the law into his hands will be considered guilty and punishable. At this point, no one asserts that the murderer took the law into his own hands to punish criminals because Indian law already stipulated such a punishment. Even though Indian law clearly states that some offences are punishable by death, legal experts, at that time, only take into account the fact that only Indian courts, not common people, have the authority to apply the punishments. How simple it is, and practically every Indian citizen is aware of this. In a similar vein, it is crucial for every Muslim to first comprehend and then convey to others that no ordinary Muslim is permitted to impose punishment on others; rather, anyone who does so will be deemed to have violated the law and will be subject to punishment under Islamic Sharia, regardless of whether the punishment was mandated by the Quran or a Hadith. It's crucial to emphasise to them that Indian law, not Islamic law, governs our nation of India, which is something that every Indian must respect. The aforementioned notion is relatively simple to comprehend and convey to the average person. However, if you present incomplete research about any Hadith, its principles, its narration and its application in front of the common folks, they would get perplexed. Even if you present them with academic interpretations or complete research about that Hadith, they will not be able to understand them since the science or understanding of the Hadith is not something that the general public or non-experts can easily understand or explain. For the science of Hadith or the jurisprudence of Hadith, the pious predecessors (Salaf-e-Saliheen) have laid down certain principles which have been in practice since the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). If one does not grasp and embrace these principles, one runs the risk of misinterpreting the Hadith. Among the arts and principles that must be understood for the comprehension of hadiths are the knowledge of the Quran (ilm al-Quran), the knowledge of hadith (ilm al-Hadith), the knowledge of jurisprudence (ilm al-Fiqh), the Principles of Exegesis (usul al-Tafsir), the knowledge of hadith-narration (ilm riwayat al-hadith), the Knowledge of Dirāyat al-ḥadīth (lit. comprehension of hadith), the science of rijal (a branch of hadith sciences that examines the characteristics of hadith transmitters, particularly their trustworthiness in hadith transmission, as well as the associated standards and rules), the science of Al-Jarḥ wa l-taʿdīl (a subfield of hadith sciences that assesses the trustworthiness and unreliability of hadith transmitters and determines whether to accept or reject certain hadiths as authentic or unreliable) etc. However, if one is untrained in these fields and relies entirely on the literal meaning of any hadith, one will interpret many hadiths incorrectly. Let the hadith specialists and experts handle it; this is their area of expertise. The general public and experts from other fields are therefore recommended to study the subject at hand rather than getting sucked by their hypotheses and allegations in this domain; which have been highlighted and repeated throughout the aforementioned lines. As mentioned above, only the Islamic court and the Sultan of Islam have the power to impose Islamic punishments. No ordinary Muslim is permitted to take the law into his own hands and neither Islamic law nor the right to impose Islamic punishments is recognised by our country. Above all, Islamic Sharia declares that anyone who takes the laws into his or her hands is a criminal and punishable under law. ------ A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is a Classical Islamic scholar with a Sufi background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator. Urdu Article: Conflicting Perspectives on Blasphemy and the Practise of Taking the Law into One's Own Hands, Which Is Illegal and Punishable Under Islamic Sharia – Part 1 گستاخ رسول کی سزا کے متعلق متضاد تحریریں اور قانون ہاتھ میں لینے کا عمل جو کہ اسلامی شریعت میں جرم ہے URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/-perspectives-blasphemy-illegal-sharia-part-1-/d/127693 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

The Ideas on Independence and Freedom

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 11 August 2022 “Freedom, Religion, Spirituality and God Are the Most Overused and Unrealized Concepts." - Albert Camus, ' Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays' Youm-e-Azadi (Independence Day) is on the anvil and the ensuing Independence Day is going to be all the more significant as this happens to be India's 75th Independence Day. Though we often use the words 'independence' and 'freedom' as synonyms, there's a subtle difference in degree/s. Mortimer Jerome Adler argues in his book ' The Idea of Freedom' that, 'To be independent is not to be free. Independence has certain limitations, but freedom is boundless.' Very true. Independence is a state of existence, whereas freedom is a state of mind. While the former is transient, the latter is transcendental. Rumi explains the idea of freedom so succinctly, “Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope, free of mountainous wanting." Human race is more or less rooted in the (restricted) idea of independence, bound by time, space and place. But, we're not exactly free, whereas we're condemned to be free, to borrow and paraphrase Jean Paul Sartre's famous quote on individual freedom. Freedom is an idea. It's a spirit. While incarcerated at Ahmednagar fort, Abul Kalam Azad famously wrote in his autobiography, ' Ghubaar-e-Khatir ' (Outpourings of the heart) that ' Jism Ko Qaid Kiya Jaa Sakta Hai, Rooh Ko Nahin. Here, 'Rooh' is spirit, the indomitable human spirit. But most of the humans, not just Indians, aren't free in letter and spirit. Is there anyone as free as to say that he's just a human? We're independent to assert our existence as a Hindu, Muslim or Christian but we're not free to say that we're free in spirit. Freedom is to be free of all ethno-existential burdens and baggage. Hakim Sanai says in Dari, “Mee Az Aazaad Min Un Khayal-e-Aazaad “(To be free from the very idea of freedom is freedom). It means, any idea, even if that be of freedom itself, is an idea and an idea eventually snowballs into an ideology and the ideology finally swallows you and your freedom. Humans are doctrinal animals and ideological zombies. This doctrine, that doctrine, we're all the time encumbered by isms, however lofty that may seem or sound. Now the idea of Nationalism is sweeping people off their feet. While I don't pooh pooh one's love for the country and by no means am I belittling the contributions of the freedom fighters who laid down their lives for the sake of their motherland, my point is: Isn't nationality, like your religion, an accident of birth? To a free man, all the world is a big country. Passport-wise or on the basis of your Aadhaar Card, you may be an Indian, but is it your identity? Remember, all of us happen to be Indians, not Indians. Likewise, you happen to be a Muslim, not a Muslim. You didn't choose your religion and country. They were foisted upon you. So, where's freedom? You're just independent in a limited sense to do certain limited things. You've to be free of all silly attachments to your religion, deities, gods, prophets, books, caste, class and all that jazz. You've to be global to be called a free spirit and a Parinda-E-Ahraar (a free bird). Until this happens, you remain in the dungeon of country and colour and cannot think beyond that. You stay condemned to be mentally imprisoned till you kick the bucket. By the way, Happy Independence Day. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/independence-freedom-religion-deities/d/127692 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

Festival of Rakhi Belongs To All

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 10 August 2022 I Was Appalled To Read In Dailies That Deobandi Ulema Issued a Fatwa against Muslim Girls Tying Rakhis to Their Hindu Brothers, Terming It UnIslamic and Impious ----- Prabhat Khabar Graphics ----- The great Persian poet Urfi from Shiraz, in the court of Mughal emperor Akbar, once saved the life of a Hindu woman who tied a Rakhi to him every year till Urfi breathed his last. Urfi was all praise for this beautiful festival that consolidated the bond between a brother and sister. He also wrote a Qasidah (panegyric), extolling the importance of this heart-warming festival. Amir Khusro had a Hindu sister, who unfailingly tied Rakhis to him. The women of Braj would tie Rakhis to Krishna Bhakt Muslim poet Raskhan (Syed Ibrahim Khan: 1548-1628). The regent of Mewar queen Karnavati sent a Rakhi to the Mughal emperor Humayun with an SOS to save her kingdom from a Muslim invader, Bahadur Shah of Gujarat. Humayun rushed to save her in deference to the bond of Rakhi. Lata Mangeshkar tied a Rakhi to Yusuf Bhai (Dilip Kumar) every year. The list is endless. A human bond has no religion. A relation between two individuals is above all religious beliefs and paraphernalia. On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, I still get a Rakhi from my Muslim sister who lives in Karachi. She's more than a Humsheera (a beautiful Persian word which means a biological sister who was breastfed by the same mother; Sagi Bahan in Hindustani, Sheer: milk in Persian) to me. Rubai, her name, has nothing to do with my non-belief or condemnation of Islam and other faiths for, she knows that I challenge ideas and views, not individuals. This cerebral young woman has never called me an Islamophobic atheist or Islam-basher. What matters to her is our personal bond of brother and sister and nothing else. Even different countries don't thwart my bond with her as she too dislikes the pathological and most juvenile notion of my nation, your nation. Any festival of any religion has a universal meaning and purpose. If Eid symbolises bonhomie, Diwali or Jashn-e-Chiraghaan is an emblem of light and gaiety and Christmas heralds a new year, full of hopes and verve. Ergo, calling Rakhi a Hindu festival or Eid, an occasion for only Muslims is parochialism of the worst level. A few years ago, I was appalled to read in dailies that Deobandi Ulema issued a fatwa against Muslim girls tying Rakhis to their Hindu brothers, terming it unIslamic and impious! I felt pity for the 'muftis' of the fatwa factory. If we all start celebrating each other's festivals sans religious restrictions and prejudices, the world can be turned into a far better place to live in. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/festival-rakhi-raksha-bandhan/d/127685 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

Islam, Reform, and Social Change

By Mohammad Ali, New Age Islam 9 August, 2022 In The State Of Stagnation, Islah and Tajdid Require Muslim Intellectuals to Employ Ijtihad, Reasoning, or Intellectual Endeavours, To Offer New Interpretations of the Already Established Notions In Order To Propose Reforms Main Points 1. This essay argues for the importance of reform in Islamic thought in times of change 2. It examines the methodology of reform of one of the most influential modernist thinkers, Fazlur Rahman 3. It also employs Fazlur Rahman’s methodology to demonstrate what change in Islamic thought will look like ----- Like time, society and its values are fluid entities. They change over time. For a healthy society, it is imperative that society progresses in sync with time. If it fails to keep up the pace with the time, it gets inflicted with stagnation. Its values and ideas start losing their relevance. If it happens, some agents after perceiving the chasm between their society and the current time try to bridge the gap by introducing various reforms to their society. In human history, we find several such incidents and movements that bring society through the same process. In Muslim history, these movements are invoked by the concepts of Islah and Tajdid. Deeply embedded in Islamic imagination, the two concepts are sought by reformists to justify their actions in changing times. In the state of stagnation, Islah and Tajdid require Muslim intellectuals to employ Ijtihad, reasoning, or intellectual endeavours, to offer new interpretations of the already established notions in order to propose reforms. Examples of these reforms can be found in the history of Mu’tazilites, and Asharaites, and in the efforts of the scholars like Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc. These movements and scholars, when confronted with intellectual challenges posed to Islamic society, developed a systematic methodology, known as Ilm al-Kalam, which was developed to respond to the intellectual challenges to the Islamic faith, or refashioned the already established methodology in their own times. Based on such historical accounts, one can argue that the idea of reform is not strange to Islam. In the early modern period, Muslim scholars, such as Shah Waliullah, an Indian theologian based in Delhi, realized the intellectual stagnation in Muslim society which resulted in the deterioration of their religious and moral values. To counter this stagnation, Waliullah launched a series of reformative works, the most famous among them is Hujjatullah al-Balighah, in which he offered a rational explanation for Islamic beliefs. Waliullah’s tremendous efforts focused on the steeping intellectual and political decline and predated European colonialism in the Muslim world. For his rationalist approach and construction of his religious worldview, Waliullah relies on ‘Greek metaphysics, ethics, philosophy, and logic as adopted by Islamic tradition.’ Until the 18th century, Muslim thought and religious worldview operated on the foundation of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, as is manifested in the works of Shah Waliullah and other scholars of his time as well. However, this approach was challenged by some reformists during and after the time of colonialism. In the wake of European colonialism in the Muslim world, the Muslim worldview was challenged by the European civilization that had developed a new worldview since the age of Enlightenment. This new worldview had rejected Neo-Platonism, which provided the intellectual basis for the Islamic worldview. The European worldview intruded the Muslim societies, through colonialism, and modern educational systems that the Europeans had introduced to the colonized territories. As a result, a clash erupted between the two worldviews. This brand new worldview was grown out of the scientific discoveries that had been achieved during the time of Enlightenment. On the basis of these discoveries, European societies were able to establish new meanings for their relationship with the world and the divine. They claimed that this breakthrough was possible only because of their rationalist demeanour. The old system/worldview which was based on the Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic philosophy was rejected by the new-found knowledge. However, in the Muslim world, the same old system continued. Muslim intellectuals who were trained in the same system, when challenged by the new European worldview, tried to defend it. European intellectuals viewed this defence as an act against rationalism. Ernest Renan, a French orientalist, in one of his lectures that he delivered on March 29, 1883, argued that since Islam was opposed to reason and was not compatible with science, it rendered Muslims abhorrent to science and reason as well. He argued that “starting from about 1275, the Muslim world plunged into ‘the most pitiable intellectual decadence’ whereas Western Europe entered ‘the great highway of the scientific search for the truth.” In the same lecture, he went on to claim: All those who have been in the East, or in Africa, are struck by the way in which the mind of a true believer is fatally limited, by the species of iron circle that surrounds his head, rendering it absolutely closed to knowledge, incapable of either learning anything, or of being open to any new idea. From his religious initiation at the age of ten or twelve years, the Mohammedan child, who occasionally may be, up to that time, of some intelligence, at a blow becomes a fanatic, full of a stupid pride in the possession of what he believes to be the absolute truth, happy as with a privilege, with what makes his inferiority. This foolish pride is the radical vice of the Musalman. Apart from the European intellectuals, Muslim beliefs and practices were also attacked by the Christian missionaries and the so-called modern Muslims who were educated in the western education system. When threatened by these challenges, Muslim responses formulated into three discourses. M K Masud categorizes these discourses as revivalist, non-religious, and modernist discourses. The revivalist insisted upon the Ihya (revival) of the pristine Islam that was practiced and propounded by the Salaf. They rejected various practices, such as visiting shrines, seeking intercession, observing Taqlid, etc., that had been popularized and practiced in Muslim societies for centuries. It rejected the new Western worldview altogether. The non-religious discourse sought Western secularism and modernism as an idea to salvage Muslim societies from stagnation. They argued that the age-old religious system was the main reason for the decline of Muslim societies. However, the third tried to find a middle course to tread on. These modernists argued that the current intellectual, theological, and jurisprudential methodology of Islam has been rendered obsolete against modernity or the worldview provided by the West. Therefore, they advocated for developing a new theology to meet the modern challenges. The approach of the modernists is described as, It aims to root ‘modernism’ in Islamic tradition. it shares with the other two discourses the urge to reform Muslim society but disagrees with their rejection of modernity or tradition. Instead, it affirms that modernity (the Western worldview) is compatible with Islam. The above-mentioned revivalist and modernist approaches are still visible in Muslim intellectual discourses and are invested in trying to formulate an authentic Islamic tradition for modern times. However, the two discourses, revivalist, and modernist, have failed to generate a robust and complex methodology in order to produce the desired results. The revivalist approach is often reduced to mere literalism and failed to be inclusive of the modern knowledge system, on the one hand, and the modernist approach tends to be apologetic, on the other. During the late 20th century, a new strand to the modernist approach was introduced: historicism, which argued that Muslim intellectual and social institutions should be analysed in their historical context. Fazlur Rahman is considered one of the foremost proponents of this approach. Before moving forward with the discussion, I would like to briefly discuss the theory of social change. According to the Encyclopaedia of Britannica, social change is a theory that is propounded by Western sociologists. The theory proposes the idea that the mechanisms within the social structure go through an alteration when changes appear in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems. Various theories are employed by experts to understand the process of change in society. In the late 19th century, when Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to understand biological change, sociologists prepared a model based on Darwin’s theory to analyse the change in ideas. Marx believed that changes in modes of production can lead to changes in the class system, which would result in creating a new class in society leading to an inevitable conflict between the new and the old classes. Ultimately, this conflict would be resolved by reaching the integration of the new system in society. There are other means that facilitate change in society, including ‘contact with other societies (diffusion), changes in the ecosystem (which can cause the loss of natural resources or widespread disease), technological change (epitomized by the Industrial Revolution, which created a new social group, the urban proletariat), and population growth and other demographic variables. Social change is also spurred by ideological, economic, and political movements.’ These agents of social change have heavily been influencing the progress of human society since the beginning of the modern age. A wholesale alteration of the social institutions forced intellectuals around the world to review and reconstruct the values and ideals of the past. Fazlur Rahman conceptualizes this social change and the proper Islamic response to it in order for establishing the viability of Islam in the modern world. He eloquently puts it, When new forces of massive magnitude—socio-economic, cultural-moral or political-occur in or to a society, the fate of that society naturally depends on how far it is able to meet the new challenges creatively. If it can avoid the two extremes of panicking and recoiling upon itself and seeking delusive shelters in the past on the one hand, and sacrificing or compromising its very ideals on the other, and can react to the new forces with self-confidence by necessary assimilation, absorption, rejection and other forms of positive creativity, it will develop a new dimension for its inner aspirations, a new meaning and scope for its ideals. Should it, however, choose, by volition or force of circumstance, the second of the two extremes we have just mentioned and succumb to the new forces, it will obviously undergo a metamorphosis; its being will no longer remain the same and, indeed, it may even perish in the process of transformation and be swallowed up by another socio-cultural organism. But more surely fatal than this mistake is the one we have mentioned as the first extreme. Should a society begin to live in the past—however sweet its memories—and fail to face the realities of the present squarely—however unpleasant they be—, it must become a fossil; and it is an unalterable law of God that fossils do not survive for long. In this long passage, Fazlur Rahman criticizes the two reformist approaches which I have mentioned above, the revivalist and the anti-religious, as detrimental to Islam and Muslims. For Fazlur Rahman, these two approaches represent two extremes that end up in either giving up one’s identity or imposing the past on our present societies. Instead, he argues that Muslims must critically and creatively engage with their historical tradition and try to differentiate between normative and historical Islam. Falzur Rahman is one of the most ardent proponents of the historicist approach to studying the evolution of Islamic tradition. Historicism as an intellectual movement began in the West in the nineteenth century. Many Muslim modernist scholars also tried to employ the approach to construct a new methodology to study Islam. Historicism, in general, refers ‘to the recognition of the impact of specific socioeconomic and political circumstances on any given cultural formulation, including the formulations that comprise religious heritage.’ Historicism views that the socioeconomic and political conditions of the past were determined by their specific time, and argues that with the passage of time things need to be changed. It views the past transitioning from one period to another. With these transitions, change occurs in society. Therefore, in order to study social change, the methodology of historicism becomes an important means. Even though historicism as an intellectual idea originated in the West in the modern period, Fazlur Rahman employs the Quranic methodology of Naskh in order to substantiate the authenticity of his approach and methodology. The very idea of Naskh presupposes a change in circumstances according to which certain verses were abrogated by others. For example, the verses and injunctions revealed in the Quran in Mecca are very different from those that were revealed in Medina. Fazlur Rahman gives an example of jihad. The meaning of jihad had changed during the time of the revelation of the Quran. Its first usage in the Quran was to refer to the efforts of polytheist Meccans who attempted to stop people to convert to Islam, and to the efforts of Muslims who tried to remain steadfast in their faith. According to the concept of naskh, injunctions that were abrogated later pertained to specific circumstances. And when those circumstances changed, a new message was revealed. The methodology Fazlur Rahman proposes comprises two important aspects. The first one is his reconceptualization of the notion of Asbāb-E-Nuzūl. He argues that limiting the meaning of the Quranic verses to a particular context is tantamount to restricting the universal meaning of the Quran. Fazlur Rahman’s idea of the Quran is that the holy book contains universal principles underlying its verses. Muslims need to engage in a thorough study of the Quran to find out those principles. In order to do so, he states that we need to change our methodology. Fazlur Rahman argues, ‘the multitude of Quranic revelations took place “in, although not for, a given context.” Muslims must recognize the essential feature in the revelation which is meant not only for the specific context in which it was revealed but is intended by the Creator to “outflow through and beyond that given context of history.” Another aspect of Fazlur Rahman’s methodology pertains to the idea of distinguishing the essential and historical Islam. According to Fazlur Rahman, Islamic institutions, like kalam or Fiqh, arose in their historical context. However, he criticizes their methodology of reading the Quran and the Sunnah. To introduce reform in Islam, Fazlur Rahman argues that there is a need for the reassessment of these institutions, which could be possible once Muslims are able to glean the Islamic principles by applying the methodology we talked about above. Tamara Sonn summarizes the main features of Fazlur Rahman’s neo-modernist approach, which she calls, ‘Islamic methodology’, in the following words, Fazlur Rahman’s approach to Islamic reform calls for a critical assessment of the intellectual legacy of Islam, with a view to: (1) understanding how it happened to assume the form in which we have inherited it; (2) distinguishing in the process between essential Islamic principles and their particular formulation as a result of specific needs of specific—and probably now outmoded—socioeconomic and political contexts; and (3) determining how best to apply the essential principles of Islam in the contemporary context (which itself must be critically assessed.) Since past about two hundred years, Muslims have been trying to establish the viability of the principles of Islam in modern times. As we discussed, multiple approaches have been suggested to study the causes that brought about the decline of Muslims, and the possible means that could revive the community. Fazlur Rahman’s methodology can be counted among those approaches. However, there are some merits to this approach. It is more complex and robust than those the three approaches that I mentioned earlier. When applied, it could bring solutions to some of the major theological issues that Muslims have been trying to resolve in the modern period. By applying his methodology, Fazlur Rahman has tried to give some answers to some of the most debatable questions regarding, for example, the status of women in Islam, jihad, etc. I would like to present a case study here in order to demonstrate the efficiency of Fazlur Rahman’s methodology in understanding what is essentially Islamic and what is not. For example, for many Muslims, child marriage is allowed in Islam. In 1929, when the British government in India passed an act, Child Marriage Restraint Act, also known as Sharda Act, fixing a certain age for marriage for boys and girls. Muslim organizations of that time, such as Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, viewed this act as anti-Islamic and an assault on Shariah. They argued that in Islam marriage is a religious issue, therefore, interference in it would be regarded as interference in Islam itself. In protest of the act, these Ulama organized child marriages across the subcontinent and appealed to their followers to do so. They reacted this way because they were confused between the essentials of Islam and social norms. Many Muslims would not support such protests, as they did almost a century ago because our perception regarding the issue had changed over the years. Fazlur Rahman distinguishes between the prescriptive verses and Sunnah and the descriptive verses and the Sunnah. Many practices that are mentioned in the Quran and described in the Sunnah, he argues, are prescriptive and many of them are descriptive. The prescriptive category defines the principles, and ideals of the Quran whose values are universal. But the descriptive category refers to those practices and injunctions that were the norms of the time. As time changes, these practices would change as well. Thus, the age of marriage, Fazlur Rahman would say, belongs to the descriptive category, meaning it is decided by the norms of society. In previous times, child marriage was allowed, but today, due to the change in society, this norm has also been changed. If a society or a state decides to limit the minimum age for marriage, it does not go against the injunctions of the Quran. This was just one example to demonstrate the efficacy of the methodology of Fazlur Rahman. It is important that we critically explore it further. The Islamic jurists and theologians also need to seriously engage with socioeconomic and political theories of modern times, so that they could be able to understand the world they live in. This holistic approach to studying Islam and society will help them derive complex solutions for the reform of the Muslim society. ---- Mohammad Ali has been a madrasa student. He has also participated in a three years program of the "Madrasa Discourses,” a program for madrasa graduates initiated by the University of Notre Dame, USA. Currently, he is a PhD Scholar at the Department of Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. His areas of interest include Muslim intellectual history, Muslim philosophy, Ilm-al-Kalam, Muslim sectarian conflicts, madrasa discourses. URL: https://newageislam.com/ijtihad-rethinking-islam/islam-reform-social-change/d/127679 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

Questions That Need Unambiguous Answers

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 9 August 2022 So Long As the Cult of Muhammad Survives, True Realization of Spirituality Is Not Possible Among the Muslims ------ Have you ever noticed that Kalma, La Ilaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah, is arrogantly assertive and egotistical? Its literal English meaning is: There's no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. To recapitulate, 25 prophets are mentioned in the Qur'an, although some believe there have been 1, 24000. Since it's believed that Ummi (unlettered) Muhammad got the revelations from 'heaven' and he added or interpolated nothing, it stands to reason, why an 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' Allah needed to proclaim through Muhammad that he alone, and no one else, is worth-worshipping and Muhammad is his messenger? If Allah sent 'prophets' in all eras, in terms of 'gradational betterment', why on earth did he stop sending new 'prophets'? This shows that the very root of Islam, Kalma encapsulates the faith in Islam, is megalomaniac and reeks of Hengfenota (Dutch agnostic Benedict Spinoza's term for a so-called 'divine' proclamation with suspect elements of human interference). Day in and day out, the Muazzin begins his call to prayers by proclaiming, "Ashaddu Alla Ilaha Illallah Wa Ashaddu Anna Muhammad Ar Rasulullah " (I bear witness that there's no deity-none truly to be worshipped-but, Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah: Shahada). This is absolute spiritual superciliousness and an insult to other faiths and their gods. If Muhammad is the last messenger, what about religions and their 'founders' or 'prophets' that came after Islam? How and where'll you place Bahaullah, the founder of Bahai faith (splintered away from Shia Islam in Iran), that alienated itself from Muhammad's Islam? Ahmadiyyas are heretics and no longer in the fold of Islam, then will Muslims call Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiany a sanctimonious tartuffian? Christianity also called Muhammad a false prophet, so much so that Italian great Dante Alighieri roasted Muhammad in eternal hellfire in his classic ' Divine Comedy.' Why should Allah or the Semitic 'gods' be pathologically jealous of other gods? Jealousy is a common human trait. Then, how can it be a divine attribute when Allah orders destruction of Pagan and polytheistic idols and sanctions the killing of polytheists in the Quran? Why did Allah's religious concoctions stop with Islam and Muhammad when just a 500-yr-old Sikhism had not one but ten 'enlightened' gurus who, according to Sikhs, were no less than any prophet of any era? They (Sikhs) are right from their perspective, just like Muslims think that they've the absolute monopoly of truth. Why didn't Allah replace Muhammad with Moses and Jesus (Judaism and Christianity) in the Kalma? Is Christianity or Judaism any way lesser faiths than Islam? Why did Allah send revelations on 'prophets' belonging to a particular patch of land and why not in the eastern world? Lastly, if the Qur'an is a divine book, wasn't it Muhammad's duty to compile it during his lifetime? After all, these messages are supposed to be 'revelations' from none other than Allah! Many Arabs criticised the Quran when it was first created because they argued that a so-called genuine book from god or Allah would be revealed as one piece and wouldn't be exasperatingly repetitive. There cannot be two views about the Qur'an being ridiculously repetitive, and often about the most trivial things. Even the yokels of the desert doubted the veracity of Quranic verses. I asked these discomforting questions when I was studying religions. No one could give me satisfactory answers. Muslim 'scholars' gave the most evasive, hollow, baffling and misleading explanations. No wonder, more and more questioning Muslims are leaving Islam and calling themselves ex-Muslims. So long as the cult of Muhammad survives, true realization of spirituality is not possible among the Muslims. I know, modern Imam Ghazalis and Ibn Arabis will try tooth and nail to explain these posers, but will nosedive in their futile attempts as the very foundations of Islam or for that matter, any faith are so dilapidated and rickety. They'll condemn me, but who cares? Truth is forever on the scaffold. To quote Ahmad Faraz, “Aaj Hum Daar Pe Khainche Gaye Jin Baaton Par/ Kya Ajab Kal Woh Zamane Ko Nisaabon Mein Milein” (The things I'm being excoriated for today/Don't be surprised, if you might get to see them tomorrow in the text books). ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/questions-unambiguous-answers/d/127674 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

Gendered Islamophobia and the Politics of Representation

By Grace Mubashir, New Age Islam 8 August 2022 Duality Of Islamic Fundamentalist And Victim Of Misogyny Has Become One Of The Accepted Images Of Our Time As The West's Declared War On Terror Has In Fact Been Applied To The Body Of The Hijab-Wearing Muslim Woman Main Points: 1. Current era is characterized by rhetoric in the name of emancipation of Muslim women. 2. Stereotype of the oppressed/victimized Muslim woman has been strategically created by European/modern/upper caste feminists through their anthropological perspective. 3. It is the duty of the advocates of decolonization and Muslim women to destroy the elite/upper class canonical narratives. ------ The current era is characterized by rhetoric in the name of emancipation of Muslim women. The time has come to dismantle the ever-flowing secular/liberalist short-sighted narratives. The stereotype of the oppressed/victimized Muslim woman has been strategically created by European/modern/upper caste feminists through their anthropological perspective. Feminists familiar only with upper/aristocratic milieu are passing along prescriptions of political power and thereby artificial patronage and hyper-nationalism as the solution to society's entire problem. Therefore, it is the duty of the advocates of decolonization and Muslim women to destroy the elite/upper class canonical narratives. Vocabularies, conventions, and conventions for discussion in secular spaces are constructed and regulated through what Nate said was the aristocratic/upper caste. This is how the 'plight of Muslim women who are suffocating at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalist male kesaris' worldwide becomes anathema to secularists and feminists - the dream Indian feminists. Feminism, built on the laurels of modernity, is monolithic and self-important patronage. They conveniently ignored all the complex, multifaceted and circumcised female spaces. It has thus made it impossible to even discuss the diverse experiences of Muslim women around the world. Apart from all this secular hostility towards Islam, As Professors Adrian Catherine Wing and Monica Naismith present, it was in fact the annulment of secular values themselves and the usurpation of Western constructed secular spaces. 'Muslims have made a conscious effort to construct an Islamic identity with a territorial, authoritarian, social and cultural structure. Building mosques and calling the faithful to loud prayers represents the conflict between cultures. For secular feminists, Islamic dress and its visibility represent a rejection of the West's commitment to secularism and adherence to the 'male supremacy' that Islam stands for. Prof. Mary Matsuda (Critical Race Feminism) about the multi-consciousness experienced by a hybrid woman who comes from very similar political ideologies such as different race, gender, class, and social status. Bearing this plurality and heterogeneity (I prefer to call it a different experiment) the hijab-wearing identity is reduced to the monolithic equation of being a victim of Islam's misogyny, accompanied by loud voices. The duality of Islamic fundamentalist and victim of misogyny has become one of the accepted images of our time as the West's declared war on terror has in fact been applied to the body of the hijab-wearing Muslim woman. This equation can be clearly read in the Feminist Majority Foundation's campaign against Taliban violence against women in Afghanistan. Apart from popular women's magazines such as Glamou, Jane, Teen, Sojouner, Off our Black and Ms magazines also published articles highlighting the atrocities of the Taliban. The atrocities of the Taliban are reprehensible and reprehensible. But the political incorrectness and self-inflicted amnesia of the feminist majority foundation and secular public consciousness is exposed here. As a ready-made escape from the complications of the Afghan war, the term Islamic fundamentalism is being (mis)used to pit the Islamic model against the Muslim woman. The image of the cultured rich West protecting the Afghan woman (along with their paternalistic feminists) is being falsely created. (Recall examples of Spivak's white man saving the dark woman from the dark man). Thus, The aggressive militarization of the region and the apparent famine and refugee crisis were cleverly glossed over. All kinds of thoughts, images, and fears about Islamic fundamentalism continue to flood the American imagination. West-rejecting and anti-Western headdresses, beheadings, hand-cutting, mass congregations praying together, morals established through radical interpretations of religious scriptures – all serve as powerful catalysts where Islam is portrayed as synonymous with terror, Talibanism, violence and toxic male hegemony. After 9/11 these images were cultivated and propagated as a parallel form of Islamophobia. George W. Bush's February 4, 2004 speech exposes the racist and Islamophobic mind-set of the West. Because of what we have done, countries in the Middle East no longer have to fear reckless aggression from a brutal ruler. Saddam Hussein is now in prison, and Iraqis will no longer be relegated to thunder chambers and rape chambers. They will not be taken to mass graves and discarded. Muslims are scorned by the West for questioning the gender politics of fundamentalists. They see Islam as a threat to modernity and feminism and a rejection of the liberal and progressive values that Western culture has produced. The West and the Far East , according to Mogissi, find justification for the misuse of colonial power by using the two dichotomies of a tamed, oppressed, and uninformed identity, and an emancipated, free, and thoughtful identity. Therefore, the white man took upon himself the responsibility of taming the Oriental Other and making them aware. This paternalistic state of mind can be found throughout French and English literary works. This is also the case with colonial feminism. As Laila Ahmad observes, they sought to legitimize Europe's cultural mission (colonialism, culture, and women's issues are always contentious issues). Post-colonial theorists such as Partha Chatterjee (National and Women's Question), Leela Gandhi (Emblematic of Gender and Sexuality) and Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak (Can The Subaltern Speak?) have constantly tried to problematize this mindset. As Edward Syed (Tamashara) says, The imaginary geography of the East (and the Oriental woman) was spent as the dream of the Orient. For example, Sayed reads Flaubert's representation of the Oriental Muslim woman. Phloba meets an Egyptian court dancer who is presented as an influential model of the Oriental woman. She never spoke about herself. Not once did she represent her old or new feelings. He is a foreigner. Relatively rich, then male. He speaks for her even though the historical facts of dominance do not allow him to physically occupy a Kuchuk Hanem. He then tells his readers how she becomes a typical Oriental woman (Sayed 1978). Muslim female identity, thus, becomes more oriental than Muslim male identity. Ghama Elala Chrisalimehala describes the carnal self that does not demand anything insensible. Algerian author Malik Alloulah scrutinizes the obsession with veiling (Barbara Harlow) in his Colonial Hare. Colonial-era picture postcards reveal hallucinations of a white European colonial man sexually assaulting an Algerian woman. Fadwa Algindi describes Anthapuram as a place of exotic and promiscuous sex. The Middle East is a microcosm that glorifies sentimentality and force. While Politicizing The Headscarf The campaign to declare the physical and religious spaces of the Muslim woman through a series of veiled images is rampant. They are the unquestioned dominant models. Here the headscarf symbolizes the violence of Islam that can only be remedied by progressive intervention, Western cultural activities. French feminist intellectual Élisabeth Badande wrote: 'The veil… is a symbol of the suppression of a gender. Wearing skinny jeans and a wiggonium in yellow, blue or green is a sign of freedom associated with social norms. Wearing a headscarf is also a sign of submission. It chokes the whole life of a woman' (quoted by Mahmood). The tame attitude of the headscarf has become dominant in the secular imagination. According to Algindi it is a physical element of clothing. Mostly it is related to gender and distorted by ethnocentric transactions. or studied only through the lens of Western women's studies .This reductive political perspective rejects the pluralistic sociocultural political spaces within which headscarves are practiced within diversities of hierarchy, piety, and identity. Algindi in his cultural anthropology highlights some examples from Shiagram in Bahrain. Every house has a turtle nest there. Every woman the key to her house, It is carried around tied to a head-dress or braided hair (Algindi 56). Tying the key to the headdress is a sign of strength. This signifier seems to be a call for a post-apocalyptic understanding of headgear construction beyond the progressive/non-progressive compartmentalization that a unipolar world order presupposes. The ethical deconstruction of spaces related to freedom, private public spaces, autonomy, etc. exposes the gap between the Western Enlightenment (which was built on the self and the other) and Western history (its utilitarian movement began in the Orient). Ziauddin Sardar calls it white freedom, white secularism. It should be able to tolerate liberal/narrow actions while maintaining a commanding centrality to individual autonomy. These post-secular spaces of freedom are emphasized by Saba Mahmood in his book Politics of Pitey. Ambitions and values are produced, According to the conventional conditions of the self-governing taste construct that constitutes emancipation. And what is the content of this Abhiwancha is not the issue. The karana-reactions they emit are (qualitatively) independent. It leaves little room for freedom to exercise itself. There the individual has the right to choose or not to choose. It does not matter whether his actions are narrow or not. This shatters feminist historiography based on the monolithic conception of liberation. Mahmood then goes on to explain the discursive landscape of the post-independence state. In the 1970s, one of them was the call by white, middle-class feminists to dismantle the institution of the nuclear family. They believed that the family was the main source of women's oppression. Indigenous African American feminists argued that freedom for them included the possibility of family formation. Because the long history of slavery, massacres and racism makes it clear that all this was made possible by destroying the networks of their communities. This article now examines the political debate surrounding the headscarf in Islam, to please those in the gallery. These discussions significantly advance the view that the Muslim woman's headscarf is a radical symbol that serves to deconstruct the power structure that lies between the personal/political dichotomies. Albert Haulani's essay The Vanishing Veil: A Challenge to the World Order (1956) posits how the Muslim woman's headscarf may have fallen from the Middle East by the end of the twentieth century. He emphasized the hypocrisy of the headscarf and the need for the Muslim community to embrace modernity to replace it. 'Do you think that the European, who has perfected the mind and discovered the power of steam and electricity, would have avoided this genius and spirit which amazes us if there had been any good in the veils which they had been using for so long?. Egypt witnessed such a lifting of the veil in the 1920s. This veil was inspired by European modernism and celebration at its height. Cromer points out in his book Modern Egypt that Islam also felt the same inferiority complex that a dark-skinned Oriental felt when seeing a white-skinned Westerner. Laila Ahmad argues that the purdah movement did not derive from the concept of purdah, which had its roots in pre-colonial Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, but rather from nineteenth-century Western ideas (Ahmad 94). Two subtle threads can be easily traced in the abolition of the veil in Egypt and the subsequent Purdayanial, with the current of westward feminism represented by Qasim Amin and Huda Sharqawi on the one hand, and the current represented by Malak Hifni Nassif and Zainbul Ghazzali on the other. The role of Zainbul Ghazali's Jama'atussayidat al-Muslimah in reshaping the role of Muslim women by integrating public action and religious knowledge is no small. In the wake of the Islamic consciousness that emerged in the 1970s, the hijab experienced a resurgence (albeit accompanied by separate terminology and terminology) across Arabic-speaking regions. It started in Egypt. The social spaces of the new spirit were presented there with nuances. They also put forth certain narratives related to socio-political-gender-religious identities. The emergence of a new Egyptian Muslim woman was linked to political corruption in Egypt. The rebirth of Islamic religiosity marked a very important turning point in university spaces. In the 1970s, women activists began wearing Assiyul Islami (Islamic dress). They, according to Algindi, It represented and proclaimed the central importance of a society committed to gender segregation. They were able to become living models of egalitarian principles and social justice that embraced heterogeneity. Algindi argues that 'this new woman' was well-versed in Islamic sources of knowledge, capable of leading discussions, and serious about public affairs. Algindi wrote of the New Egyptian woman's visibility or choice: By her choice of headscarf, she liberates herself by entering public spaces with determination, unmolested and unmolested. It can be said that the synthesis of Islamic principles and political activities took place through this grassroots movement. Their new face rejects Western materialism, consumerism and commercialism and advertises Islam's ideals of equality, justice and identity. But strangely enough, this all-inclusive movement, which had a strong presence at the grassroots level, has not figured in any of Egypt's feminist chronicles. Even the existence of a movement that freed Muslim women from imported and imposed identities and indulgences was not acknowledged by feminist scholars. The positions taken by indigenous women during the stages of colonial confrontations have often invited controversy when it comes to politicizing the headscarf . According to Leela Gandhi, she was never a subject or an object. She was nothing more than a body image stitched with the aristocratic insignia of the colonial rulers' culture, practice, purity, colonial modernity, etc. In Algeria, the headscarf was a cultural and national symbol rather than a religious one. Colonial strategies were implemented using the same symbol. Fanon argues in Algeria Unveiled that Algeria was embracing colonial coercion—every hijab thrown off, everybody freed from traditional gates. He then goes on to explain how frustrating it was for the occupiers to be unable to see others but to be able to see others. Colonialism presented headscarf as an obsession that grew to the point of psychosis. The image of the veiled woman was also popular among modernist secular feminists. During the Algerian War of Independence, the headdress emerged as a powerful national symbol—locals saw it as a symbol of indigenous culture and heritage. It also became a form of resistance against the cultural plunder of the occupying powers. Hal Lehrman of The New York Times Magazine called it a headscarf war. Algerian women's resistance is explained as follows: 'Sights... of dispossessed black women fleeing devastated villages... of women serving as nurses, often as fighters for the National Liberation Alliance. Of the women fighters who hide fighters in the cellars of Kasbi… of those who dress in European clothes and carry bombs in bags slung from their wrists while in sophisticated cafes, of those who pass unharmed through the torture of French soldiers, of those who participate in protest rallies in the streets, and yes of course those who wait in prison camps and refugee camps…” Pierre Beauhadeau says that what shrouded Algeria was traditional traditionalism that lost its tainted traditional dimensions. Emergence of sign defining socio-cultural regional diversity beyond religious dimensions. The veil worn by Assyrian women was a symbol of status - it was worn by high class women. There is a big difference between hijab practices among Palestinian women before and after the Intifada. Algindi suggests that the hijab previously signified their austere status and identity as a woman living in the thump. The epistemic subversions perpetrated by women's studies groups and liberal secular feminist groups are revealed through the monolithic identity of the headscarf they present—a subversion that presents the invisible, anonymous, subjugated woman as synonymous with Islam. The fact that they are obfuscating it by conveniently forgetting its socio-political symbolic destiny further reinforces the subversiveness that Nate has spoken about. ------ A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Grace Mubashir is a journalism student at IIMC, Delhi URL: https://newageislam.com/muslims-islamophobia/gendered-islamophobia-politics-/d/127670 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