How to Construct a Liberal Islam - Part Two

By Akbar Ganji

11/20/2016

The Reality of Pluralism

According to the Quran, pluralism is the pillar of creations by God. Consider the following verses:

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted” (Al-Hujurat, 13).

According to this verse no person is superior to another person except for moral superiority that is a product of piousness, not any particular religion. Thus, no religion is superior over others, and a sort of pluralism has been accepted.

At the beginning of creation there were very few people in a unique group. But, as their numbers grew, differences developed between them, and the masses were divided into various groups.

“And mankind was not but one community [united in religion], but [then] they differed. And if not for a word that proceeded from your Lord, it would have been judged between them [immediately] concerning that over which they differ” (Yunus, 19).

This verse implies that the differences between people cannot be reconciled. Not only is an end to the differences not possible, it is also not desirable, because this is God’s wish. Thus, it is not clear which person or group of people is righteous, and which is not. In other words, pluralism is a required ingredient for this world.

God sent Prophets with [holly] books [Scriptures] to the people, but they could also not end the intellectual and practical differences between them.

“Mankind was [of] one religion [before their deviation]; then Allah sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and warners and sent down with them the Scripture in truth to judge between the people concerning that in which they differed. And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path” (Al-Baqara, 213).

This verse states explicitly that being guided to the righteous path is unconditional. Thus, no group of people can claim that because they believe in a particular religion, they are righteous.

The Prophets and their holly texts transformed people into adherents of various incongruent religions. The Quran has emphasized numerous times that pluralism is natural, and God does not want the people to consist of only one group.

“And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ” (Hud, 118).

This is the most explicit statement by the Quran that it is not desirable for all the people to believe in the same religion. The following two verses also lend support to this:

“And if Allah had willed, He could have made you [of] one religion” (An-Nahl , 93).

“And if Allah willed, He could have made them [of] one religion” (Ash-Shura, 8).

The difference between the Quran’s view of accepting pluralism in the comprehensive and reasonable doctrines and John Rawls’ view is that Rawls believes that pluralism is the result of developed cultures of free societies, whereas the Quran considers it as part of God’s creation of mankind, and appropriate for human societies, the evidence for which is the Prophets and religions.

“To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you” (Al-Ma’ida, 48).

This verse emphasizes again that it is not desirable for all the people to believe in the same religion because, one, God has selected different ways for different groups of people and, two, the differences and arguments will continue until the Judgement Day. Thus, so long as people live in this world, they will have differences. In fact, right after thye above verse the Quran says, “Hurry to do good deeds. You will all return to God, and then He will make you aware of the [truth] about your differences.”

The intellectual and practical differences never end, the people will never reach complete consensus. The Quran describes monopolism and how adherents of any religion consider their beliefs as the absolute truth and those of others as void, and how they consider themselves as blessed and saved, going to heaven [after death], and others as damned. But, the Quran makes it clear that it will be God who will decide this on the Resurrection/Judgement Day:

“But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ” (Al-Baqara, 113).

Thus, pluralism is a fact of this world. This reality implies nothing but peaceful co-existence of the adherents of various religions. It is for this reason that the Quran tells the Jews and Christian,

“Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]’” (Al-i-Imran, 64).

Thus, monotheism is the only basis for peaceful co-existence of adherents of all the religions. Similarly, in the international arena, one must be at peace with all the people - Muslim or not, as well as those that are not people of the “book,” such as Hindus, and adherents of Confucianism, and secular comprehensive doctrines - except against an aggressor enemy.

“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly” (Al-Mumtahina, 8).

One may ask why the Quran did not mention non-Abrahamic religions. The reason is that those who were originally addressed by the Quran did not know about non-Abrahamic religions and their adherents. They did not even know Sabians and Zoroastrians. When they became familiar with such religions, the Quranic jurisprudence became applicable to their adherents. When the original Muslims were introduced to Sabians, the following verse was revealed:

“Verily, those who believe [in the Quran] or those who are the Jews, the Christians and thye SAbians, and those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement and do righteous deeds shall have their rewards with their creator and nurturer, and there shall be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve” (Al-Baqarah, 62).

And, when the original Muslims learned about Zoroastrians, the following verse was revealed:

“Those who believe in Islam, and those who follow the Jewish Law and the Sabians, and the Christians and the Magians [Zoroastrians] and the polytheists, they all will be judged and decided for by Allah on the Day of Judgement. Verily, Allah is the Supreme Witness over all things” (al-Hajj, 17)

This verse indicates that the pluralism accepted by the Quran has gone even further as even polytheists will treated the same way as the adherents of various religions. The differences between the adherents of various religions and non-believers will persist. In other words, even nullity of atheism, which has been rejected by the Quran, will not be demonstrated definitively in this world, and the Quran has included it in its acceptance of pluralism.

Not only does the Quran recognize true diversity and pluralism, it also accepts, with one condition, diversity of religions. Consider the followings:

One, the Quran does not restrict salvation to Muslims only, but states that all adherents of various religions that believe in God, the Judgement day, and do good deeds, will be blessed (Al-Baqarah, 62, 112; Al-Ma’idah, 69; Al-An’am, 48; Al-A’raf, 53; and most explicitly, An-Nissaa, 124). The only unforgiveable sin is polytheism (An-Nissaa, 31, 48, 116), and even that can ultimately be forgiven if the sinner truly repents. But, even polytheism does not take away one’s fundamental rights, as the aforementioned verse from Al-Hajj, verse 17, demonstrated.

Two, the Quran has repeatedly recognized Judaism and Christianity as divine religions. In at least five verses, the Quran has emphasized that God made Jews superior (Al-Baqarah, 47, 122; Al-Jathiyah, 16; Al-Ma’idah, 20; Al-Dukhan, 32).

Three, Islam considers itself as the ultimate evolution of all religions. Hence, it considers itself as the truth. But, Islam is also religiously inclusive in that, it also recognizes the previous religions, which do not more or less have conflict with it, as the truth.

Four, regarding the truth, the Quran points out an important point, which is that the differences and conflicts between the people regarding what constitutes the truth are themselves symbol of the truth that will never end, and that God will judge them in hereafter and reveal the truth to them (Al-Hajj, 17).

Five, critics may point to the verse, “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers” (Al-i-Imran, 85), as the evidence against our argument. But, we should remember that in Islam’s logic, religion is unique and is called Islam, because all divine religions have the same roots: “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (Al-i-Imran, 19). The Quran explicitly states that all the prophets had the same religion (Ash-Shura, 13), and that they were all supposed to confirm to each other (Al-i-Imran, 81). Abraham and Jacob were Muslim and invited people to Islam (Al-Baqarah, 128, 132, 133; Al-i-Imran, 67).

God asked Prophet Muhammad explicitly to declare that he was not a new phenomenon among the prophets (Al-Ahqaf, 9). The Quran considers all adherents of other divine religions as Muslim (Al-Baqarah, 136; Al-i-Imran, 84). In the Quran’s view all divine religions are one and the same, but depending on their era had different approaches and laws (Al-Ma’idah, 45-49). It also states that (Al-Hajj, 34, 67) God gave different rites for different religions.

Six, the Quran emphasizes that conversations with other religions must take place under the best conditions: “And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one, and we are [all] Muslims [in submission] to Him’” (Al-Ankabut, 46), and, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best” (An-Nahl, 125).

Most interestingly, even those who believe in no religion, i.e. the atheists, will not be harmed in this world, and only will experience losses in the hereafter. They are still included in the Quranic pluralism in this world, and it is only after they pass away that they will be judged by God.

Thus, the difference between Rawls and the Quran is that the former views pluralism as a result of judgement beliefs, whereas the latter considers it a result of lack of commitment to ethics of belief.

The Inherent Dignity of Human Beings

The Quran has spoken about the dignity of mankind: “And We have certainly honoured the children of Adam” (Al-Isra, 70). Based on this verse, some Muslim commentators have discussed the inherent dignity of human beings. On the other hand, the Quran considers God as the best creator because His creation, human beings, has inherent dignity (Al-Mu’minun, 14).

Respecting the inherent dignity, i.e. human being dignity is unconditional. Thus, being a human being is enough for being respected, and because this is so, all human beings, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, race, and ideology possess inherent dignity.

There is an important issue that deserves separate discussion. To my knowledge, Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of Islam have never debated whether dignity is a factual or evaluative concept. In other world, is dignity a fact that only human beings deserve and have, similar to wisdom, free will, search for morality, etc., or is it an evaluative concept, implying that God likes human beings more than other creatures? It appears that Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of Islam view dignity as evaluative.

URL of the Part One: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-liberal-islam-–-part-one/d/109156

Source: huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-libera_b_12931992.html

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-liberal-islam---part-two/d/109166

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/islamic-society/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-liberal-islam---part-two/d/109166#sthash.JL4pyyYV.dpuf

Stop 'Islamophilia' to End Islamophobia

By Tawfik Hamid

16 Nov 2016

When you encounter a religious ideology in the 21st century that promotes killing apostates, stoning women to death for sexual indiscretions, and brutally slaughtering gays; an ideology that instigates wars to impose its inhumane value system upon others; an ideology that not only condones but encourages its soldiers to take female war prisoners as sex slaves — and when you contemplate the number of terrorist acts conducted in its name — then you begin to realize that feeling some trepidation in the face of that religious ideology is not only rational, but probably advisable from a purely survival instinct standpoint.

It is definitively not an irrational response, and therefore by definition nota phobia. In fact, to not recoil in horror from such an ideology must be seen as a disease that needs to be treated.

The current mainstream Islamic ideology not only promotes these atrocities, but the leading Islamic scholars are teaching it as an integral part of the Islamic religion.

There is neither a single major approved Islamic theological institute nor a leading Islamic scholar who stands unambiguously against these barbaric 7th century values and teachings. And yet some people wonder why reasonable people respond with alarm, and decry such a response as “Islamophobia.”

If these teachings and these atrocities were to decline and disappear, this so-called “Islamophobia” would soon afterwards also begin to decline and disappear.

A deeper analysis of this situation reveals that the real problem is actually “Islamophilia” not “Islamophobia.”

“Islamophilia” has taken a variety of forms, such as insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, pronouncing Jihad a peaceful endeavor, and claiming that Shariah laws are compatible with the U.S. Constitution — despite overwhelming evidence against such unfounded assertions, which contradict both historical facts and current mainstream Islamic teaching.

Such “Islamophilia” — which is based on hallucinations and pathological lying — has impeded our ability to recognize the true cause of Radical Islam since Sept. 11 2001, and has thus allowed this ideological cancer to spread, resulting in increased hatred of the religion and aggravating the problem of “Islamophobia.”

Liberal left (and Muslim) champions of a blind disregard for the role of the religious teaching in creating the phenomenon of terrorism, have actually aggravated the problem of “Islamophobia” by adopting a pathological “Islamophilia.”

And this bizarre “Islamophilia” has impeded the efforts of many Muslim reformers by preaching that there is no problem at all in the ideology, and accordingly, there is no need for reformation.

This is like a physician insisting that there is no cancer and thus preventing other doctors from treating it — allowing the cancer to spread inexorably.

The complete irrationality of many Islamic and liberal left groups in addressing the phenomenon of radical Islam, and their utter lack of objectivity in evaluating the problem has created anger among many of those who have evaluated the problem in an honest and unbiased manner.

The latter have realized that “Islamophilia” is based on lies and is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

The anger this has aroused has resulted in more hatred toward Muslims and has made things considerably worse. Had these groups addressed the problem of Islamic radicalism in an honest and realistic manner, and had they admitted the obvious fact that the Islamic ideology plays a major role in the phenomenon of radical Islam, the level of anger and thus “Islamophobia” would be far less widespread than it is today.

Imagine that the aforementioned physician had instead recognized — and admitted — that the patient had a disease. Then therapeutic measures would have been taken and the patient would be much healthier today.

The blind defenders of an Islam that exists only in their imaginations have by denying the existence of the disease seriously impeded the treatment process, which has resulted in the more and worse complications that we see today.

In brief, “Islamophilia” is the real threat that must be defeated first if we are to have any hope of halting and reversing the spread of so-called “Islamophobia.”

Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It."

Source: newsmax.com/TawfikHamid/islam-muslim-muslims/2016/11/16/id/759151/

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/tawfik-hamid/stop--islamophilia--to-end-islamophobia/d/109165

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/islamic-society/tawfik-hamid/stop--islamophilia--to-end-islamophobia/d/109165#sthash.6lCzy4wf.dpuf

How to Construct a Liberal Islam - Concluding Part

By Akbar Ganji

11/20/2016

Justice and Equality

The Quran’s God is a just one and does not do injustice to anyone: “And your Lord is not ever unjust to [His] servants” (Fussilat, 46); “And your Lord does injustice to no one” (Al-Kahf, 49), and, “Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight” (An-Nisa, 40). God’s goal in sending the Prophet has been spreading justice: “We have already sent Our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain [their affairs] in justice” (Al-Hadid, 25).

Prophet Muhammad also limited his mission to spreading justice, and said, “I have been commanded to do justice among you” (Ash-Shura, 15); “My Lord has ordered justice” (Al-A’raf, 29); “Indeed, Allah orders justice” (An-Nahl, 90); “O David, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth” (Sad, 26), and, “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice” (An-Nisa, 135).

The Quran has expanded the concept of justice in many ways: Witnesses (in a trial) must be fair (Al-Baqarah, 182; Al-Ma’ida, 95). There should be justice in trials (Al-An’am, 152; Al-Nissaa, 58), and people should speak justly and neutrally (Al-An’am, 152), and the entire life must be devoted to justice (Al-Ma’ida, 8). Even enemies must be treated fairly: “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness” (Al-Ma’ida, 8).

Economically, the Quran is against poverty. It is said that there is a link between poverty and infidelity. Ali, the first Imam of the Shiites and the 4th Caliph wrote in Nahj al-Balagha [the Peak of Eloquence], a collection of his sermons, letters, exegesis, and narrations that “poverty is a worse death [than the physical death] (Hekmat, 163). The Quran says, “Satan threatens you with poverty” (Al-Baqarah, 268), and has many verses regarding helping the impoverished, such as, “Competition in [worldly] increase diverts you” (At-Takathur, 1), and, “And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah - give them tidings of a painful punishment” (At-Tawba, 34).

Naturally, the people and intellectual elites of any era did not have the same understanding and interpretation of justice as the contemporary one, but there is nothing that prohibits them from doing so in our era. For example, Muslims can easily interpret the Quranic justice in terms of the capabilities theory of the Indian economist Amartya Sen and the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum.

Freedom and Tolerance

According to the Quranic teachings no one should be forced to believe in Islam: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (Al-Baqara, 256). Rawls considers acceptance of burdens of judgment and liberty of conscience as the two criteria for reasonableness of a comprehensive doctrine (Justice as Fairness, p. 191). The following verse from the Quran and several after it recognize liberty of conscience: “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?” (Yunus, 99).

The Quran allows people to freely choose between guidance and straying: “And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve’” ( Al-Kahf, 29).

The Prophet is not the attorney for or guardian of the people to pressure them to the righteous path (Yunus, 99; Az-Zumar, 41); he does not control them: “So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller” (Al-Ghashiya, 21-22). The Prophet does not have the right to bully people and do injustice to them (Qaf, 45). His mission is to show them the righteous paths, not compelling a specific path. After this is done, people can choose their own path:

“Say, “O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion” (Al-Kafirun, 1-6).

Rawls spoke about political and comprehensive tolerance. The Quran’s comprehensive religious tolerance - including all of its constraints - endorses of Rawls’ political tolerance. Rawls refers to this as the reasoning from conjecture.

The Prophet’s First Treaty: a Path to Just Cooperation

Two-third of the Quran’s verses was revealed during the time Prophet Muhammad was living in Mecca. This type of verses expressed ethical ideals and was in search of justice. They lacked religious jurisprudence that, according to the human rights of our era, can be considered as violent and against liberalism.

After Muslims migrated from Mecca to Medina, the Prophet signed off on a treaty that governed peaceful co-existence of the immigrants, his supporters, and the Jews. According to Muslim historian Muhammad ibn Ishaq the Prophet “signed a treaty with the Jews, recognizing their religion and ownership of their properties, setting some conditions for them, but also accepting some conditions [in return]” ( Al-Nabawiyya Al-sira, volume I, p. 501). The treaty stated the following about the Jews:

“Every Jewish person who follows us will be assisted, and will be equal to other Muslims. No injustice will be done to him and no help will be given to his enemy. . . All Jewish tribes will form a common front with Muslims in warfare. Also, the Jewish tribe of Bani Ouf constitutes the same community with Muslims. Jews and Muslims each have their own religion. They each have their own friends, allies, and slaves. Unless someone engages in inflicting injustice and committing sin, in which case he will have done injury to himself and his lineage alone. The same regulations that have been specified for Bani Ouf will apply to the Jews of Bani Najjar; and the same will be applicable to all Jewish tribes. No Jew will leave their assembly except by the permission of Muhammad; nobody’s blood shall be spilled and trampled upon. He whoever kills another is alone responsible [for the deed] as are his family; except in cases in which he [the perpetrator] is himself a victim of injustice and that God is satisfied with the deed. Muslims and Jews will have their own shares of expenses during times of war. Jews and Muslims will assist each other against the aggressors and their relationships are based upon good will and compassion; they are set apart from sin. Nobody is to harm an ally; all will rise together to help the oppressed.”

The treaty was against Mecca’s non-believers, which explains why it contained so much about union for war and peace: Everyone was supposed to help everyone else against the invaders of Medina; Muslims and Jews had the right to call on people to make peace with the enemy, unless the war was over religion, and Jews were not allowed to shelter the non-believers of Mecca, who were the Muslims’ enemy. According to the treaty, the Prophet was the arbiter of disputes between Muslims, and between them and the Jews.

Although the treaty had many clauses about justice, but social justice in that era did not mean equality of all, particularly men and women. In fact, we cannot even call communities of that era a society in the modern sense. There was tribal authority, but it was due to patronage and family relations, not the existence of a government which, as we understand it today, did not exist. Thus, “equal and free citizens,” a product of the modern era, was meaningless. Thus, Rawlsian concepts of fairness and free and equal citizens could not exist in that era. Thus, the treaty between the Prophet and the Jews was one of tribal communities, and possibly a good example of what Rawls names as decency (The Law of Peoples, p. 67).

Commitment to the Elite’s Rationality of the Era

The Quran calls on everyone to follow wisdom and science. In 49 verses wisdom-related words have been used. For example, “Then will you not reason? Here you are - those who have argued about that of which you have [some] knowledge, but why do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge?” (Al-i-Imran, 65-66), and, “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge” (Al-Isra, 36). Interpreting the latter verse, the medieval Muslim scholar, Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn Umar al-Zamakhshari, who was of Iranian origin, wrote in al-Kashshaaf[revealer], his book of interpreting the Quran, “The meaning of this expression is to warn the addressee against saying what one does not fully know, and doing that which is unknown. This clear principle includes all forms of imitation, because imitation entails unknowing following of edicts about the truth and falsity of which the imitator has no knowledge.”

On many occasions, the Quran has demanded reasoning for those who claim to be truthful: “Say, ‘Produce your proof, if you should be truthful’” (Al-Baqara, 111), and, “Say, ‘Produce your proof, if you should be truthful’” (An-Naml, 64). Interpreting the latter verse, Zamakhshari states, “This Quranic expression, more than any other reason, vitiates the position of the advocates of imitation, and establishes that any statement for the truth of which we lack reasonable support, is false and unjustified” (ibid.).

A Path for Constructing a Liberal Islam

In this article first I explained my reading of Rawls’ political liberalism. Then I described Rawls’ views about Islam as presented in his “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” article, where in a famous footnote he conjectures that Taha and An-Naim’s idea of Sharia reformation is a perfect example of endorsing the political conception of justice from a comprehensive Islamic perspective. Finally, I discussed the evidence in the Quran and the Sunnah that supports constructing a liberal Islam based on Rawls’ views as plausible. There I showed that Quranic verses endorse the reality of pluralism, the inherent dignity of human beings, equality and justice, and finally tolerance and freedom. I also elaborated upon The Prophet’s first treaty as an example of decent social cooperation and co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims in early Islamic era.

To the extent that I understand Islam, there is a simple way of removing violence from contemporary Islam and making it compatible with political liberalism: The vast majority of non-worshiping Islamic laws are of ratifying type, i.e. they are the product of the culture and lore of the people of the Arabian Peninsula before the Prophet. The mission of the Prophet was not to destroy the infrastructure of the society, including its culture. He modified many of the existing laws and then ratified them.

As the Quran puts it, the Prophet is a model for all Muslims. He ratified the customs of the elites of his own era. Many Muslim scholars have misunderstood what the Quran says about this issue, interpreting it as meaning that Muslims must do what the Prophet did in his life in his own era. In fact, the Prophet taught the people to ratify the customs of the elites of their own era, not the era of the Prophet.

Rawlsian political liberalism is not the sole liberalism of our era, nor is it the custom of all the thinkers. But, it has been accepted by a large number of thinkers. At the same time, liberal interpretation of the Quran is more compatible with its spirit than any other. Thus, I believe that ratifying Rawlsian political liberalism is exactly tantamount to acting according to the Prophet’s teachings.

The Prophet is a model for the Muslims by ratifying the reasonable customs of his own era. He is not a model for terrifying people and spreading Islamophobia, which brings nothing for Muslims but losses and harms. As discussed, there are many verses in the Quran that, subject to new and modern interpretations, are completely compatible with John Rawls’ liberalism. This means that there are secular and liberal interpretations of the Islamic teachings that are more compatible with the true spirit of the, as compared to the Islam of fundamentalists.

URL of Part Two: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-liberal-islam---part-two/d/109166

Source: huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-libera_b_12931992.html

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-liberal-islam---concluding-part/d/109186

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/islamic-society/akbar-ganji/how-to-construct-a-liberal-islam---concluding-part/d/109186#sthash.IWY7ANKr.dpuf

Peacemaker Rumi: Rumi’s Humanistic and Inspiring Thoughts Promote Brotherhood and Peace among the Entire Human Fraternity

By Jan-e-Alam Khaki

October 21st, 2016

Maulana Jalal al-Din Mohammad Rumi

ONE of the world’s most celebrated poets, storytellers, and mystics, with a universal appeal in his message, is Maulana Jalal al-Din Mohammad Rumi (1207-1273). Indeed, he is like a diamond among the Muslim thinkers that dazzles — a jewel in the crown of Muslim civilisation. Acknowledging his greatness, UNESCO dedicated 2007 as the ‘Year of Rumi’.

Rumi is well known not only in the Muslim world but in many other societies as well. William Dalrymple, in a Guardian article on Nov 4, 2005 says, “It seems almost unbelievable in the world of 9/11, Bin Laden and the Clash of Civilisations, but the bestselling poet in the US in the 1990s was not any of the giants of American letters — Robert Frost, Robert Lowell ….; nor was it Shakespeare or Homer or Dante or any European poet. Instead, remarkably, it was a classically trained Muslim cleric [Rumi].”

Great scholars like A. Schimmel, R.A. Nicholson, A.J. Arberry, to name a few, have devoted substantial time studying Rumi. In Muslim societies, he has been highly regarded as a Sufi, and his Mathnavi is termed as the “Quran in Pahlavi language”, due to its teachings based on the Holy Book.

Rumi promoted many significant concepts, but the one I wish to focus on is peacemaking. He promotes peace by reconciling contradictory, paradoxical riddles caused by the diversity of human experience through simple stories. Take, for example, his story of the elephant and blindfolded strangers experiencing the elephant in a dark room. The people end up debating among themselves whose knowledge is accurate as to what kind of an animal it is. When they are shown the entire animal by lighting the room with a candle, they feel flabbergasted to see the actual animal as compared to what they had felt in the absence of light.

Rumi implies by the story that human experiences create multiple perspectives that often lead to debates about the truth, and what we need to do is to share our interpretations and learn from, rather than fight with, each other. In one of his Mathnawi verses, he says, “Do not take a single step towards separating people from each other; as the Prophet (PBUH) has said the most unwanted thing to me is the separation (Talaq)”, thus giving a strong message of unity. Similarly, in another verse, Rumi says/: “[O human beings], you have been commanded to unite, not to divide, people.”

Rumi draws arguments for diversity of forms by appealing to human nature. Referring to diversity of languages in which God is worshipped, he says: “God’s praise is in many forms; for a person living in Hind, his language of praise is Hindi, and for the same reason, a person living in Sindh, will use Sindhi [language] to praise God.” His story of Hazrat Musa and the shepherd further supports this argument.

He alludes to the diversity of human conditions in which we practice certain things, which may, in appearance, look awkward, but, at a deeper level, are reconcilable. In another verse, he further extends this thought by saying, “God looks not at just the outer (Biroon) condition and words spoken (Qaul) by those who worship; but their inner condition (Daroon) and state (Haal) of their existence with which they pray”.

In times of the dialogue of civilisations today, Rumi provides firmer grounds, and powerful language for meaningful engagement. He demonstrates by examples the rootedness of the human experience in socio-cultural contexts while admitting the essential unity of human oneness. He does not base his message of peacemaking on mere superficial grounds of ‘tolerance’ but on much deeper grounds of human nature and diversity of experience. He demonstrates the dictum “we see things, people, events and phenomena, not as they are, but as we are!”

G. Hofstede, a researcher, calls culture the “software of the mind” which filters all information that our brain accesses, in terms of our own cultural norms. Seeing the ‘other’ in an objective manner becomes very, very difficult, if not impossible. Rumi tries to sensitise us to this position of the ‘other’, advising us to be humble and not arrogant.

Rumi’s approach is so inclusive that people of many backgrounds — Muslim or otherwise — find relevance in his thoughts. The latter promote peace and connectedness. He abhors dividing people based on differing interpretations of life.

In sum, Rumi’s humanistic and inspiring thoughts promote brotherhood and peace among the entire human fraternity by showing reconciliation between apparent contradictions and inner harmony. He urges us not to just observe only external appearances and forms and pass judgements, but also to reflect on the diversity of human experience in different cultural contexts. For building peace on sound ideas, such rich thoughts may be the guiding principles for inter-communal and civilisational dialogues and harmony.

Source: dawn.com/news/1291226/peacemaker-rumi

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/jan-e-alam-khaki/peacemaker-rumi--rumi’s-humanistic-and-inspiring-thoughts-promote-brotherhood-and-peace-among-the-entire-human-fraternity/d/109190

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/jan-e-alam-khaki/peacemaker-rumi--rumi%E2%80%99s-humanistic-and-inspiring-thoughts-promote-brotherhood-and-peace-among-the-entire-human-fraternity/d/109190#sthash.R6Sm4jCS.dpuf

Islam’s Existential Crisis: Tolerance Is Needed to Stop It from Splintering into Separate Sectarian Boxes

By Hasan Suroor

November 25, 2016

Today, Islam is facing arguably its gravest existential crisis since the Crusades. Yet, nobody is asking the one question that every concerned Muslim should be asking: what is the future of Islam? Will it survive the crisis? If so, in what form?

I am aware that in the current climate to pose such questions may be regarded as heretical. But the idea that it’s just a passing phase (“We saw off the Crusades, we will see off this one too”) betrays the sort of complacency that has seen inherently tolerant Hinduism mutate into RSS-style Hindutva.

Crusades were led by Islam’s external enemies; and it’s always easier to unite against a common threat from outside. Today, the threat is from within. Muslims are Islam’s biggest enemy.

The conflict is no longer between Muslims and “infidels”; devout Muslims and “heretic” Muslims; or even Sunnis and Shias. It has now come down to Sunnis versus Sunnis; Shias versus Shias … one Muslim against another Muslim.

A community, which took pride in the idea of a global Umma united by a common faith, today resembles a family each of whose members is at war with the other. Jihad has come home and is devouring its own children. Muslim communities across the world are seething with internal sectarian divisions and hatred. Nothing is sacred any more.

Even the Hajj, the holiest of holy symbols of Islamic solidarity, has got caught up in the civil war tearing Islam apart. Once we were all Muslims. Not anymore.

Now we sit in separate sectarian boxes labelled Deobandis; Barelvis; Salafis; Wahhabis; Wahhabi Salafis. And certified as “good” Muslims and “bad” Muslims by self-styled arbiters of Islam. And if you fail their arbitrary test of what constitutes a “good” or a “true” Muslim, well, hell hath no fury like a mullah spurned.

One might argue that divisions always existed. Yes, but within the parameters of legitimate dissent. Nobody was murdered for belonging to the “wrong” sect or school of thought. The only overt hostility was between Shias and Sunnis, but it rarely spilled into violence beyond minor clashes during Muhurram.

Now, Shias are killed for simply being Shias. In Pakistan they are not even recognised as proper Muslims. Once, Islam’s internal divisions were only of academic interest and barely touched the lives of ordinary Muslims. In the space of a few decades, however, Islam has gone from a religion one happened to be born into and which one observed or didn’t observe according to one’s conscience (nobody put a gun to your head), to become a 24/7 obsession.

It has been hijacked by extremist vigilantes with the licence to kill anyone they suspect of not being the “right” sort of Muslim. I am not talking about what’s happening in Syria or Iraq or Libya or about the toxic Islamisation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The menace of often violent vigilantism has now arrived on the streets of Britain.

That #NotMuslimEnough is one of the most popular messages that recently trended on social media indicates the prevailing level of intra-Muslim intolerance. In recent months, three Muslims in Britain have been murdered by fellow Muslims for not being Muslim enough.

One was Ahmadiyya Muslim and two were Sunni Muslims whose Sufi practices were regarded non-Islamic by Salafi Sunnis. There are areas of Muslim concentration, including East London, where vigilantes hang around to enforce Islamic dress code on Muslim women. Those who protest are abused and threatened.

It has become a cliché to say that what is going on is a battle for the soul of Islam. But which Islam? These days, Islam means different things to different Muslims. One Muslim’s Islam can be another’s heresy. Islam has been reduced to a series of perverse and self-serving interpretations.

It is the culmination of a process that began in the 1970s and 1980s with the start of Wahhabisation of Sunni Islam and Khomeinisation of Shia Islam. The Muslim reaction to Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was a watershed; since then things have only gone downhill with thugs taking over from mullahs.

What I find extraordinary is the Muslim indifference towards Islam’s future, as if they couldn’t care less. A standard smug reaction is that all religions, notably Christianity, have gone through upheavals and emerged stronger. So will Islam; a “new” Islam fit for the 21st century will emerge from the debris of the old.

But in the absence of any evidence to support such optimism, it sounds more like wishful thinking. If anything, all the evidence points to the possibility of an opposite outcome: the world ending up with a more regressive, insular and intolerant Islam.

Meanwhile, Islam’s civil war is likely to get worse, compounded by the unseemly scramble between Sunni Saudis and Shia Iranians for political supremacy of the Muslim world. The burden of being a Muslim is going to get heavier.

Source: blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/islams-existential-crisis-tolerance-is-needed-to-stop-it-from-splintering-into-separate-sectarian-boxes/

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/hasan-suroor/islam’s-existential-crisis--tolerance-is-needed-to-stop-it-from-splintering-into-separate-sectarian-boxes/d/109195

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/hasan-suroor/islam%E2%80%99s-existential-crisis--tolerance-is-needed-to-stop-it-from-splintering-into-separate-sectarian-boxes/d/109195#sthash.oT0k8OY6.dpuf

Sectarian War in Pakistan and Urdu Media's Narrative of Denial

By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, New Age Islam

25 November 2016

With liberal space rapidly shrinking in the Pakistani Urdu press, there seems to be an influence of sectarian ideology in the country's media...

Sectarian violence is a widespread phenomenon in Pakistan. For a decade, most terror attacks of sectarian nature occurring in Sindh and Baluchistan--the two most vulnerable provinces of Pakistan--were targeted against the two particular Islamic strains: Sufis and Shias.

Not a single day passes without an attack on the two religious minorities and their mosques and shrines in these provinces. Not to talk of the Sufi shrines or Shiites' imam barahs, even the houses where they perform their certain religious rites are set ablaze. In the last Islamic month of Muharram, sectarian terrorists targeted several Shia women, children and men who were praying at home in Karachi.

Now, this blood-spattered sectarian schism has snowballed from Pakistan to Afghanistan, where Sunni-Shia tensions have been very rare. The terror strike on a crowded Shia mosque, Baqir ul-Uloom in Kabul leaving over 30 people killed and dozens injured is the latest case in point. It was the third gravest sectarian atrocity against the minority Shias in the Afghan capital. (Source: aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/kabul-suicide-blast-shia-mosque-casualties-feared-161121083359269.html)

Similar sectarian tensions were reported from Kabul on Oct 11 when a Shia shrine in the city was attacked on the eve of the 10th Muharram, the most sacred date in the Islamic calendar. The rising scale of sectarian attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan underline the deadly new dimension that the war within Islam could bring to its decades-long conflict.

Recently, Pakistan witnessed the deadliest suicide bombing on the Sufi devotees at the shrine of the Sufi saint Hazrat Shah Noorani, in the provincial capital of restive southern Balochistan. According to the Pakistani Urdu daily Express News, at least 90 people died and more than 100 others were injured in the bomb blast at the remote Sufi shrine in Pakistan. Close to 600 people were praying at the shrine at the time of the attack, according to local official Tariq Mengal. He told Geo TV that many devotees travelled to the site from Karachi during weekends.

Clearly, the suicide attack was targeted at the Sufi practitioners who were participating in a devotional Sufi session, which is held daily before dusk. The terror attack took place close to where devotees were dancing inside the compound of the shrine, as reported by News18. (news18.com/news/world/52-killed-in-sufi-shrine-blast-in-pakistans-balochistan-1311473.html).

In June, 2016 Amjad Sabri, a popular Qawwal (Sufi singer) of Pakistan was assassinated by two Talibani gunmen in Karachi. (Source: dawn.com/news/1266514).

The reason why Sufi devotes and Shia minority have been targeted in the continued spade of jihadist atrocities is patently clear. Sufism or Shi'aism are lambasted as deviation from the ‘puritanical Islam'. Sufis and Shias are declared heretics and apostates 'whose blood should be shed to purge Islam of the deviations'. This is the religious justification for the sectarian killings underpinned by the theological masters of all the extremist Islamist outfits, be it the ISIS, al-Qaeda or Tahrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

But news media in Pakistan continues to spread a complete narrative of denial and thus helps the extremist cults further their nefarious sectarian ends. With liberal space rapidly shrinking in Pakistani press, there seems to be an influence of sectarian ideology in the country's media. Instead of candidly exposing the sectarian factors behind the suicide bombings at the Sufi shrines like the Shah Noorani Dargah, a large section of the Pak media, particularly the Urdu press diverts the issue from the real case. Some of them even make a mockery of the Sufi denomination, blatantly emboldening the sectarian war-mongers in the country. A fatwa-factory declaring the Sufi practices as 'Haram' (forbidden in Islam), 'Bid’at' (un-Islamic innovation) and 'Mushrikana Rasm' (heretical practice) can be seen in the mainstream Urdu media in Pakistan, let alone the social networking sites. This is how the country's Urdu media is radicalising the common Muslim viewers and readers who are already influenced by the sectarian tendencies.

After every sectarian terror attack in the region, the run-of-the-mill conspiracy theories make headlines in the prominent section of Pakistani media. Rather than a candid exposition of the violent sectarian ideologies and extremist takfirist thoughts, most media outlets shift the entire blame to the 'secret agencies' of its rival country. In an attempt to misguide the common perception in the county, a large section of the news media in Pakistan blames the Indian intelligence agencies, particularly RAW, for not only common terror attacks but also the sectarian strife and suicide bombings.

One wonders how an Indian intelligence agency can recruit the Pakistani suicide bombers indoctrinated into the violent jihadism luring to heaven and Houris? This is nothing short of the brazen violation of the journalistic ethics in the Pak press which is not ready for an unbiased portrayal of the facts.

Needles to say, News Media’s first allegiance should be to an objective and truthful journalism not to sectarianism or the fabricated version of 'nationalism'. But turning a blind to the dangerous sectarian ideologues in Pakistan in a bid to blame the Indian agencies shows that Pak media is serving neither 'journalism', nor even 'nationalism'. Thus, the Urdu news media in Pakistan seem to have rescued the real culprits--the fanatic religious goons of Pakistan indoctrinating Muslim youth into a sectarian ideology resulting into the suicide bombings at the Sufi and Shia shrines.

Pakistani media's portrayal of the sectarian suicide bombings is quite distressing, but it is not unusual. Most Pakistani news media, Urdu newspapers in particular, are not yet ready to call spade a spade. It cannot be denied that the Shah Noorani Shrine suicide bombers were the jihadist terrorists who abound in Pakistan. But it is nowhere unplugged in the news reports, stories or even in commentaries in Pakistani press. So does the Pakistani press purport to state that it was also a handiwork of the 'foreign fighters'?

This reminds us of a similar narrative of denial that was propagated in the Pakistani media in the wake of the infamous Uri attack. Much in the same way, most media outlets in Pakistan accused the Indian state of staging an attack on the Indian army in Uri. They popularized an unfounded theory that the Uri attack was an “inside job” by the Indian government in order to "divert attention from the Kashmir issue". Pakistan’s major Urdu newspapers, most notably Jang, Express, Khabrain, Nawa-e-Waqt, Daily Pak, Daily Ausaf, Jasarat among many others, buttressed only one narrative in the Uri attack: It was an "inside job". Such a sweeping blame-game dressed in the form of news and commentary has been consumed by millions of Pakistani readers and viewers.

Observing this unfortunate reality in the Pak media, a senior Urdu journalist, Shakeel Hasan Shamsi, editor of India's largest Urdu daily, Inquilab has commented in his editorial dated November 18:

"This is a double-standard journalism in Pakistan which views everyone sloganeering for the Kashmir freedom as Mo'min (faithful) and those calling for freedom in Baluchistan as "Kafir" and Dushman-e-Islam (disbelievers and enemies of Islam). Pak media and press can only see the plight of Kashmiri people, but it turns a blind eye to the blood of innocent people being shed daily in Baluchistan, which has become a big battleground now. Around 500 civilians have been killed in several explosions at the Sufi shrines, Dargahs, hospitals, academies and schools during the last three months. But Pak media refuses to see the Tahrik-e-Taliban, Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi behind these atrocious attacks. It can only see the hands of Indian agencies in the wake of every terror incident".

Keeping in mind that news media in Pakistan works under rigorous government pressure and other obvious constraints, one can understand why the fourth state of democracy is losing its grounds in the country. Regrettably enough, assassination attempts upon writers and journalists are shockingly common in the country's history of journalism. Not only the government, but also its agencies as well as extremist Islamist militants have an easy and acute grip on the media persons.

Given this situation, if a media outlet in Pakistan tries to portray the grounded ideological realities in the country, it would be great journalistic courage of conviction in sincere service of the nation, people and the misconstrued religion. At a time when most media outlets are busy actively reporting the propaganda and disregarding the facts, a bold move in the Pak journalism is a desperately needed to rescue the country's ethics of journalism from the onslaught of sectarianism.

The bombing of Sufi shrines and Shia mosques in Pakistan is a continued tragedy offering the Pak press insights into the ongoing ideological war within Islam. It is about time the country's media rises above the deeply entrenched anxieties about the Indian intelligences and engages with the Pakistani jihadists' war cry. The Shah Noorani Shrine's bombing carried out by the ISIS in partnership with the Pak militants is one of the many terror incidents that should wake up the Pak media. In this terror attack, it has been proved again that terrorism in Pakistan is religiously inspired and ideologically sustained. Shakeel Shamsi has rightly pointed it out:

"Terrorism in Pakistan is an outcome of the extremist thoughts that peddle hatred against other religious strains and sects, in an attempt to completely eliminate them from the country. One cannot become suicide bomber unless he is provided with the religious guarantee to enter the abode of Jannat (heaven). As long as such ideologues of religious fanaticism exist and indoctrinate the Pakistani youths, terror incidents like the Shah Noorani shrine bombing will continue to occur".

A regular New Age Islam columnist, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a scholar of Comparative Religion, Classical Arabic and Islamic sciences, cultural analyst and researcher in Media and Communication Studies.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/ghulam-rasool-dehlvi,-new-age-islam/sectarian-war-in-pakistan-and-urdu-media-s-narrative-of-denial/d/109196

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

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/islam-and-sectarianism/ghulam-rasool-dehlvi,-new-age-islam/sectarian-war-in-pakistan-and-urdu-media-s-narrative-of-denial/d/109196#sthash.0OdPsCj3.dpuf

Is a Dalit Muslim Unity Possible?

By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam

26 November 2016

The recently held Jamiat Ulema e Hind Conference n Ajmer gave a call for Dalit Muslim unity. Laudable in its objectives because of the marginal positions of both these communities, it is but natural that they should come together to fight the perceived oppressions against them from the right wing parties, particularly the BJP which is understood as the party of Brahmanical dominance. Given the fact that in a few months, there will be elections in Uttar Pradesh where both these sections can play a decisive role, the call assumed greater political significance. After all, dalits have been out of power in Uttar Pradesh since two decades and Muslims have never been so marginal in terms of political representation in Uttar Pradesh. Moreover, the Samajwadi Party, the ruling party and the party of choice for Muslims ever since it came to power, has failed to protect the life and liberty of Muslim, especially in the last three years. With incidents like Muzzaffarnagar and the rhetoric of Kairana Hindu exodus, it was a natural thing for the Muslims to look for a party other than the Samajwadi and they perhaps rightly think that it is only the BSP which has the potential to defeat the BJP electorally. 

From the Sachar Committee Report onwards, all analyses of the Muslim situation, particularly in the context of Uttar Pradesh is pointing towards the convergence of Muslim situation and the Dalit situation. In terms of representation as well as in terms of threat to identity, Muslims and Dalits today seem to be on the same scale of vulnerability. It would not be out of place to suggest that in terms of representation and other social indicators like education, Dalits seem to be catching up and in cases becoming better than the Muslims.

The Muslims, through years of faulty political choices have lagged behind and are today in a situation where it would not be wrong to group them together with the Dalits. But more importantly, the threat to identity has assumed alarming proportions. Dalits and Muslims have been the victims of targeted attacks on the basis of their identity. While in some cases, it has been an assault from the right wing Hindu forces, in other cases, they have been attacked due to a perceived sense of upward mobility among them which is resented by the dominant middle castes.

It shouldn’t be surprising therefore is both these blocks come together under the umbrella of BSP. The Jamiat Conference is merely articulating which seems to be the felt need within the Muslim community. The alliance will be formidable but will it also be sustaining and stable? Historically Muslims have voted with the SP, the ruling party of Uttar Pradesh. In fact when Mayawati was voted out of power, it was the Muslim vote which shifted from the BSP to the SP. How then are we to believe that the alliance will stand the test of times. And what lies behind the ambivalence of the Muslim community to rally behind Mayawati?

The answer perhaps lies in the self-perception of Muslims of Uttar Pradesh. Although all indicators suggest that Muslims are at the lowest rung of the ladder in Uttar Pradesh, the perceptions amongst Muslims continues to be that they are culturally the dominant community in Uttar Pradesh. There is an abject refusal to come to terms with the present situation and Muslims remain mired in the fantastic past in which they think themselves to large landlords and the ones who brought civilization to this part of India.

An average Muslim here is as caste conscious as an average upper caste Hindu. The problem is that even Muslims who belong to lower castes consider themselves to be firmly entrenched with the Ashraf culture of upper caste Muslims in Uttar Pradesh. The lower caste Muslim artisan or businessman who has seen economic upward mobility desires to be accepted within the upper caste Muslim subculture and for that reason denies his lower caste identity. This denial is very important to understand why any lower caste Muslim mobilization has not been successful within Uttar Pradesh. Because this denial leads them to consciously abrogate any ties which they have to other lower castes. Islam becomes the lone signifier in such a situation and secular identities like caste and region recede in the background. It is because of this that there is hardly any public proclamation of the acceptance of caste within Uttar Pradesh Muslim politics.

Thus in all probability, this alliance is going to be a political alliance of convenience. It would have been much better if this alliance would also become a social alliance between Dalits and Muslims. But for that to happen, Muslims have to engage with the entrenched caste practices and ideas within their own community. It is all very well to say that Islam does not recognise caste, but anyone who is familiar with Muslim society would say that Muslims are as casteist as the Hindu society. Only through a thorough interrogation which is internal to the community, can one visualize a true Dalit-Muslim unity. It is heartening to note that the Jamiat has had the voice to articulate such a unity. A good start to show that they are serious about the issue would be to raise the issue of discrimination faced by the Muslim Dalits themselves at the hand of upper caste Muslims.

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/arshad-alam,-new-age-islam/is-a-dalit-muslim-unity-possible?/d/109203

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

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/arshad-alam,-new-age-islam/is-a-dalit-muslim-unity-possible?/d/109203#sthash.8zG7VIpq.dpuf

To Counter Jihadism, Teach Need-Blind Subjects to Muslim Children

By Tufail Ahmad, New Age Islam

28 Nov 2016

The current threat to India's security is typical of the threat faced by modern democracies. Jihadist attacks – whether they are carried out by the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda or by lone-wolf jihadists acting on their behalf – threaten to overturn the civilisational order. The attacks in Florida, Boston, Toronto, London, Paris, Kabul, Peshawar, Mumbai, Dhaka or Sydney illustrate the fact that modern democracies cannot take their freedoms and security for granted.

On July 9, it emerged that 15 Muslim youths from Kerala had gone missing, feared to have left the country for Afghanistan and Iran on way to join the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria. Later reports put the number of the missing youths varyingly at 17, 19 and 25. The youths belonged to mainly the Kasaragod and Palakkad districts. This development has raised alarm that radicalisation of Muslims is underway in many parts of India, especially in regions around Hyderabad and Mumbai.

After the Second World War, democracies faced threats from armed communism. Seven decades later, democratic nations are still threatened, this time by global jihadism. It is a matter of time before Indian democracy too will come face to face with such threats. The jihadist attacks underline two points. First, democratic countries must put in place a counter-radicalisation strategy that integrates Muslim communities and counters radicalisation. Second, such a strategy must also be coordinated internationally because the nature of the threat is global in its character.

Let's take the second point first. The jihadist threat has acquired an international character because the international system of states has become problematic. The modern nation-states – with sovereignty and non-interference in each other's affairs being their defining characteristics – emerged after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, an agreement which ended the Thirty Years War during which conflicts between the Protestant and the Catholic states had transformed into a war between the great powers of the day.

As a result of the 1648 agreement, while the newly emerging nation-states ended the war to the benefit of their peoples, they are now suppressing their own peoples. For example, the Pakistani nation-state crushes its people in Balochistan. The Sunni nation-state of Bahrain tramples upon its Shia majority. The Chinese nation-state oppresses its Muslim population in Xinjiang. Iraq suppresses the Kurds and Sunnis while Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan allow persecution of their minorities such as Shias and Ahmadi Muslims.

(Kashmir is not a good example because the Kashmiri people elect their government regularly, can openly challenge the power of the Indian nation state and are about to overcome jihadist insurgency commissioned by Pakistan.)The argument is this: the international state system anchored to the UN since the World War II is failing to address emerging problems caused by its member-states, notably the rise of global jihadism. There are two urgent needs: one, dismantle the UN and seed a new international state system; and two, evolve a global strategy to counter the global jihadism.

An international strategy must take into account the suppression by nation-states of people within their own borders as well as the state support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to jihadist groups like the Islamic State, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Canadian-Pakistani writer Tarek Fatah has suggested that global extremism can be undermined from within by addressing the issues of Balochistan, Kurdistan and Turkey's support of Muslim Brotherhood.

Of the big countries, only the U.S., Britain and Russia have inclination as well as diplomatic and military resources to counter this threat. As of now, the Western powers are not engaged in collectively developing a strategy against global jihadism due to the fear that they will be seen as anti-Islam. The longer the West takes it to tackle this cancer, the bigger it will become. It was this realisation which forced the leaders of forty nations including the UK, Israel, Germany, Palestine, Jordan, Poland and Spain to march hand in hand with the French president in Paris on January 11 last year to denounce the jihadists who shot dead the editors of Charlie Hebdo magazine.

To return to the first point, the need for counter-radicalisation strategy, the democratic nations must evolve their own domestic policies to challenge radicalisation. Over the past few years, India has witnessed worrying symptoms of radicalisation: Muslim youths posed for a group photograph in ISIS T-Shirts in Tamil Nadu. In Kerala, stickers in favour of ISIS were seen on cars. In Kashmir, masked youths waved ISIS flags. In the toilet of a Mumbai airport, a passenger wrote ISIS threats. In Jharkhand, someone deemed it fit to print 'ISIS Pakistan' on T-Shirts.

Muslim youths from Mumbai went to Iraq and some were detained in Kolkata, Bengaluru, Mumbai and Hyderabad over ISIS links. At least one Mumbai youth wanted to carry out a suicide attack on the American School in Bandra. In July 2016, security officials arrested a number of radicalised Muslim youths, especially from Aurangabad, Parbhani and greater Mumbai. In 2014, Sanjeev Dayal, the then director general of Maharashtra police, had proposed a counter-radicalisation strategy, which argued for inclusive housing for Muslims, mainstreaming of madrasa education and dealing with perceived grievances, among others.

Sanjeev Dayal took inspiration from a Singaporean law that mandates mixed ownership in housing societies for the Malays, Indians and the Chinese. The then police chief also warned against online propaganda that radicalises Muslim youths. All the suggestions are practical, but there is no short-cut solution to integrating Muslim communities, whether in Europe or in India. This is because Islam does not allow Muslims to fully integrate with local communities. As a system of ideas, Islam is designed to separate Muslims from the practices of non-Muslims.

In Maharashtra state, this writer asked a Muslim man, who has not gone to college, a question: what do Urdu religious channels like the Peace TV of televangelist Zakir Naik teach? His response: they teach us about Islam. Probed further as to what he and his family learn from these channels, he explained: Wo Hamein Islam Ke Saanchey Mein Dhaalte Hain (they shape us into the mould of Islam).Muslims everywhere will continue to separate themselves from the rest of society. Islam doesn't permit integration, despite which some Muslims do integrate in some spheres of society.

Nevertheless, attempts for reform must be made on an urgent basis. India needs to think long term and evolve a 100-year strategy, seriously. Such a strategy must do the following: all madrasas and mosques should be registered and their finances audited by local officials, a task unachievable if the same is not done for churches; madrasa syllabi should be reformed to include – in addition to the teachings of the Quran, Hadiths and Islamic Studies – English and material sciences as well as a primer on need-blind subjects like liberal arts from the primary standards. Reform must begin among children below 18 years of age and in the field of education. If Lord Macaulay could do it, Indian democracy can do it much better.

* Former BBC journalist Tufail Ahmad is Executive Director of the Open Source Institute, New Delhi. He is the author of "Jihadist Threat to India – The Case for Islamic Reformation by an Indian Muslim."A version of this article appeared in the Onam special issue 2016, published by Malayalam-language daily Janmabhoomi.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/tufail-ahmad,-new-age-islam/to-counter-jihadism,-teach-need-blind-subjects-to-muslim-children/d/109215

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

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/tufail-ahmad,-new-age-islam/to-counter-jihadism,-teach-need-blind-subjects-to-muslim-children/d/109215#sthash.njkgmVt7.dpuf

Comparative Religion Scholars Examine ‘End-Time’ Prophecies in World Religious Scriptures

By New Age Islam Special Correspondent

30 November 2016

A South Korean interfaith organisation, Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL) arranged a workshop entitled, “Dialogue of Scriptures” on an inter-religious theme of very pertinent relevance: “End times in World Religious Scriptures”.

The 'dialogue of scriptures' is a regular workshop which is annually held by the HWPL in different parts of the world. This year, it was organised in New Delhi in association with a number of Delhi-based Hindu temples, churches, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain worship centres in addition to an Islamic seminary. The workshop on End Times was mainly based on providing answers to the key questions as below:

(1): Does your scripture has prophecy or the sign that predicts the

"the end time "? 

(2): How can we believe the prophecy or sign that predicts the endof the world? 

(3): If there is evidence or example which enables us to believe the

Prophecy (the sign), how can it be explained?

This inter-religious dialogue of the scriptural texts on the end-time theories has been initiated in India first time by the HWPL’s wing based in New Delhi. It invited scholars and intellectuals from different faith traditions, most notably:

1. Dr. James P. Kang, HWPL Religion specialist from Christianity

2. Mr. Ven. R. Sumiththananda Thero from Buddhism

3. Pandit Krishina Mohan from Hinduism

4. Mr. Gulam Rasool Dehlvi from Islam

5. Dr. Vivek Arya from Arya Samaj

In his opening remarks, the HWPL Religious specialist and a scholar on Christianity, Dr. James P. Kang drew parallels among all the world religions giving prophecies of the end time. He said:

“In most scriptures, the prophecies about the end of the age are well-written. If you’ve studied different scriptures, you would have found many common teachings in the prophecy”. For example, Prophets in many religions taught people that the law of the truth will be powerless and wickedness will increase at the end of the age. It also includes the corruption of the religious world. When this will happen, heaven will send a person to save the righteous, for example: Maitreya in Buddhism, Kalkin in Hinduism and Jesus in Christianity”.

Dr. James P. Kang continued: “Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both divine and the messiah. They are also waiting for the second advent of the Christ with the same belief that he will overpower Satan, or the anti-Christ, at the final battle of Armageddon, known as al-Malhama al-Kubra in Islam. Jews have long been awaiting the promised messiah or Mashiach or Moshiach (physically descended from David), the Hebrew word that refers to the Jewish idea of the messiah. The 10th avatar in Hinduism, Kalki, it is believed shall emerge in the end. In the same way, the Sikh scripture attributed to the 10th Sikh Guru Gobind Singh, the Dasam Granth, also contains the prophecies on the advent of Mahdi in the final era. It clearly states that “Mahdi Meer” will be born to defeat Kali, who will become egoistic referring to himself as the “almighty”.

Pandit Krishan Mohan, from Shiv Mandir, Lajpat Nagar, who has done extensive reading and research of the Hindu scriptures of, explained the prophesies and theories related to the end-time in Hinduism.

He said that the ‘End of the days’ is a topic which is described in detail within the Hindu Scriptures along with signs and prophesies regarding the phenomenon.

Pandit Krishan Mohan spoke on the four types of Pralaya (Holocaust) as described in the Hindu scriptures:

1.Nitya Pralaya

2.Naimatik Pralaya

3.Prakritik Pralaya

4.Aatyanti Pralaya

Pralaya means ‘End of Creation’. PanditKrishan Mohan specifically discussed the theories of PrakritikPralaya,theatural end of days brought about bynature’s own means.“One Thousand and Four Yugas (comprising of cycles of Satyug, Dwaparyug, Tretayug andKalyug) are ONE Day of ‘Brahma’ (The Creator) and is known as a ‘Kalpa’, in which 14kings are supposed to rule over the lands”, he said.

Scholar of Classical Arabic and Islamic sciences and researcher in Comparative Religion, Mr. Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi, presented the Islamic perspective on the End-Time narrative. He stated: “It cannot be denied that apocalyptic theories are found in every major religion of the world. The idea that a saviour of mankind will emerge in the end is common to all faiths. Muslims are on the lookout for the appearance of Imam Mahdi and re-emergence of Hazrat Isa (Jesus Christ, peace be upon him). According to several Prophetic traditions (Hadiths), he will defeat the anti-Christ (dajjal) at the Great Battle known as “al-malhama al-kubra” which will be waged to establish the world order, restore peace, justice, righteousness and law”.

Mr. Dehlvi laid out that the sole purpose of this millenarian and apocalyptic theory in all religions is to keep us abreast of the ultimate reality — that this world will be put to an end, sooner or later.

“But the existing problem with us is that we are unaware of the contemporary age we are living in, let alone the end. While the apocalyptic theories are attracting the youth to believe that the end-time is at hand, they are oblivious to the trying times they themselves inhabit. If they are unaware of their own times, how can they wisely plan for the future or even the end? This is an imperative and urgent task for us — to first engage with our own time and then think of the final era when a deliverer will suddenly appear”, he said.

Dehlvi also quoted the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) clearly saying in a hadith: “Wise is he who knows the age in which he lives.”

Presenting the viewpoint of Buddhism on the proposed subject, Buddhist scholar Ven. R. SumiththanandaThero said that, “In Buddhism, there are two kinds of teachings in this relation: (1) one is truth – which we can feel with our five organs. (2) One is Noble Truth – which we can experience with our pragna (wisdom).The subject of “end-time” comes under the purview of the first kind of teachings that we can feel with our five organs”.

He said that, “We can find about End of the Time in Buddhist text in Anguttara Nikaya, which the Buddha preached at Ambapali’s mango grove….”According to the Buddha, the world will end because of 7 suns surrounding the Earth and burning it to a crisp. The beings, trees and other plants will burn away, covering the Earth in a layer of ashes. The process of increasing global warming will be taking billions of time to end the world”, he said.

Dr. Vivek Arya from Arya Samaj stated that, “there is no end time in Vedic philosophy. The concept of time in Vedas is like a circle. If you see a circle, there's no start or end. So, the concept of time in Vedas is origin-less and end-less”.

He said: “You can find out that there’s no such thing as end times by seeing this world. Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. One eating the Fruit is Atman or Soul. One looking without eating is Supreme God. The tree on which they are sitting represents Nature”.

He also quoted Rig Veda (1-164-20) in the conclusion of his talk: “You must have done Actions in previous Birth or previous Universe for which you are facing the results”.

At the end of the dialogue, Dr. James P. Kang, HWPL Religion specialist, shed light on the universal declaration of peace that was issued by the Heavenly Culture, World Peace and Restoration of Light (HWPL). He read out the message of the World Peace Activist Man Hee Lee, founder-president of HWPL:

“Everyone in our global family, regardless of class or importance, should work together towards achieving world peace with the peace messenger and to end all disputes between religions just like what was accomplished on the island of Mindanao, Philippines.”

It is noteworthy that a Global Peace Summit was conducted by the HWPL at Seoul, South Korea with many of the world’s political and religious leaders as well as women and youth leaders in attendance.

The event was the 2nd Annual Commemoration of September World Alliance of Religions’ Peace Summit. Approximately 1,000 public figures from 120 countries around the world participated in this event, including: the former President of Croatia, Ivo Josipović; the Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe; President of the Spanish Society for International Human Rights Law, Carlos Villan Duran; the Youth Representative of The United Nations Association of New York, Juan Pablo Celis Garcia; along with various ministers, chief justices, high level government officials, and former presidents. Following the Declaration, the “Legislate Peace” Campaign (a global advocacy movement aimed at establishing international law) has been conducted worldwide. Since its beginning in March, 535,493 people from 167 different countries have signed their support.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/new-age-islam-special-correspondent/comparative-religion-scholars-examine-‘end-time’-prophecies-in-world-religious-scriptures/d/109239

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

- See more at: http://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/new-age-islam-special-correspondent/comparative-religion-scholars-examine-%E2%80%98end-time%E2%80%99-prophecies-in-world-religious-scriptures/d/109239#sthash.V3jm9LDz.dpuf