Sunday, November 24, 2019

Liberal Muslims: The Term Sounds like an Oxymoron, Both to Muslims And Non Muslims



By Mushtaq Ul Haq Ahmad Sikander, New Age Islam
18 November 2019
What It Means To Be a Liberal Muslim
“Liberal Muslims” the term sounds oxymoron, both to Muslims and non Muslims. For Muslims, Liberal or Liberated Muslim means a Muslim who has given up practicing Islam, its tenants and does not bother much about the lawful and forbidden in Islam. He continues to be legally a Muslim but his opinion about Islam and Muslims is not acceptable despite being valid. For Non Muslims, Liberal Muslim is one who does not demand reservation, drinks, dines with them, does not inhabit the Muslim ghettoes and never decries about the discrimination against Muslims in India. So a liberal Muslim is on his own with little support from his community and even in general from the society. The Muslim Ulema and community do not consider them Muslim enough to be trusted while Non Muslims accuse them of not being liberal enough. So liberal Muslims are always decried and labelled as stooges of West by their own community while for others, they remain ‘communal’ Muslims. These fault lines have never been negotiated or redrawn.
With the advent of colonialism the Muslim community responded to the socio-political and educational system of the colonizers through three broad reactions. First there were those who were for the wholesome adoption and imitation of the western colonial model.
Second class was completely hostile and opposed to the model.
The other third class was of those who accepted the model with exceptions and tried to incorporate changes in it to make it compatible with Islam.
So there was a division between Traditional and Liberal Muslims. The divide continued in the free India too. The madrasas are giving birth to a traditional, backward looking leadership while the secular education is shaping a different leadership. The division is complete and compartmentalized. Each section respects the invisible contract of not breeching into the territory of the other. Madrasa educated Ulema with sectarian outlook always express opinions about Islam even if sectarian and hold sway over the masses. Whenever they find their position and status is being threatened, they initiate a movement decrying “Islam in danger”. They threaten the liberal opinionated Muslim with Fatwas and community boycott. The political parties of all hues need these madrasas trained mullahs, Maulvis and Ulema for consolidating the Muslim vote bank as they can influence the opinion of voters. This group certainly needs to be appeased as their power cannot be undermined. Plus over the centuries they have adorned, developed and evolved a certain type of dress code including the beards coupled with the reinforcement of that image by media that even Muslims cannot accept anyone as Islamic scholar and community leader who does not possess these features. So liberal Muslims here again prove dwarfs as they don not possess these features. The community cannot recognize them as leaders.
A liberal Muslim is one who believes in the principle of Sulh-I-Kul (peace with all). He upholds the fact that his is not the only source of truth but there are various versions of truth that are available in different ideologies, religions and viewpoints. A liberal Muslim even if he does not observe the rituals of Islam, implements and practices its universal values like egalitarianism, social justice, charity, supporting the destitute and contributing to the movements aiming at the empowerment of downtrodden. A liberal Muslim is tolerant when it comes to the interpretation of Islam and forging unity both intra and inter-faith. Liberal Muslim is a crusader for the cause of women rights, empowerment through education and democracy. Liberal Muslims uphold the postulates of non violence. Unlike traditional Ulema he does not indulge in mudslinging, false allegations and issuing legal decrees.
Among the liberal Muslims we lack those few who can authoritatively write, speak and interpret Islam according to the dictum of current academic debates. The door of Ijtihad that has been closed by the traditional Ulema needs to be opened up. Only liberal Muslims can have the courage to undertake the same. They should prepare themselves for this job and it will take some time to develop the requisite expertise among the liberal Muslims who then can indulge in Ijtihad. The traditional Ulema have created a false aura around themselves that they are the epitome and zenith of piety, with huge following and when they do not dare to undertake Ijtihad how can liberal Muslims do it? But as the time and necessity demands, Ijtihad, hence despite their opposition, the Ijtihad will be acceptable if undertaken by liberal Muslims.
Being a liberal Muslim brings with it plethora of accusations and allegations. One of the commonly used allegations to browbeat the liberal Muslims is they being stooges of West, working at the behest of West and trying to Westernize Islam. West and its ideologies have been the most misunderstood by the Islamic Revivalists. When the Ulema do not have a logical or Islamic answer to an interpretation of Islam that is different than theirs, the simple escapism is to label it as Western whereas the reality is that West is most happy with traditional Ulema as it helps reinforce the Islamophobic and violent image of Islam. Liberal Muslims question the legitimacy of West and have the acumen to understand the capitalistic and imperialistic model of Global powers. The West in fact has been successful in exploiting and using these traditional Ulema and their interpretation of Islam for its own imperialistic goals whether be it the balkanization of USSR or retrograding the Arab Spring to bloody and bleak Arab Winter. The Western powers in fact do help and patronize the autocratic, authoritarian, sectarian and violent regimes like Saudi Arabia to survive. The survival is at the cost of denial of basic human rights and liberal values like freedom of speech, right to form associations and rule of law. So this allegation is wrong, infact traditional mullahs are patronized by West so that a retrogressive, redundant and regressive image of Islam is presented before the world.
The lack of liberal Muslim leadership is because most of them are afraid or in awe of the traditional Ulema. They shy away from the new interpretation of Islam because of community and Ulema backlash. Most of them suppress their inner call and lack courage to stand for the liberal values. The political parties too do not want to associate with any liberal Muslim faces that are controversial for their opinions because that will cut the vote share for them. Thus the liberal Muslims who are articulate and opinionated are marginalized even by the secular political parties. At last the liberal Muslims have failed to convince the Muslim masses and Ulema that they can be selfless and dedicated defenders of their community interests. Liberal Muslims have the task of bridging the divide between the traditional Ulema and themselves and initiate a dialogue process. They need to become role models by having strong personality and values that can inspire the masses to believe and follow them. It will take some time for the Indian liberal Muslim to take and secure the mantle of leadership, till then they need to occupy the spaces of social activism and interpretation of Islam.
M.H.A. Sikander is Writer-Activist based in Srinagar, Kashmir and can be reached at sikandarmushtaq@gmail.com

Preparing For Our Departure from This World


By Valea, New Age Islam
20 November 2019
If we’ve been on a long train journey and are now nearing our destination, what do we do? We start getting ready for our arrival. So, we may have a wash, brush our hair and straighten our clothes. We may gather our stuff that’s lying around and pack it back in our bags. We may say goodbye to our fellow passengers. And so on. In these ways, we make preparations for the end of our journey and our arrival at our destination.
In just the same way, we need to make the necessary preparations for the end of our journey of life in this world, which comes with death, and our arrival at our destination, which is the Hereafter.
Death, of course, knows no age barrier and can arrive at any moment. But as our bodies grow older and we begin to realise that we aren’t going to be in this world forever and that sooner or later we will have to leave this realm; we need to consciously prepare ourselves for this momentous event in our life’s journey.
When we depart from this world, only our faith or level of God-consciousness and the stock of our deeds will accompany us. Given this, consciously preparing for this event requires that we focus now more on cultivating our inner life and on expressing it in the form of good deeds. 
Here are some of the things we need to do to properly prepare for our death and for what comes beyond:
·        Giving greater attention to our relationship with our Creator, whom we are going to meet on our departure from this world and to whom we will have to give a complete account for how we have lived while here.
 If we have hitherto left God out of our lives,  we can begin to cultivate a personal relationship with God right now, before it is too late. No matter how busy we may like to think we are, we need to spend adequate time with God every day.
·       Seeking to improve ourselves.
We need to spend time reflecting on how we are as persons and make efforts to become better. We need to try to overcome our negative tendencies and strengthen our positive qualities. For instance, if we review our lives, we may recognise that impatience is one of our prominent negative traits and that because of this, we have hurt many people in the past. Based on this realisation, we can make conscious efforts to overcome impatience by cultivating patience.
·       Trying to make amends for the wrongs we have done and making up with others.
 As we go through life we inevitably do things that we ought not to have. For instance, we hurt other people by unwise actions, words and thoughts. If we want to leave this world with a lighter conscience, we need to try to make amends for our wrongs. For instance, if we have been cruel to someone, we can apologise to them. If we have fought with a friend or relative and haven’t talked with them for years, we can reach out to them and patch up. If for some reason we aren’t able to contact them, we can acknowledge the wrong we have done before God and request God to forgive us and also to bless the person we have wronged.
·       Forgiving all those who we think have wronged us.
Many of us go through life revelling in hatred of people we think have wronged us. But if we want God to forgive us for our wrongs, we need to forgive people who have done us wrong, even if they themselves do not acknowledge their misdeeds and ask us for forgiveness. Forgiving others for what wrong they might have done to us is for our own good. Relieving us of the burden of resentment, it makes us lighter and happier.
·       Loosening our attachments to material possessions, none of which will accompany us when we die.
As long as we are in this world we need certain material things to survive. But often we accumulate things over the years that we do not really require. We can loosen our attachments to them and make our departure from this world easier. For instance, instead of clinging onto furniture or clothes we do not need, we can give them to someone who might. If our homes are littered with expensive artefacts more befitting a museum, we can sell them off and give the money to a good cause. If our finances are arranged in such a way that we get more than what we might need to lead a decent life, we can set apart a sum of money every month for worthwhile social causes. Or, if our children are economically well-off, we can will our property to a reliable charity instead of to our children. In ways like these we can give up our attachment to material things.
·     Since our stock of deeds is going to accompany us after we die, we must consciously focus on doing virtuous actions, on a day-to-day, or even moment-to-moment, basis.
Not all of us can do ‘social work’ on a ‘big’ scale. But all of us can definitely do little acts of kindness, and every day at that. It could be even something as supposedly small as smiling at someone who’s sad, helping a puppy cross a busy road, avoiding stepping on an ant or watering a plant. Why, even sitting in the comfort of our homes we can do a great amount of good by sending out thoughts of loving-kindness to all creatures, including even people we have hitherto thought of as our foes! There are always a great many good things each of us can do every single hour of the day!
Many people die without having consciously prepared for their death at all and for the life that comes after it. They may have never cared to cultivate a relationship with God; they may have revelled in nursing hatred for others; they may have made no effort to make amends for the wrongs they have done or to patch up with people they have fought with; they may not have loosened their attachment to things; they may have done little or no good to others. And so on. Surely, that is a terrible way to die.
Since death is inevitable—it being the only thing about our future that we can be absolutely sure of—we need to prepare for it consciously and wisely, through our relationship with our Creator, working on our own selves, trying to become better people, making amends for past wrongs, forgiving others and seeking forgiveness and engaging in acts of kindness.

‘Rahmat ul Lil Alamin’: Malaysia's Islamic Administration Policy Sounds Progressive, Given That the Policies throughout Much of the Muslim World Are In A Deplorable State



By Sharifah Munirah Alatas, New Age Islam
November 18, 2019
On Oct 2, Mujahid Yusof Rawa, the minister in charge of Islamic affairs, announced that the working paper on the “Rahmat ul lil Alamin” (mercy to all creations) policy was ready to be presented to the Cabinet.
Mujahid announced that this was the country’s new Islamic administration policy. This sounds very promising and progressive, given that the policies of Muslim leadership throughout much of the Muslim world are currently in a deplorable state.
Another recent development is the United Arab Emirate’s (UAE) hosting of the 2nd World Tolerance Summit, which was held on Nov 13-14 in Dubai. This was in conjunction with the UAE’s declaration of 2019 as the “Year of Tolerance” on Dec 15 last year by its president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed.
Previously, in November 2017, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the UAE vice-president, named the pedestrian bridge over the Dubai Canal the Tolerance Bridge. It was done symbolically on the 22nd anniversary of the International Day of Tolerance.
All these pronouncements and activities were based on the Emirati desire to continue welcoming over 200 nationalities, who live in the constitutional monarchy of seven federated emirates.
Of a population of about 9.2 million, only 1.4 million are Emirati citizens. The other 7.8 million are expatriates, which explain the leadership’s concerted efforts to project the aura of “harmony without racism, discrimination or intolerance”.
A well-kept universal and blatantly open secret is the fact that the UAE has not been very tolerant of fellow Muslims in many parts of the war-torn Middle East.
It makes sense to latch Mujahid’s Rahmat ul lil Alamin policy to the UAE’s tolerance manifesto. However, compassion towards religious minorities in Malaysia, especially how Shia Muslims are perceived and treated, is still a work-in-progress that our state and federal authorities persist in ignoring.
There is a clear, fine thread of hypocrisy that connects the religious worldviews of both UAE and Malaysian administrations.
While UAE continues to have diplomatic relations with Iran, there are none with Israel. Yet, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that this past August, the US had arranged secret talks between Israel and UAE over Iran.
Last year, The New Yorker revealed that such talks date back to the 1990s. It would have been a profound show of global leadership for Malaysia if Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had critiqued this at the last United Nations General Assembly (Unga).
Instead, he continues to criticise the Jews and weep figuratively for the plight of the Palestinians. It would have been more respectable if his 2019 Unga speech included the duplicity game played by many Muslim nations of the Middle East.
This way, at least, Malaysia would be considered less of a hypocrite.
The current Malaysian leadership is busy declaring how compassionate Islam is at home, while taking no action against racist and bigoted remarks made by individuals at the Malay Dignity Congress.
After 18 months of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government, there is still a lack of a united official voice to dispel the myth that Malays and Muslims are “threatened”.
Without a change in narrative, we will continue to fall into an abyss of intolerance. This is exactly what has happened in the Middle East.
Various countries in the Muslim world are not united in their perception of the geopolitical imperialism facing Muslims. Many countries in the Middle East have separate vested interests.
It has become tiresome to read the superficial rhetoric about Muslim compassion and Islam as a tolerant religion emanating from the speeches of these leaders. Mujahid himself, during a recent interview with BBC Hardtalk’s Zeinab Badawi, tried to address the issue of worsening racial and religious tensions since PH took over last year.
When asked how serious the racial and religious divide is in Malaysia, Mujahid robotically rattled off Articles 3 and 11 of the Federal Constitution. He reiterated that other faiths are free to practise their religion, but that Islam is the only religion that can be promoted.
When pressed further, the all-too-familiar blame game surfaced: that this apparent divisive racial and religious climate was inherited from the previous administration.
Not only was Mujahid unable to answer the question posed, he avoided addressing the reality in Malaysia. The fact that a Turkish family of six had been recently deported to Turkey, or that private Shia homes were raided by religious authorities in Selangor during Ashura, was explained in the usual defeatist manner.
Citing the dry legalities of how Islam is administered in Malaysia, Mujahid explained that religion is the responsibility of the individual states, under the purview of the sultans. As a result, the PH government has no authority to handle these issues.
If so, how can Mujahid’s commitment to the Rahmatan lil Alamin policy be taken seriously?
Just as the world should not take UAE’s World Tolerance Summit seriously, Malaysia’s commitment to “mercy to all of God’s creatures” will be tossed into the dustbin of useless rhetoric.
PH suffered a massive defeat in the just concluded Tanjung Piai by-election. Mujahid’s internationally aired declaration that Malaysia upholds universal Islamic values of tolerance and compassion has done more damage than good to ordinary Malaysians. Tanjung Piai’s election results are proof of this.
First, he has managed to anger a lot more Malaysians who cannot reconcile his talk of compassion with the worsening economic conditions. Government-linked companies and government-linked investment companies have been transferred to PPBM-controlled ministries. They have not been reformed. Political appointees continue to be made. After 18 months of PH administration, the B40 are still waiting anxiously for relief from the rising cost of living.
Second, the consistent PH response has been to blame the previous government’s cronyism, the 1MDB crimes and the huge debts the government inherited. Yet, not a single criminal has been punished.
Mujahid’s blaming the Barisan Nasional (BN) government for the current racial and religious tensions is unacceptable. The public is no longer tolerant of these excuses, yet Mujahid talks persistently of Rahmatan lil Alamin, of a tolerant Islam in Malaysia.
Malaysia under PH seems to have a lot in common with the rest of the intellectually backward Muslim world. Let us not be fooled by the appearance of UAE’s wealth and tremendous economic development. The reality is the concepts of tolerance and compassion should only be applied to ethical and morally upright nations.
It is an utter sin when a nation boisterously declares it is compassionate by invoking Islam, and yet is blatantly oppressive to its own community.
As one of Saudi Arabia’s allies interfering in the Yemen civil war, UAE has also been a supporter of the US-led hostilities towards Iran. It is obvious that the ulterior motive for the World Tolerance Summit was to attract foreign investments which use UAE as a gateway for their export commodities throughout the region.
Placing economic reward above the sincere desire to solve humanitarian crises facing fellow Muslims in the region is not representative of a compassionate Islam.
It is equally reprehensible that Malaysia’s leadership deliberately partakes in domestic identity politics despite knowing that it is accelerating racial and religious divisions our society.
There is no more time to waste. The PH government must be serious if it is truly committed to upholding Rahmat ul lil Alamin.
On the international stage, Malaysia is perceived as a laughing stock with our dual approach to governance.
Ordinary Malaysian Muslims tend to look up to the more developed nations of the Arab world. We hail UAE, for instance, as a progressive, comfortable, economically vibrant and successful country. It is about time though, that we see through this veneer of wealth, and expose the hypocritical and sinful use of religion to fool masses of Muslims.
It is about time we realise our own leadership is doing the same thing.
Dr Sharifah Munirah Alatas is an academic specialising in geopolitics with a special interest in socio-political issues of developing nations.
Original Headline: Shackled by the rhetoric of ‘Rahmatan Lil Alamin’
Courtesy: Sharifah Munirah Alatas

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



By John Scales Avery, New Age Islam

18 November 2019

Reformed Teaching of History

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

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

Culture, Education, Solidarity and Sustainability

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

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

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

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

A New Freely Downloadable Book

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

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

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






Other books and articles about global problems are on these links

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

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


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


By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam
16 November 2019
This is the fourth part of Refutation of Jihadi Ideology That Uses the Verse, ‘Kill the Mushrikin Wherever You Find Them’ To Justify Terrorism in 21st Century. Supported by the Hanafi principle ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, this part of Refutation is purely based on the contextual and structural analysis of the verse “Kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them” (9:5).   
According to the Hanafi Principles of Jurisprudence, one of the five situations in which the literal (Haqiqi) meanings are not taken is due to the ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’.
The Hanafi principle ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’ refers to the situation where the literal meaning of any word is dropped due to the context and structure (Siyaaq) of the speech (Kalam). There are some clues, in such a situation, which indicate that the literal meaning of the word is not meant.
For example the Arabic word “Rajul” literally means ‘an adult human male’. If anyone says to his enemy during war, “come to face me if you are a man (Mard)”—the prevailing situation indicates that it is not reference to his gender, but to his bravery. Here the literal meaning ‘a male human being’ is omitted due to the ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, that is, due to the context and structure of the speech.
Similarly if a person narrates the story of anyone’s bravery and says, “A man was fighting during a war. He was a lion”—here due to the context and structure of the sentence, the word ‘lion’ would not be taken for the literal meaning. It would not be said that the man was “a large wild animal of the cat family” but it would mean that the man was brave like a lion.
Based on this Hanafi-jurisprudential principle of ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, let us understand the word ‘Mushrikin’ mentioned in the verse “kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them” (9:5).
The literal meaning of the word “Mushrikin” means those who commit the acts of Shirk, that is, those who worship other than Allah Almighty and attribute an equal partner to Allah in His Essence (Zaat) and Attributes (Sifat).
The literal meaning of the word ‘Mushrikin’ mentioned in the verse 9:5 demands that all those who commit shirk should be killed. But the context and structure of the full relevant text of the verse 9:5 demands that only those who are religious persecutors, violators of peace-treaty and have restored the war should be killed. So based on the principle of ‘Dalalat Siyaaq al-Kalam’, the literal meaning of the word ‘Mushrikin’ would be dropped here.
As for the context of the verse 9:5, we have discussed it in the previous parts along with some explanatory notes from the classical scholars. Briefly speaking here, the Mushrikin of Arab mentioned in this verse were those who had persecuted the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his followers for as long as 14 or 15 years in the city of Makkah. The Muslims continued to suffer heartless oppression, torture and abuse for thirteen years, yet they were not allowed to exact a measure of retaliation. Initially they were commanded to persevere patiently. During the thirteenth year after the declaration of his Prophet-hood, Allah commanded the prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions to migrate. They carried out Allah’s command worshipfully and migrated to Madina –nearly 300 miles away from Makkah. Still the animosity of the inveterate Mushrikin of Arab had not subsided. They inflicted fresh injuries on the Muslims; robbed them of the peace of mind and heart. When the aggression and ruthlessness of the Arab Mushrikin grew more hotly than ever, Allah granted permission to the believers to take up arms in their own defence.
As regards the structure of the verse 9:5, we should understand it from the verse 9:1, which reads “Absolution (i.e., renunciation) is declared from Allah and His Messenger to those Mushrikin with whom you had made a treaty of peace (but they breached the truce and restored the state of war)”. In the context discussed above we have seen the Mushrikin of Arab were the religious persecutors with whom, according to the verse 9:1, the peace-treaty was established but when they breached this truce, a divine “renunciation was declared”. Here an exception was also made to those who did not breach the truce as mentioned in the verse 9:4, “Except those Mushrikin with whom you made an agreement, who then did not show any latitude (in executing the truce) and who did not support (or reinforce) anyone against you. So fulfil the treaty with them till the end of the term. Surely, Allah loves those who fear Him”. This indicates that those who did not breach the truce were not commanded to be fought against. From the structure of all this divine speech it can be easily understood that they were fought not because they were Mushrikin but because they were the persecutors who even after making the truce breached it. This understanding is also supported by the verse which reads, “And if any of the Mushrikin seeks asylum with you, provide him with protection until he listens to the Words of Allah. Then escort him to his haven. This is because these people do not possess the knowledge (of the truth)” (9:6).
Given the context and structure of the divine speech, the literal meaning of the word “Mushrikin” would not be meant. Rather its literal meaning would be dropped and interpreted with explanatory notes that the Mushrikin mentioned in this verse were the Mushrikin of Arab who were religious persecutors and violators of peace-treaty. For the same reason we also come across such explanatory notes in the books of Tafasir written by the well-known classical scholars, Imam Baydawi, Allama Alusi, Allama Jassas, Ibn Hatim, Ibn Munzir and Suyuti etc.
Imam Baydawi says, “The word “Mushrikin” in the verse 9:5 refers to “Nakithin” which means those who breached the peace-treaty and restored the state of war. (Baydawi, “Anwar al-Tanzeel wa Asrar al-Taweel (The Lights of Revelation and the Secrets of Interpretation, V. 3, p. 71, 9:5- trans. from Arabic edition). In the same way, Allama Alusi also dropped the literal meaning of the word Mushrikin due to the context and structure of the divine speech and thus they interpreted the word “Mushrikin” as “Nakithin” (Alusi, Rooh al-Ma’ani, v. 10, p. 50, - 9:5, trans. from Arabic edition). Imam Suyuti writes, “Imam Ibn Munzir, Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu Shaikh (may Allah be pleased with them) have quoted Hazrat Muhammad bin Ibad b. Jafar as saying “These Mushrikin are Banu Khuzaima b. Amir who belong to  Bani Bakr b. Kananah”  (see Suyuti, Durr-e-Manthoor, V.3, p.655- translation from Urdu version). In the words of Allama Abu Bakr al-Jassas, “The verse (Kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them) was particular to the Mushrikin of Arab and does not apply to anyone else” (Ahkam al-Quran lil Jassas, V. 5, p. 270, translation from Arabic edition)
(Continued)
Other Parts of the Article:
A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar), with a Sufi-Sunni background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator. He has also done B.A (Hons.) in Arabic, M.A. in Arabic and M.A in English from JMI, New Delhi. He is Interested in Islamic Sciences; Theology, Jurisprudence, Tafsir, Hadith and Islamic mysticism (Tasawwuf).

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




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


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





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