By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam
March 9, 2018
Full Text of the Oral Statement, 37th regular session of UN Human Rights Council, Geneva
General
Debate, Item 3, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil,
Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to
Development
Delivered By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam
on behalf of Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum
Mr. President,
Even17 years after
9/11, terrorism in the name of Islam is nowhere near its end. The
so-called Islamic State has been defeated in Iraq and Syria, but it is
expanding its presence in Africa and South Asia. Many Taliban terrorists
have joined ISIS now and are wreaking havoc in Afghanistan. In one of
the deadliest attacks in Egypt’s modern history, ISIS terrorists
targeted a Sufi mosque in November 2017, leaving 305 people dead and 128
injured in a town of only 800. The victims were primarily Sufi Muslims.
Sufi shrines and its visitors have been targeted by Islamist terrorists
around the world, killing thousands and damaging shrines, mosques and
libraries, particularly in Pakistan, Libya, Mali and Iran.
Yet, all that one
hears from Muslim leaders is rhetoric against Islamist terrorism. No
concrete action has been taken to cleanse the Islamic theology of
totalitarianism, xenophobia, intolerance and a historical urge to expand
the land of Islam through offensive Jihad. One would think that at
least Sufi Muslims, who have been for long a victim of Jihadism, an
offshoot of neo-Khwarij Salafism, would introspect and look into their
own theology and purify it from elements of political Islam.
This may sound strange
to some. For, Sufism has been identified as the antidote to Jihadism.
It is true that Sufi masters have emphasised pluralism and co-existence
in both their sayings and conduct. Their service to humanity and
treatment of humans from all caste and creed has been exemplary. No
wonder one continues to find people belonging to all religions thronging
their shrines. But we must also understand that Sufi scholars and
theologians too have been votaries of political Islam.
The strangest thing
that is happening now is that rather than cleansing their theology of
traces of totalitarianism, large sections of Sufism-oriented Muslims are
actually engaged in what can be called a Wahhabisation of Sufism.
Enlightening Sufi books of mysticism, ethics and morality have been
taken out of the courses of study from Sufi madrasas. The basic Sufi
concept of Wahdatul Wujood (Unity of Being) is being replaced in Sufi
madrasas with the concept of Wahdatul Shuhood (unity of perception or
unity of appearances) invented by Sheikh Sirhindi to counter
Ibn-e-Arabi’s ideas that have been described by his followers as
Wahdatul Wujood. Some erstwhile Sufism-oriented Muslims are themselves
adopting some of the hard-line outlook of Wahhabi-Salafi Muslims on
issues of Ziarat-e-Qaboor (grave visitation) and gender segregation,
etc. Women are being barred from visiting shrines in the way they used
to do before.
Mr. President,
I would like to appeal
to Muslim governments represented in the Council to take the issue of
terrorism in the name of Islam more seriously than they have so far and
cleanse Islamic theology of totalitarian ideas that support offensive
Jihad for world domination. The minds of Muslim students of madrasas
should not be poisoned with ideas emanating from the doctrine of
al-Wala-wal-Bara (having friendship only with Muslims and enmity with
all others), or takfirism (calling other Muslims kafir).
There are ideas and
instructions in Islamic scriptures that should not be considered
applicable to us today. Instead what even earliest Sufi and Salafi
theologians have said is that one so-called sword verse alone has
abrogated 124 early verses of Quran preaching peace and pluralism. Any
instructions given during a war should be considered void once the war
is over. Muslim heads of government who rail against terrorism should
first introspect and cleanse Islamic theology of elements of
totalitarianism.
Mr. President,
Let me elaborate the issues raised here in some detail.
With its almost two
billion followers, Islam has spread throughout the world. Born in the
sandy desert of Arabia 1400 years ago, it has naturally acquired a local
colour everywhere it has gone, while retaining its basic belief
systems. Indeed, Islam itself has encouraged this process. The Holy
Quran exhorts its followers to believe in all the prophets of God, by
whatever names they may now be known, who preceded Prophet Mohammad
(peace be upon him) and preached the message of God in the local
languages of their times.
In Islamic traditions
the number of such seers, who brought messages from God, is put at
1,24,000, though only 25 names could be mentioned in the Quran in the
course of their examples being cited to illustrate various teachings.
Thus, while expressing belief in the oneness of God and the prophethood
of Mohammad, a Muslim simultaneously expresses belief in all the
previous messengers of God as well. It is natural that the Muslims have
not felt obliged to distance themselves totally from their previous
beliefs and cultural practices even after conversion to Islam, to the
extent these did not contravene their new Islamic beliefs.
As in Africa and Far
East Asia, in South Asia, too, Islam naturally has its own indigenous
flavour. And it finds its best expression in the Sufi way of life
prevalent in the Indian sub-continent for centuries. Its vibrancy is
evident in tens of thousands of people from different religious
backgrounds thronging Sufi shrines across the length and breadth of
South Asia, and especially at annual urs events. Sufi music programmes
continue to be organised in some shrines either weekly or on some
special occasions. Sufi music festivals, with the participation of
musicians from different parts of the world, continue to attract an
ever-expanding number of fans. From classical cultural events to
productions of film industry, South Asia continues to celebrate Sufi art
in a variety of ways and in a number of events with wide participation.
Soul-stirring music, helping the seeker's quest for the creative
infinite, unique to the Indian sub-continent, continues to be produced,
particularly in India an Pakistan.
But things have also
been changing in the last decades. A determined effort has been made for
bringing uniformity in Islamic thoughts and practices, a kind of the
Saudi Arabisation of Islam, wiping out local cultural influences from
everywhere in the world. Backed by a massive injection of petrodollars,
since 1974, the global rise of Salafism has brought about new challenges
to the Sufi way of life in the Indian sub-continent as well. While on a
superficial glance, the Sufi culture may still appear to thrive, even
finding newer expressions in the film and music industries, there are
deeper rumblings within. The continuing footfalls in a Sufi shrine
should not lull us into losing sight of the grave challenges facing
Sufism.
A serious propaganda
campaign was unleashed globally over 4o years ago calling Sufism heresy.
Sufism has been at the receiving end of criticism throughout Islamic
history but what happened in the last decades was particularly virulent
and backed not just by enormous riches but also state power.
Two of the most
revered and influential 13th and 14th century Salafi scholars Abdu'r
Rahman Ibn al- Jawzi and Taqī ad-Dīn Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya describe Sufism
as “heretical” and “a Christianized version of Islam” respectively.
These and similar views calling Sufism an innovation have been massively
propagated around the world in the last decades.
The fact of the matter
is that mystical tendencies have existed in Islam from its very
inception, the very first Muslims Hazrat Abru Bakr (RA) and Hazrat Ali
(RA) being considered the first mystic masters having been taught and
trained by the Prophet (pbuh) himself into the secrets of mystical
practices. It is important for us to remember in all discussions about
Islam that the Prophet (pbuh) himself was first and foremost a mystic,
or a Sufi, though this term came into use only later. He used to spend
days and weeks in contemplation and meditation in the cave at Hira, as
all mystics, Rishis, Munis and Sufis do.
Mr. President,
Islam had been brought
to the Indian sub-continent by Sufi saints. Understandably, the
overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims are or at least have been
Sufism-oriented. But many Muslims around the country, particularly in
the state of Kerala, now proudly proclaim being Salafi Muslims and call
their mosques Salafi mosques. Some Muslims have even started calling
themselves Taimi, thus describing themselves followers of Ibn-e-Taimiya,
though they never described themselves as Wahhabi or follower of
Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. While, mercifully, Sufi shrines and its
visitors, are not yet coming under attack in India, as is happening in
other parts of the sub-continent and the world, the pressure on Sufism
is manifesting in various other ways.
The leitmotif of the
present age is terrorism practiced in the name of Islam. Terrorists call
it Jihad. Their ideology has come to be known as Jihadism. Jihadism is
considered an extremist offshoot of neo-Khwarij-Salafism-Wahhabism, as
practised in Saudi Arabia. Sixteen of the nineteen terrorists involved
in 9/11 terrorist attack on American institutions were Saudis and the
rest Egyptian who had also gone through the Saudi religious education.
The world began to
fear Islam. But it saw Sufism as an antidote to Islamist terrorism.
While this brought a positive focus on Sufism, the attacks on Sufism
also grew from both the Jihadist and Islamophobe camps.
The internet today
contains tens of thousands of pages trying to prove that Sufism is not a
pacifist, quietist version of Islam as it is supposed to be. Quotations
have been dug up from writings of great Sufi theologians like Hazrat
Abdul Qadir Jilani, Imam Ghazali. Ibn-e-Arabi, Sheikh Sirhindi, Shah
Waliullah, etc in an effort to prove that they were all as much in
support of offensive Jihad against the unbelievers and polytheists to
establish Islam’s domination of the world as non-Sufi and traditional
orthodox theologians. It would appear that there is a consensus in
Islamic theology that the Muslims’ relationship with non-Muslims is that
of perpetual war until all world comes under Muslim domination.
So where do Sufis
stand on the issue of Offensive or Martial Jihad? From earliest times
Sufis have given a textual as well as spiritual exegesis of Quranic
exhortations. From earliest Sufi books like Kashf al-Asrar (the
Unveiling of the Mysteries) composed by Rashid al-Din al-Maybudi (d.
early twelfth century) or al-Qushayri’s Lata’if al-isharat to Hazrat
Abdul Qadir Jilani (ra), Imam Abhu Hamid al-Ghazali (ra), India’s very
own Mujaddid Alf-e-Saani Sheikh Ahmad Sarhandi (ra) or Shah Waliullah
Muhaddis Dehlavi (ra), all of them seem to agree with traditional ulema
on the necessity for offensive Jihad to help the word of God dominate
the world. They say directly or indirectly that Jihad should go on as
long as there is kufr and shirk in the world. The humiliations they
describe that should be heaped on Jizya paying non-Muslims make a very
difficult read for a person with a 21st century sensibility. For them
offensive Jihad and spiritual Jihad are two sides of the same coin,
spiritual jihad being necessary as a preparation for martial Jihad.
(Please see Appendix given below for some of these quotations.)
In his authoritative
work “Jihad in pre-modern Sufi writing,” Harry S Neale discovers
complementarity of spiritual and martial jihad even in early Sufi
writings. He says: “Similar to what Ibn Kathir’s tafsir (book of Quranic
exegesis) says over 200 years later (14th century), Maybudi’s (early
12th century) Kashf al-Asrar remarks that some religious scholars hold
that verse 9:5 abrogates the 124 earlier verses regarding relations with
non-Muslims. The fact that an early twelfth-century Sufi tafsir as well
as a non-Sufi tafsir from the fourteenth century both discuss the
abrogation of earlier Qur’anic verses dealing with the relations between
Muslims and non-Muslims suggests that Qur’anic exegetes considered this
opinion legitimate and well established.”
In his Wasaya
(Admonitions), Ibn-e-Arabi says: “I counsel you to fear God and uphold
the requirements of the outer aspects of the sharia and its statutes.
The greater jihad is incumbent upon you, which is the jihad against the
passions, and when you wage this jihad against your lower self the other
jihad against the enemies will be [easy] for you, for if you should be
killed [in the martial jihad] you will be among the living martyrs for
whom God provides. The merit of the one who wages jihad (mujahid) in
God’s path is like that of the devout one who fasts in God’s signs …
strive to participate actively [in jihad] in God’s path … beware … if
you do not take part in military campaigns and if you are not resolved
to go forth [for this purpose] then you will be among the hypocrites ….”
[ Ibn-e-Arabi’s Wasaya (Admonitions) as quoted by Harry S Neale in
“Jihad in pre-modern Sufi writing”.]
Similarly, Hazrat
Abdul Qadir Jilani (ra) also deals with he complementarity of martial
and spiritual Jihad. He “emphasises adhering to the dictates of Islamic
law as an essential aspect of the greater jihad, which contradicts the
idea that Sufis are unconcerned with the fundamental outer aspects of
Islam. … though Sufi writings have generally considered the spiritual
jihad more difficult than the martial jihad, it does not mean that the
spiritual jihad supersedes the martial jihad. Likewise, the terms
“greater” and “lesser” do not refer to some hierarchy of importance;
rather, … they refer to the greater effort required to subdue the lower
self,” says Harry S Neal in “Jihad in pre-modern Sufi writing”.
Growing Opposition To The Practice Of Ziyarat
Strangely, not to
speak of Salafi-Wahhabis, even some erstwhile Sufism-oriented Barailvi
Muftis in India vehemently oppose the practice of Ziyarat
(visiting of Sufi shrines). They come up with outlandish arguments and
weak evidences that do not stand up to scrutiny. The maximum they have
managed to get to prove their point is some mansukh ahadith (abrogated Prophetic sayings) that forbade the earliest Muslims from visiting the graves. But they turn a blind eye to the nasikh ahadith
that came later abolishing the earlier ahadith and allowing and
favouring the practice of Ziyarat. In fact, the Prophet (pbuh) had
prohibited the Ziyarat temporarily, and later he allowed and encouraged the people to do it regularly for its spiritual benefits.
The reason for the
temporary prohibition was that the newly converted Muslims were writing
indecent elegies and making offensive statements over the graves of
their dead relatives who were predominantly non-Muslims. But later, when
Muslims were trained into proper behaviour in graveyards, this
prohibition was lifted and a general permission was given by the Prophet
(pbuh) for the Muslims, both men and women, to go for Ziyarat and gain
spiritual benefits from it. The Prophet (pbuh) addressed his companions
and said:
“I had prohibited you
from visiting graves. But from now on, you can go for Ziyarat because it
will make you feel unattached towards this world and remind you of the
hereafter.” (Muslim, Janaiz, 106; Adahi, 37; Abu Dawud janaiz, 77;
Ashriba, 7; Tirmidhi, Janaiz, 7; Nasai, Janaiz, 100; Ibn Majah, Janaiz,
47; Ahmad b. Hanbal, I, 147, 452, III, 38, 63, 237, 250, V, 35, 355,
357).
The Prophet (pbuh) himself would go for Ziyarat-e-Qubur especially on the night of mid-Shaabaan (Laylat al-Bara’at).
He used to visit the grave of his mother regularly and cry out of his
love and remembrance of her, as the following tradition says:
“The Holy Prophet
(pbuh) visited the grave of his mother and cried near her grave and also
made others around him cry. Thereafter he said: I have taken permission
from my Lord to visit the grave of my mother. You too should visit the
graves because such a visit will remind you of death.” (Sahih Muslim,
vol. 3, p. 65)
Despite this clear
Islamic concept of grave-visiting enshrined in the Hadith, the zealot
muftis even in Sufi-oriented institutions abhor the women visitors of
Sufi shrines on the pretext of intermingling between men and women. They
call this age-old traditional Islamic practice haram (forbidden).
The growing
Salafi-Wahhabi influence on even the Sufi-oriented Barailvi-Eiteqadi
clerics is becoming more and more apparent by the day. The puritanical
Barailvi ulema, who call themselves ‘Reformist Sufis’ denounce the
spiritually inclined Sufi-minded scholars and ulema for their liberal
ideas, declaring them zindiqs (heretics), badmazhab (erroneous in faith)
and gumrah (deviant), using exactly the same terms as Salafi ulema do.
For instance, on the ground of his interfaith activities like
celebration of Christmas and listening to Sufi Music, Pakistani Sufi
scholar Dr. Tahirul Qadri has been declared “gumrah” and “badmazhab” by
the chief Muftis of Barailvis in India, Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan and Mufti
Ziaul Mustafa.
Such retrogressive
pronouncements or fatwas of the Sufi-Barailvi maulvis are on the rise.
For instance, the Mumbai-based Raza Academy demanded a ban on famous
Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi's biopic, "Muhammad: The Messenger of
God." They have also issued a fatwa not only against the film, but the
entire filmmaking crew, including prominent music composer AR Rahman,
who has given music for the film.
Fatwas of Apostasy Emanating From Sufi Shrines
Raza Academy considers
all those associated with the film as apostates and wants them to
recite the Kalima or confession of faith again, so that they once again
come back to the Muslim faith. The fatwa was issued by Mufti Mahmood
Akhtar Qadri, a Barailvi cleric appointed as Imam in Haji Ali Dargah in
Mumbai. He leads prayers in the mosque of Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai and
also runs a Darul Ifta and a madrasa in the city. Since he is also an
acclaimed Mufti with his own Madrasa (Darul Ulum Amjadia) and Darul
Ifta, he clearly misuses his position and influence at the shrine while
issuing retrogressive fatwas. His fatwas played a major role in
provoking the common Sunni Muslims who protested against Majidi’s movie
and AR Rahman’s music in it.
Sufi Shrines Issuing Retrogressive Fatwas
Sufi shrines should
have no role to play in issuing fatwas. But the imams appointed in the
mosques attached to the shrines often hold positions in certain madrasas
with their own Darul Ifta. What has a Sufi shrine got to do with a
Darul Ifta? Why are imams of mosques associated with Sufi shrines
issuing fatwas now?
Mercifully, and
gratifyingly, the Sajjadahnashins of several Sufi shrines, most notably
Ajmer Sharif and Hazrat Nizamuddin dargahs, took a different stand on
music and portrayal of the Prophet (pbuh). They said that A R Rahman
must be lauded for his outstanding response; like a true believer. In a
written statement, Rahman had said, "I follow the middle path and am
part traditionalist and part rationalist. I live in the Western and
Eastern worlds and try to love all people for what they are, without
judging them.”
Wahhabisation of Sufism
Another aspect of what
can be called the Wahhabisation of Sufism is that Sufism-oriented
Barailvi ulema and muftis have not only banned traditional practices
such as women visitors’ entry to shrines on the excuse of their
intermingling with men but also banned traditional cultural practices
such as taking out of tazia (a replica of the tomb of Imam Husain, the
martyred son of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) processions during
Muharram, in which even Hindus used to and still participate in some
places, out of deference for Muslim sentiments.
Sufi Literature Removed From Sufi Madrasas
But more worrisome than all this is that Sufi literature has been removed from many Indian Sufi madrasas.
Sufi shrines and
khanqahs are running across the country seminaries (madrasas) of
mystical learning, Sufi experience and enlightenment. The curriculums of
those madrasas used to be so very broad and inclusive in their
worldview until a few decades ago that students from all backgrounds
were cordially welcomed. Devotional songs were composed there in
different vernacular languages and Sufi music (sima) was considered a
manifestation of complete submission to God.
ï Beautiful Islamic
discourses compiled by Sufis and mystics of India that were taught in
madrasas a few decades ago, are no more part of their study materials.
Not even Sufi-oriented madrasas of today teach books like Maulana
Jalaluddin Rumi's Masnawi, Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhs Hijweri's Kashful
Mahjub, Shaikh Sa’adi Sherazi's Gulsitan & Bostan, Hazrat Nixzmuddin
Aulia's Fawaidul Fuwad, Sheikh Shahabudin Suhrawardi's Awarif ul
Ma’arif and historical documents of Islamic mysticism that preach
universal values, communal harmony, love for all and hatred for none.
Gone are the days when books on reason, wisdom, ethics and morality were
part of Madrasa curriculum in India. Far from presenting the broader
Islamic notion of Deen and Ummah, present-day madrasa curricula concern
the students with the ideological reproduction of works of their own
sect (Maslak) and school of law (Fiqhi Mazhab).
Let me be more specific. Some of the Sufi texts previously taught in madrasas were:
ï Kahsful Mahjub by Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhs Hijweri
ï Awariful Ma’arif by Sheikh Shahabudin Suhrawardi
ï Fawaidul Fu’aad by Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia
ï Masnawi of Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi
ï Gulistan & Bostan by Shaikh Sa’adi Sherazi
ï Several Books on Metaphysics by Mullah Sadra
ï Fususul Hikam (Shiakh Ibn ul Arabi)
ï Life and teachings of great Sufis like Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti (ra), Baba Fareed, Ameer Khusro etc.
Some of the Sufi madrasas that have removed these books are:
ï Madrasa Firangi Mahal (Lucknow)
ï Darul Uloom Misbahul Uloom (now known as Jamia Ashrafia) in Mubarak Pur, Azam Garh
ï Jamia Naeemia (Muradaba)
ï Madrasa Alia Qadria (Badaun)
ï Jamia Manzar-e-Islam (Bareilly)
ï Jamia Mazhar-e-Islam (Bareilly)
ï Darul Uloom Warisia (Lucknow)
ï Madrasa Ahsanul Madaris Qadeem (Kanpur)
ï Madrasa Alia, Fatehpuri Masjid, Delhi
These books served as
the main stimulus for exhorting great moral and spiritual ideals. They
contain basic concepts of Sufism such as Wahdatul Wujood (unity of
existence), Sulh-e-Kul (peace with all), Ilmul Yaqeen (knowledge with firm faith), Zikr (incantation), Muraqaba (meditation), observance of Taqwa (God-consciousness), Taubah (repentance of sins), Ikhlas (sincerity), Tawakkul (contentment and trust in God), Sidq (truthfulness), Amanah (trustworthiness), Istiqamah (uprightness) and Shukr
(thankfulness). It is only after mastering these higher spiritual
disciplines that a student in those madrasas was given the degree of
Alim or Fazil.
‘Love for all and
hatred for none’ was the legacy of Sufis, as enshrined by the pioneer of
Chishti Sufi order in India, Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer,
popularly known as Gharib Nawaz (the benefactor of the poor). This
legacy greatly impacted their attitude towards other faith traditions.
As a matter of fact, Sufi literature helped the madrasa graduates to
embrace universal values and essential messages of Islam such as
brotherhood of mankind, pluralism, tolerance, religious harmony, moral
excellence and service to humanity regardless of faith and creed.
But the Sufi madrasas
have removed the portion of Sufi literature that was taught in Indian
madrasas, as an integral part of Dars-e-Nizami, for long. No wonder,
even the students of Sufi-oriented madrasas have now developed an
attitude of intolerance in their character and views.
Essential Sufi Concepts Are Being Misrepresented
Not only has
enlightening Sufi literature been removed but also the essential Sufi
concepts are being misrepresented now. For instance, Sulh-e-Kul
(peace with all), a Sufi term that essentially means: equal respect for
all, is now misconstrued. According the Barailvi clerics, Sulh-e-Kul
means reconciliation with other Islamic sects. So, anyone who befriends
people of all Islamic sects and does not detest them, is a Sulh -e-
Kulli and thus misguided in their view. However, this unfavourable
development is also being criticised by some Sufi ideologues such as:
Shaikh Abu Saeed Ihsanullah Safawi of Khanqah Aarifia, Allahabad and
Syed Salman Chishti of Chishtiya Foundation of Ajmer Dargah.
The Barailvi clerics
are opposed to these scholars as they are to Dr. Tahirul Qadri because
of their openness to music (Sima), acceptance of all faith traditions
and sects, and companionship with other religious groups such as Hindus
and Sikhs.
Wahdatul Wujood Being Misrepresented As Wahdatul Shuhud
Even in terms of
Sufism's spiritual philosophy, Wahdatul Wujood, one notices even in
casual discussions with Sufi-Barailvi scholars that it has been
practically replaced by Wahdatul Shuhood, probably to make it acceptable
in the pro-Salafi-Wahhabi milieu created by the spread of Petrodollar
Islam. This process actually started with Mujaddid Alf-e-Saani Sheikh
Ahmad Sarhandi in 16th-17th century and later consolidated with Shah
Waliullah Dehlavi in 18th century. As defined in 12th-13th century by
Sheikh Mohiyuddin Ibn-e-Arabi, an Andalusian Scholar, Sufi mystic, poet,
and philosopher, called by many "the genuine saint,” Wahdatul Wujood
stresses that "there is no true existence except the Ultimate Truth
(God)." This is completely in line with Quranic teaching: “And what is
the life of this world except the enjoyment of delusion.” (3:185)
Other ways of
explaining Wahdatul Wujood are: "the only truth within the universe is
God," and, "all things exist within God only." In still other words, the
existence of God is the only truth (haq) and the idea of a separated
created universe is falsehood (batil). Sheikh Sarhandi countered this
with his concept of Wahdatul Shuhood, "unity of appearance," or "unity
of perceptions," also called in English "Apparentism." In his view "any
experience of unity between God and the created world is purely
subjective and occurs only in the mind of the believer; it has no
objective counterpart in the real world." Ibn-e-Arabi's position, Sheikh
Ahmad Sarhandi felt led to pantheism, which was contrary to tenets of
Islam. He held that God and creation are not identical. In his view the
creation is a shadow or reflection of Divine names and attributes.
Then in an effort to
reconcile the vastly different or even contrarian concepts of Wahdatul
Wujood and Wahdatul Shuhood, Shah Waliullah dismissed the differences as
mere "verbal controversies" and ascribed these to ambiguities of
language. Then to further downplay the concept of Wahdatul Wujood, he
called it merely a less advanced stage of Wahdatul Shuhood, though the
fact is that Wahdatul Shuhood may be considered the first stage of the
core of Islamic spiritualism, Wahdatul Wujood.
The result is that
today Wahdatul Wujood is taught as if it were Wadhatul Shuhood. You ask
an alim from a classical Sufi madrasa to explain Wahdatul Wujood and he
will invariably give you the definition of Wahdatul Shuhood. Indeed, he
will also dismiss the concept of Wahdatul Wujood in the process quite
explicitly, saying this is not meant by Wahdatul Wujood. The actual
concept of Wahdatul Wujood is dismissed as heresy as it is considered
too close to advaita (non-duality) of Vedic Hinduism.
Gender equality in Islam
Gender segregation and discrimination
is rife throughout the country. Practically everywhere, most of the
shrines have stopped men and women visiting shrines together. A bizarre
ruling came a couple of years ago form the trust of one of Mumbai’s
iconic landmarks, the Haji Ali Dargah. It is a “grievous sin” as per
Islam, it says, for women to be in close proximity of the grave of a
male Muslim saint. It raised this point in the Bombay High Court on 20
October 2015 while defending its ban on women from entering the shrine’s
inner sanctum (Mazaar). The “unanimous” stand of all trustees forms
part of a resolution passed by the Dargah’s trust. It is strange that
while men and women can perform Haj together and go around Kaaba Sharif
and pray there together, they can't visit a Sufi shrine together. Sufis
were the epitome of kindness to all. Even in orthodox Islam, men and
women should not be segregated in the best of Islamic tradition. There
is no scripture of Islam superior to the Holy Quran. The Quran talks of
men and women in the same breath in its verses in terms of prayer, their
rights and rewards and punishments:
[Holy Quran 2:228]" And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women."
[16:97]: (Whoever
does righteous acts, whether male or female, while he is a believer,
verily, to him We will give a good life, and We shall pay them certainly
a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do.)
[33:35] (Surely
for men who submit to Allah and for women who submit to Allah, for
believing men and for believing women, for devout men and devout women,
for truthful men and truthful women, for steadfast men and steadfast
women, for humble men and humble women, for charitable men and
charitable women, for fasting men and fasting women, for men who guard
their chastity and women who guard their chastity, for men who remember
Allah much and for women who remember Allah much, for all of them Allah
has prepared forgiveness and a mighty reward.
There is gender
equality in Islam in religious obligations as well. Equal religious
duties and rituals are prescribed for both women and men. Testimony of
Faith (Shahadah), Prayer (Salah), Obligatory Charity (Zakat), Fasting
(Saum), and Pilgrimage (Hajj) are equally required from both genders.
Gender segregation at Sufi Shrines
If God treats men and
women equal in all religious obligations as well as rewards and
punishments, no clerics should feel entitled to ban her from entering a
Sufi shrine. But the fact that this is happening in a SUFI shrine and
indeed in most Sufi shrines across the country is truly worrisome.
Khanqah Alia Qadria Rizvia of Bareilly, for instance, among many others,
does not allow women to enter its shrine premises.
Sufis were the most
accepting of all people, but those who claim to be their followers, are
certainly not worthy of being called even Sufi-oriented Muslims.
The spirit of Sufism
is clearly in decline in India today despite the apparent vibrancy in
its practices. The radical Wahhabi-Salafi thoughts appear to have seeped
deeply into the veins of the Muslim society. The concept of Islam as a
spiritual path to salvation is giving way to xenophobia, intolerance and
totalitarianism of political Islam. Unless the concept of total
non-duality, advaita, oneness of existence, Wahdatul Wujood is restored
to its primacy in Islamic spiritualism, support for a humane version of
Islam will continue to dwindle and even Sufi-Barailvi-Eiteqadi Muslim
society will keep supporting gender segregation and discrimination in
Sufi shrines, or violence in the name of killing apostates, etc. For it
is the Wahdat-e-Wujoodi understanding of the universe and God as that
gave Sufism its distinction as the most humane understanding of the
creative infinite we worship, whether we are followers of the book that
was revealed to Prophet Mohammad or the books that were revealed to any
of the previous 124,000 prophets of Islam since Adam (AS).
Having discussed what
ails us, it’s time to think if there is something we can do to set
things right. As I said earlier, terrorism in the name of Islam has
become the leitmotif of this new age that started with the biggest
terrorist event at the dawn of the 21st century. This has resulted in a
growing fear of Islam. A religion that had come as a rahmat (blessing)
to mankind has become an object of fear. Some of the Islamophobia is
certainly promoted by vested interests, but there is also a genuine fear
of Islam among ordinary people around the world. A Muslim lady in
Peshawar had voiced this most poignantly after the Peshawar school
massacre by Taliban killing 142 children and teachers by asking: Is this Islam? We
owe it to our religion that no one has to ask this question again. This
is clearly our top priority now. I would like to make just a couple of
submissions.
1.
The first step in resolving an issue is to accept that there is an
issue. We have to accept that there are issues with our theology, the
theology of consensus of all sections of Muslims, not just
Salafi-Wahhabis, as we Sufi-oriented Muslims are wont to say very
readily. The theology we have now is by and large a theology of
violence, exclusion and supremacism, geared to achieving world
domination. So, we need a new theology, a new understanding of Islam
that is geared to accepting the present situation in which Muslims have
to live as weak minorities, deriving our rights entirely from secular
constitutions, in more than a hundred countries of the world including
India. We must see that Muslim-majority nations, particularly those who
claim to be run by Islamic governments, are probably the most corrupt,
most inhumane, and also the most dependent on world powers. This also
acts as an incentive to Jihadists to bring down these governments and
use terrorism based on Islamic theology as a methodology for pursuing
that goal. So, we need to evolve a theology of peace, pluralism,
coexistence and justice including gender justice, that is internally
consistent and coherent. In order to do so we will have to relook at
the core of our theology. Once this is accepted we will need to
brainstorm together on how to go about it. But that is the next step.
2.
The very minimum that we mainstream and mystically-inspired Muslims
need to do is to reinstate the actual Sufi understanding of Wahdatul
Wujood in our hearts. That is true Sufism. If it resembles the concept
of advaita in Vedanta, that is all the more reason it should be seen as
the genuine understanding of Existence, of Being, and its Oneness
(tawhid). This shouldn’t be the reason to discard it. It only proves
the truth of God’s commandments in Quran that we are all one nation, and
God sent his emissaries to all societies who taught people in their
tongues and the languages of their times, but the message was the same.
Let us readopt Wahdatul Wujood fully. The attempt to reconcile Sufism
with orthodoxy, seeking to become acceptable to orthodox ulema, has cost
Sufism too much. Let us abandon this project and stand for what we
believe in, if we do indeed believe in God’s immanence and transcendence
rather than His separation from all Existence.
-----
I must present here
some of the quotations from Sufi masters and theologians mentioned above
to put the issue in perspective, take the discussion forward and try to
find a way out of this labyrinth.
Appendix 1
Eleventh century Sufi mystic, theologian, jurist and philosopher Imam Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazali is
said to have an understanding of Islam next only to that of Prophet
Mohammad (saw). He is quoted ad nauseum in the media to have said about
Jihad and relationship with non-Muslims:
“Just as
scholastic theology is used with thinking people concerning the truth, the
sword is used with the infidels after informing them with the truth…so just as
it cannot be said that the sword was Mohammad’s most eloquent argument, neither
can it be said that scholastic theology is the ultimate science.”– Ihy’a ‘Uloum
ed-Din by al-Ghazali vol. V p. 35
…one must go on
jihad at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims]
when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may
set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of
The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is
[automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their
useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may
steal as much food as they need...
…the
dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and
Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] …on offering up the jizya,
the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and
hits [the dhimmi] on the protuberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]
… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church
bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that
is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only
if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road.
They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing],
even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue….
“After the
death of Muhammad, the man of the miracle [the Qur’an] and the apostle of truth
and the companions, fearing the weakening of Islam, the decrease of the number
of its followers, and the return of masses to their previous infidelity [This
is referring to to hurub al-riddah— the Wars of Apostasy — which were fought
during the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr and delayed the Wars of Conquest against
the kuffar], saw that holy war and invading other countries for the sake of
Allah, smashing the faces of the infidels with the sword and making people
enter the religion of Allah as the most worthy of all tasks and better than all
sciences.”–Ihy’a ‘Uloum ed-Din by al-Ghazali vol. V p. 35
----- Imam Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazali
(1058 –1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut,
1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr.
Michael Schub.]
—-
Appendix 2
Most revered Indian Sufi mystic and theologian, considered Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564—1624), says:
Shariat can be fostered through the sword….
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.
Kufr and Islam
are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the
expense of the other and co—existence between these two contradictory
faiths is unthinkable…
The honour of
Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs,
dishonours the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring
them and assigning them a seat of honour in any assembly, but it also
implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them.
They should be kept at an arm's length like dogs. If some worldly
business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum
of contact should be established with them but without taking them into
confidence….
The highest
Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly
business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.
The real purpose in levying jizya on them [the non—Muslims] is to
humiliate then to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they
may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should
constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them
under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam….
Cow—sacrifice
in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably
agree to pay jizya but they shall never concede to cow—sacrifice.…
The execution
of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal [a Sikh who lead an uprising against
the oppressive Muslim rule of his community] is an important achievement
and is the cause of great defeat of the accursed Hindus….
Whatever might
have been the motive behind the execution, the dishonour of the kafirs
is an act of highest grace for the Muslims. Before the execution of the
kafirs I had seen in a vision that the Emperor had destroyed the crown
of the head of Shirk. Verily he was the chief of the Mushriks and the
leader of the kafirs….
--- Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi,
Muslim revivalist movements in northern India in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book
Co, 1965, pp.
Also quoted in Yohanan
Friedmann’s Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a
Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity pp. 73-74
—-
Appendix 3
Shah Waliullah Muhaddis Dehlavi
(1703—1762), is revered by Muslims as a mystic and theologian of the
highest order. Some of the selections of his writings doing the rounds
on internet are:
It has become
clear to my mind that the kingdom of heaven has predestined that kafirs
should be reduced to a state of humiliation and treated with utter
contempt…. Should that repository of majesty and dauntless courage
[Nizam al—Maluk] gird his loins and direct his attention to such a task
he can conquer the world…. Thus, the faith will become more popular and
his own power strengthened; a little effort would be profoundly
rewarded. Should he make no effort, they [the Marathas] would inevitably
be weakened and annihilated through celestial calamities and in such an
event he would gain no credit...As I have learnt this unequivocally
[from the divine] I spontaneously write to draw your attention to the
great opportunity laid before you. You should therefore not be negligent
in fighting jihad...Oh Kings! Mala a'la urges you to draw your swords
and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated
the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebellious kafirs and the
sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless.'
In his
testament to [subsequent Caliph] Umar, [then Caliph] Abu Bakr had
informed him that if he feared God, the entire world would be frightened
of him ['Umar]. Sages had declared that the world resembled a shadow.
If a man ran after his shadow it would pursue him, and if he took flight
from the shadow it would still pursue him. God has chosen you as the
protector of the Sunnis as there is no—one else to perform this duty,
and it is crucial that at all times you consider your role as
obligatory. By taking up the sword to make Islam supreme and by
subordinating your own personal needs to this cause, you will reap vast
benefits.
We beseech you
[in a letter to Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali Durrani] in the name of
the Prophet to fight a jihad against the infidels of this region. This
would entitle you to great rewards before God the Most High and your
name would be included in the list of those who fought jihad for His
sake. As far as worldly gains are concerned, incalculable booty would
fall into the hands of the Islamic ghazis and the Muslims would be
liberated from their bonds. The invasion of Nadir Shah who destroyed the
Muslims left the Marathas and Jats secure and prosperous. This resulted
in the infidels regaining their strength and in the reduction of the
Muslim leaders of Delhi to mere puppets.
When the
conquering army arrives in an area with a mixed Muslim—Hindu population,
the imperial guards should transfer the Muslims from their villages to
the towns and at the same time care for their property. Financial
assistance should be given by governments to the deprived and the poor
as well as to Sayyids and the 'ulama. Their generosity would then become
famous with prompt prayers for their victories. Each town would eagerly
await the arrival of the Islamic army ('that paragon of bounty').
Moreover, wherever there was even the slightest fear of a Muslim defeat,
the Islamic army should be there to disperse infidels to all corners of
the earth. Jihad should be their first priority, thereby ensuring the
security of every Muslim.
---
Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi. Shah Wali Allah and his Times. Canberra, Australia, Ma'rifat Publishing House, 1980, pp. 294—296, 299, 301, 305.
——
Appendix 4
In his analysis of Shah Wali Allah and his
times, pp. 285 286. Rizvi writes:
According to
Shah Wali Allah the mark of the perfect implementation of the Shari'a
was the performance of jihad. He compared the duties of Muslims in
relation to the law to those of a favourite slave who administered
bitter medicine to other slaves in a household. If this was done
forcefully it was quite legitimate but if someone mixed it with kindness
it was even better. However, there were people, said the Shah who
indulged in their lower natures by following their ancestral religion,
ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Muhammad. If one chose
to explain Islam to such people like this it was to do then a
disservice. Force, said the Shah, was the much better course — Islam
should be forced down their throats like bitter medicine to a child.
This, however, was only possible if the leaders of the non—Muslim
communities who failed to accept Islam were killed; the strength of the
community was reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was
created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting
Islam. The Shah pleaded that the universal domination of Islam was not
possible without jihad and by holding on to the tails of cows.
——
Appendix 5
While these thoughts
appear quite out of sync with the circumstances of the present times,
one has to remember that all scholars are products of their times
grappling with the situations in which they are placed according to
their sensibilities. In the 20th and now the 21st century, some new
theologians, jurists and exegetes of Quran have taken diametrically
opposite positions, although, unfortunately, the consensus of Islamic
theology continues to follow the classical theologians and their
outrageously bigoted points of view, absolutely out of sync with modern
sensibilities.
For instance, in his
Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an, Sheikh Mohammed al-Ghazali al-Saqqa
(1917–1996) makes every effort to prove that the message of Quran is
peaceful and pluralistic. Nothing shows this better than his commentary
on Surah Taubah verse 5 (Q 9:5) which is considered even by earliest
Sufi commentators like Rashid al-Din al-Maybudi (early 12th century) as a
sword verse that has abrogated as many as 124 verses of Quran preaching
peace and pluralism as well as patience in times of adversity. A brief
quote from his commentary given below will be very illuminating. But a
brief introduction of this scholar is needed first.
Sheikh Mohammed
al-Ghazali al-Saqqa was an Islamic cleric and scholar whose writings
"have influenced generations of Egyptians". The author of 94 books,
Sheikh Ghazali attracted a broad following with works that sought to
interpret Islam and its holy book, the Qur'an, in a modern light. He is
widely credited with contributing to a revival of Islamic faith in Egypt
in recent times. [2] Another source called him "one of the most revered
sheikhs in the Muslim world."[3]) -- Wikipedia
Sheikh Mohammed al-Ghazali al-Saqqa writes in his Commentary on Surah Taubah verse 5, (Q.9:5):
“… Muslims are therefore
basically opposed to war and are never the ones to start it. By the imperative
of their own religion, they are taught not to impose their beliefs on others by
force. Their mission is to impart and communicate Allah’s message, leaving
people free to decide whether to believe or reject it. Those who refuse to believe
are free to pursue their lives in peace as long as they do not pose any
obstacle or threat to Islam and the Muslims, who perceive their faith as the
strongest and most vital binding relationship between Allah and humankind and
that it is their responsibility to make others aware of it and provide them
with the opportunity to understand and appreciate it.
"This is the basis of
the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic society. Allah says
elsewhere in the Qur’an:
“Therefore, if they (the unbelievers)
do not trouble you and cease their hostility towards you and offer you peace,
God gives you no authority over them” [al-Nisa: 90]. Those who take up arms
against a Muslim state or parts of it must be met with force, and if they are
overcome, they should be disarmed. Once that is achieved, they are free to lead
their own lives and practise their beliefs in peace and security under the
protection of the Muslim authorities, in return for which they have to pay a
levy.
“This is the background
against which prescription of the Jizyah, or exemption tax, came into being. It
is not due from those who are neutral and have never taken up arms against the
Muslim state. The Qur'anic verse gives ample explanation for the reason behind
the establishment of this tax, for it stipulates who should pay it. They are
those “who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God
and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the true religion,
until they pay the exemption tax unreservedly and with humility.”
--- Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali al-Saqqa, “A Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an” [The International Institute of Islamic Thought, Second Printing, 2005]
Appendix 6
The above pacifist view, however, has not been the dominant view, nor
very influential. Probably the most influential of theologians of the 20th
century, has been a Shia mystic and Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini. His views are no different from that of
Sunni Salafi theologians like Syed Qutub of Egypt and Maulana Abul Ala
Maududi of India who later shifted to Pakistan. Imam Khomeini says:
Islam’s
jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression,
and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at
promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped
out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand
why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by
Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting
salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ...
Those
who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who
say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would
kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are
devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them
to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until
[non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who
may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]?
Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow
of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword
is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!
There
are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet]
urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a
religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who
make such a claim.
---- From the book Anti-American Terrorism and
the Middle East (a collection of source documents and statements from key
militant Islamic figures). The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini answers
the question, “Is Islam a religion of peace?”
Appendix 7
Excerpts from writings of Salafi Theologians for a
comparative study with the Sufi theologians quoted above:
Imam Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328): Most revered Hanbali jurist and scholar among
Wahhabi-Salafi Muslims whose influence has recently grown immensely with the
propagation of his creed by the Saudi monarchy:
“Since lawful
warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's
entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those
who stand in the way of this aim must be fought... As for the People of the
Book and the Zoroastrians, they are to be fought until they become Muslims or
pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the
others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tribute from them.
Most of them regard it as unlawful...” (Excerpted from Rudolph Peters,
Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, NJ:
Markus Wiener, 1996), pp. 44-54).
Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): Indian Islamic scholar, Hanafi jurist, considered
Mujaddid alf-e-Saani, the renewer of Islam of the second millennium:
“...Cow-sacrifice
in India is the noblest of Islamic practices.”
“Kufr and Islam
are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense
of the other and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is
unthinkable.
"The
honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One, who respects kafirs,
dishonours the Muslims.”
"The real
purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that,
on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in
grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling".
"Whenever
a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.”
(Excerpted
from Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern
India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, Lucknow: Agra
University, Balkrishna Book Co., 1965), pp.247-50; and Yohanan Friedmann,
Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in
the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, Institute of Islamic
Studies, 1971), pp. 73-74.)
Shah Waliullah
Dehlavi (1703–1762): Highly revered Indian scholar, theologian, Muhaddis
(Hadith expert) and jurist:
“It is the duty of the prophet to
establish the domination of Islam over all other religions and not leave
anybody outside its domination whether they accept it voluntarily or after
humiliation. Thus the people will be divided into three categories. Lowly kafir
(unbelievers), have to be tasked with lowly labour works like harvesting,
threshing, carrying of loads, for which animals are used. The messenger of God
also imposes a law of suppression and humiliation on the kafirs and imposes
jizya on them in order to dominate and humiliate them…. He does not treat them
equal to Muslims in the matters of Qisas (Retaliation), Diyat (blood money),
marriage and government administration so that these restrictions should
ultimately force them to embrace Islam.” (Hujjatullahu al-Balighah,
volume – 1, Chapter- 69, Page No 289)
Muhammad ibn
Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792): Founder of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi-Salafi creed:
“Even if the Muslims abstain from shirk
(polytheism) and are muwahhid (believer in oneness of God), their faith cannot
be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech
against non-Muslims (which for him actually includes all non-Wahhabi or
non-Salafi Muslims). (Majmua Al-Rasael Wal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291).
Abul A'la Maududi
(1903–1979): Indian ideologue, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami:
“Islam wishes to destroy all
states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to
the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation
which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its
own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the
standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the
process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. …
"Islam requires the earth — not
just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should
benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this
end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a
revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad'.
.... The objective of the Islamic ‘jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an
un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.” (Jihad fil Islam).
Maulana
Abdul Aleem Islahi, a Hyderabad-based scholar, justifies indiscriminate
violence in his fatwa on the concept of power in Islam. Let me quote a few
lines from the writings of this maulana who runs a girls’ madrasa in Hyderabad
and is known to have been an inspiration behind Indian Mujahedin:
“Let it be known that, according to Islamic jurisprudence,
fighting the infidels (kuffar) in their countries is a duty (farz-e-kifayah)
according to the consensus of ulema …
“… I can say with full conviction that
qital (killing, violence, armed struggle) to uphold the kalimah (declaration of
faith) has neither been called atrocity or transgression nor has it been
prohibited. Rather, qital has not only been ordained for the purpose of
upholding the kalimah but also stressed and encouraged in the Book (Quran) and
the Sunnah (Hadith). Muslims have indeed been encouraged and motivated to
engage in qital and they have been given good tidings of rewards for this.”
“It is the duty (of Muslims) to
struggle for the domination of Islam over false religions and subdue and
subjugate ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk (infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it
is the duty of the Muslims to proselytise and invite people to Islam. The
responsibility to testify to the Truth and pronounce the Deen God has entrusted
with the Muslims cannot be fulfilled merely by preaching and proselytising. If
it were so there would be no need for the battles that were fought.
“Jihad has been made obligatory to
make the Deen (religion) dominate and to stop the centres of evil. Keeping in
view the importance of this task, the significance of jihad in the name of God
has been stressed in the Quran and Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have
been revealed to Muslims about fighting all the kuffar (infidels): “Unite and
fight the polytheists (mushriks) just as they put up a united front against
you”
(Surah Tauba: 9:36)”.
[Excerpted and translated from Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi’s
Urdu booklet "Taqat ka Istemal Quran ki Raoshni Main," ‘The use of
violence, in the light of the Qur’an’]
Maulana
Wahiduddin Khan (Born 1925), otherwise a promoter of peace and pluralism, says the following:
"Efforts on the part of prophets over a period of
thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to
intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the
grip of this superstition (shirk, kufr). (So) it was God’s decree that he
(Prophet Mohammad) be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi (eradicator). He was
entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that
superstitious beliefs (shirk, kufr) were based on falsehood, but also of
resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for
all time".
[From Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book “Islam – Creator of the
Modern World,” re- printed in 2003].
Postscript
It is
ironic that even an indefatigable promoter of peace and pluralism among Muslims
has to concede on the basis of commonly accepted Islamic jurisprudence that the
Prophet’s job was to eradicate unbelief from the world, even using military
means. And if this is so, what would stop Osama Bin Ladens and Abu Bakr Baghdadis
of this world claiming that they are simply carrying forward the Prophet’s
unfinished mission?
A
comparative analysis of all the above quotes will show that there is no
difference between Shia, Sunni, Salafi, Sufi, Deobandi, Wahhabi, Ahl-e-Hadithi,
Muslim Brotherhood’s or Jamaat-e-Islami theologies.
The message from all these sermons is clear. Islam must dominate
the world and it is the duty of every Muslim to help the process. Wherever a
Muslim turns to he gets the same Islam-supremacist message. The latest among
the most authoritative books on Islamic theology is a 45-volume comprehensive
Encyclopaedia of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). It was prepared by scholars from
all schools of thought, engaged by Ministry of Awqaf & Islamic Affairs,
Kuwait, over a period of half a century. Its Urdu translation was released in
Delhi by Vice-president Hamid Ansari on 23 October 2009.
This most influential book of Islamic jurisprudence has a
23,000-word chapter on jihad. We moderate Muslims and Sufis keep talking ad
nauseum about struggle against one’s own nafs (lower self, negative ego) being
the real and greater jihad and qital (warfare) being rather insignificant,
lesser jihad. But except one sentence in the beginning, the entire chapter
talks entirely about the issues related with combating and killing enemies,
i.e. infidels, polytheists or apostates, starting with the stark
declaration: “Jihad means to fight against the enemy.” There is no mention of
real or greater jihad.
Then Ibn-e-Taimiyya is quoted to say: “… So jihad is wajib (incumbent)
as much as one’s capacity”. Then comes the final, definitive definition:
“Terminologically, jihad means to fight against a non-zimmi unbeliever (kafir)
after he rejects the call towards Islam, in order to establish or raise high
the words of Allah.” (Translated from original Arabic)
It is not difficult for an intelligent, educated Muslim to
discover our hypocrisy. Clearly what is censured by us moderates as radical
Islamist theology is not substantially different from the current Islamic
theology accepted through a consensus by ulema of all schools of thought.
Late Osama bin Laden or his ideological mentor Abdu’llāh Yūsuf
‘Azzām, now called father of global jihad, and his present-day successor Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi did not invent a new theology. Their use of consensual
theology is what lies behind their great success in attracting thousands of
Muslim youth in such a short while. They will continue to attract more and more
youths until we mainstream Muslims realise our hypocrisy and change course.
It is imperative that Sufi theologians, in
particular, who are being seen as a source of hope for Islam in the 21st
century, look within their own theologies and weed out elements of supremacism
and political Islam that continue to be there. Let Islam be understood as a
spiritual path to salvation, one of the many, not an exclusivist political,
totalitarian ideology, designed to make Islam dominate and rule the world.
There is much in Islamic scriptures that supports pluralism and co-existence
with other religions, as there is much that supports exclusivism and political
domination. Earlier theologians built their arguments on the basis of socio-political
situations prevailing in their times to meet the challenges of their times;
nothing is stopping theologians of 21st century to follow them in
principle and build their arguments and interpretations of scripture on the
basis of requirements of our era to meet the challenges like terrorism and
gender injustice in Islam facing us today.
Let me end with a saying of the Prophet Mohammad (peace
be upon him), indeed a well-known Hadith recognised as authentic by several
Muhaddithin of the third century Hijri or 10th century (CE). Let us
spend some time reflecting on the implications of what the Prophet says here in
regard to pluralism, co-existence with and acceptance of other religions as
religions established by the same One God that we Muslims worship:
“My
position in relation to the prophets who came before me can be explained by the
following example: A man erected a building and adorned this edifice with great
beauty, but he left an empty niche in the corner where just one brick was
missing. People looked around the building and marvelled at its beauty. They wondered
why a brick was missing from that niche. I am like unto that one missing brick
and I am the last in the line of the Prophets". (Bukhari, Muslim, Musnad
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Tirmizi, Musnad Abu Dawud).
9:18 AM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment