Confusion in Contemporary Islamic Thought
Secularism
is a concept about which confusion abounds in Islamic circles. Some Muslim
scholars translate it to mean ‘irreligiousness’ (la-diniyat), which is
completely wrong, and creates tremendous misunderstanding. In its practical
sense, secularism, understood as the state’s neutrality vis-à-vis different
religions or non-intervention by the state in religious matters, is a great
blessing for Islam and Muslims in countries like India. To declare it as
anti-Islamic, as some self-styled Islamists do, is entirely incorrect and, from
the point of view of Islam and its adherents, counter-productive. This stance of
theirs has been justifiably criticized by many non-Muslims as well as some
Muslims themselves. They highlight the double-standards in the arguments of
those Muslims who argue that in Muslim majority states secularism is a ‘threat’
while secularism in Muslim-minority countries as a blessing. These
double-standards lead to what can be called intellectual hypocrisy. -- Maulana Waris
Mazhari
By
Maulana Waris Mazhari
(Translated
from Urdu by Yoginder
Sikand)
A
major problem confronting contemporary Islamic scholars is the desperate need
for the reconstruction of some crucial aspects of traditional Islamic thought in
the light of contemporary conditions. By this I mean the application of Islamic
principles to emerging political and civilisational issues and problems. Not
enough has been done in this regard, because of which tremendous confusion
reigns on a range of contemporary issues in Islamic scholarly and activist
circles. This, in some sense, has assumed the form of a serious crisis, besides
providing ample ammunition to forces inimical to Islam and Muslims for their
anti-Islamic propaganda.
The
twentieth century, particularly the aftermath of the Second World War, witnessed
the establishment of a new global political order. New international
organizations emerged, which formulated new international laws, regulations and
treaties. Yet, our Islamic scholars failed to properly study and relate to these
new realities and to develop adequate Islamic intellectual responses to them.
This is the fundamental cause of the confusion that continues to persist on such
issues—among the ulema and other Muslim intellectuals, as well as
the Muslim masses. This is a very vast subject, and in this article I can only
touch upon some major aspects of this phenomenon.
In
the years leading up to the Partition of India, the Indian ulema were divided between those who supported a
united India and united Indian nationalism and those who believed in the ‘two
nation’ theory and advocated the formation of a separate Muslim state of
Pakistan. The former group was led by Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, rector of the
Dar ul-Ulum Deoband. Unfortunately, after Independence and his demise his great
legacy and work was not carried forward and further developed on the
intellectual and political planes as it should have. This task is particularly
vital for Muslims in the present-day Indian context of pluralism, secularism and
democracy.
Secularism
is a concept about which confusion abounds in Islamic circles. Some Muslim
scholars translate it to mean ‘irreligiousness’ (la-diniyat), which is
completely wrong, and creates tremendous misunderstanding. In its practical
sense, secularism, understood as the state’s neutrality vis-à-vis different
religions or non-intervention by the state in religious matters, is a great
blessing for Islam and Muslims in countries like India. To declare it as
anti-Islamic, as some self-styled Islamists do, is entirely incorrect and, from
the point of view of Islam and its adherents, counter-productive. This stance of
theirs has been justifiably criticized by many non-Muslims as well as some
Muslims themselves. They highlight the double-standards in the arguments of
those Muslims who argue that in Muslim majority states secularism is a ‘threat’
while secularism in Muslim-minority countries as a blessing. These
double-standards lead to what can be called intellectual
hypocrisy.
Another
issue about which much confusion exists in Muslim circles and that urgently
needs to be addressed is the division of the world into dar ul-islam (‘abode of Islam’) and dar ul-harb (‘abode of war’), an invention of medieval
Muslim jurists. Some Muslims apply these terms to relate to present-day
non-Muslim governments and non-Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries. They
use these medieval terms and concepts to derive rules for international and
inter-community relations, peace and jihad and so on in the present-day. It is
striking to note in this regard that these terms are not mentioned in the Quran
and are actually an invention of Muslim scholars who appeared long after the
demise of the Prophet. Yet, they continue to be employed by many Islamic
scholars today, creating much confusion and leading to no consensus
whatsoever.
A
third issue about which confusion is rife in Islamic circles is the
permissibility or otherwise in Islam of friendly relations (muwalat) with
non-Muslims. Ignoring the context in which certain Quranic verses were revealed
that forbade friendship with certain groups of non-Muslims, some Islamic
scholars wrongly argue that Muslims are prohibited by their faith to be friendly
with others. This claim, which is wholly erroneous, has given rise to much
controversy, confusion and misunderstanding. Similar is the case with the
equating of the Hindus of today with the pagan Arab enemies of the Prophet, on
the basis of which some people erroneously argue that the rules that applied to
the latter must be extended to the former. Unfortunately, this issue and the
problems that it raises have not been properly dealt with by Indian Islamic
scholars.
In
my view, it is wholly unacceptable to, as some Muslims do, to equate the Hindus
of today with the pagan Arabs of the Prophet’s time and thereby condemn them as
allegedly the most inveterate enemies of the Muslims, while at the same time
hypocritically speak about the need for inter-community harmony and love. In my
view, the entire controversy about the status of Hindus in the shariah must be put an end to by accepting them in
the category of, to use a fiqh term, ‘those who are similar to the “People
of the Book”’ (shibh-e ahl-e kitab). Numerous Indian Muslim scholars, starting
from the period of the first Muslim invader of India, Muhammad Ibn Qasim,
advocated precisely this, and provided arguments and proofs for their stance. By
finally accepting the Hindus as akin or similar to the ‘People of the Book’ we
will be preventing emotionally-driven, half-baked religious preachers and
self-styled champions of ‘Islamic government’ from adding fuel to the fires
stoked by viscerally anti-Muslim Hindu supremacists.
The
vexed issue of Islamic political thought in countries such as India is another
question that needs far more attention than it has received. Let me clarify this
matter with the help of an example. Some time ago, the controversial Bangladeshi
writer Taslima Nasreen, who perhaps considers herself no longer a Muslim, was
attacked by a group of Muslims while on a visit to India. The intention of the
attackers was probably to kill her. The question was then raised and intensely
discussed in some Muslim circles if this sort of attack was Islamically
permissible in an officially secular country like India. A large number of ulema insisted that Taslima deserved to be killed.
Some even went to the extent of announcing a huge reward to her would-be
assassin. A few level-headed ulema tried to intervene in the debate to counter
this extremist behaviour, but they were shouted down by other ulema who invoked the case of numerous previous
traducers of the Prophet in India who had been, as they said, ‘dispatched to
hell’ by what they termed as ‘brave Islamic warriors’. Were the actions of these
men ‘un-Islamic’, they demanded to know? Were they not in accordance with the
rules of the shariah?
This,
to my mind, was certainly not the right way to approach the issue. The penal
laws of the shariah are not implemented in most Muslim countries
themselves, and so to clamour that they be imposed in a non-Muslim majority
country like India is simply unrealistic. To demand that Islamic penal law be
applied in India to punish Taslima was absolutely stupid, and was bound to
alienate even those Hindus with a soft corner for Muslims.
The
pathetic state of intellectual discourse among our Islamic circles with regard
to major issues of contemporary import need not be further elaborated upon as it
is common knowledge. Muslim bookshops are full of fat volumes that discuss the
nitty-gritty of minor details of fiqh and fatwas thereon. Seminars and conferences
are regularly held by ulema groups across the country to discuss precisely the
same issues. On the other hand, a ghostly silence prevails in these circles on
vital present-day issues related to political and social and other such matters.
This confusion is made even more distressing with the absurd utterances that are
emitted from time to time by men who have little awareness about the
complexities of the contemporary world but yet who see themselves as great
scholars and leaders. To cite just one example, among many, some years ago, in
an interview to a Muslim journalist working with one of India’s leading
newspapers, a responsible Islamic scholar attached to a well-known Muslim
institution declared India to still be dar ul-harb. This statement was published
with bold letters on the front page of the newspaper. Not surprisingly, this led
to a great furore, causing considerable embarrassment to many Muslims who did
not agree at all with the claims of this scholar.
Promoting
contextually-relevant understandings of Islam is an urgent task before us today,
one that has hardly begun. This can only be taken up by well-recognised ulema. If the ulema continue to remain aloof from this
responsibility, unqualified self-styled Islamic scholars will step in to take
their place, which is bound to have an extremely deleterious impact not just on
Muslim thought but on the Muslims themselves. This is no empty threat. In fact,
some such unqualified people are already seeking to worm their way in to do
precisely this.
A
contextually-relevant understanding of Islam demands that we adopt a balanced
and creative approach to a wide range of issues of contemporary
import—political, social, economic, civilisational and so on. These issues, and
what our responses to them should be from within the broader Islamic paradigm,
must also be taught to madrasa students, our would-be ulema. The madrasas have a central role to play in this
regard. But this can happen only if they come out of their shells and assume the
task of the contemporary application of Islamic thought to modern issues with
the utmost seriousness that it deserves.
Maulana
Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of
the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on
w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder
Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National
Law School, Bangalore.
9:23 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment