Human Beings Are Equal, Have the Same Rights, the Human Race Is One, and We Are All Brothers – Global Call for Improving Inter-Faith Relations and Combating Religious Supremacism and Bigotry

By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

(Co-author (Jointly with AshfaqueUllah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009.)

September 28, 2015.

This article is inspired by a deeply though latently God-conscious contact of mine, unaware of his divine heritage. The object of this article is to expound the brotherhood of humanity which is the essence of all religions as much as the Qur’anic message and the dream vision of the intellectual of this era. The article is not the brainchild of the author as he is just an ordinary person and not founder or proponent of any social or religious doctrine. As a Muslim, he is backing his arguments on the Qur’an which as it claims is meant for all humanity, gives equal recognition to all Prophets and puts all humanity on a level playing field.

To begin with we must see the role and uniqueness of humans in divine scheme as spelled out in the Qur’an – albeit in bits and pieces. 

At the concluding stage of his creative process, man (humankind) is graced with a touch of divine breath (15:29, 32:9, and 38:72). This invests him with a divine heritage, regardless of the religion in which he is born. He is also described as the noblest of creatures (95:4) – God’s deputy (Khalifah) on earth'(2:30, 6:165, 27:62, 35:39), who is granted cognitive ability (use of reason) (96:4), the power to learn new things (96:5), coherent speech (55:3/4) and is favoured above much of the Creation (17:70). Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth is made subservient to him and God has lavished His bounties on him (both) seen and unseen…” (31:20) [See also 14:32, 16:12, 45:13, and 67:15]. None of these qualities is religion specific. That means the religion of a person does not make him superior to fellow humans belonging to another religion in any way. In other words, the Qur’an does not espouse any religion based superiority.

The next important point to bear in mind is that the Qur’an does not represent the religious views of the Prophet Muhammad. In the words of Bishop Kenneth Cragg, it is “the culminatory truth from all that past, enfolding God’s education of humanity through the prophets” [1]. It reminds the Prophet to lead by following the example of the Prophet Abraham, whom it regards as the model of pure monotheism, and a Friend of God (3:95, 4:125) and acknowledges the truth of other faiths (5:48):

“And who can be better in faith (din) than the one who surrenders (Assalama) his whole being to God (divine imperatives), and does good deeds, and follows the way of Abraham, the pure in faith (Hanif), and God took Abraham as a friend” (4:125).

“Say (O Messenger): ‘God speaks the truth.’ Therefore follow the creed of Abraham, who was pure in faith and never of those who associate partners with God” (3:95)

“We have revealed to you this divine Writ (Kitab) setting forth the truth, confirming (whatever) remains of the divine writ (sent earlier), and determining what is true in it. Therefore, judge between them by what God has revealed, and do not follow their whims after what has come to you of truth. For each of you We have made a (different) code (Shir’ah), and an open way (of action) (Minhaj). If God so pleased, He would have made you (all) into one community. Therefore vie (with each other) in goodness (so that) He may test you by what He has given you. (Remember, you) all will (eventually) return to God, and He will tell you in what you differed” (5:48).

The underlined phrase above clearly indicates God’s divine plan to test all human beings on the Day of Judgment regardless of colour, race and nationality and doctrinal differences by ‘what He gave them’ implying how humans used the faculties and bounties God lavished on them – their deeds in one word. Accordingly, the Qur’an repeatedly declares that He will judge all people regardless of religion based on their deeds:

“Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians and Sabians - and (in fact) any who believe in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds - shall have their reward with their Lord. There will be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve” (2:62).

“Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabians and Christians - (in fact) any who believe in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds - there will be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve” (5:69).

“Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabians and Christians and Magians, and those who associate (others with God) - God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment. Indeed, God is Witness to all things” (22:17). [See also 4:124, 64:9, 65:11]

In other words, the Qur’an treats people of all religions on an equal footing with regard to their accountability to God. Thus, at a very early stage of the revelation it declares:

“On that day, humans will be sorted out and shown their deeds:  whoever does an iota of good will see it; and whoever doe an iota of evil will see it” (99:5-8).

“Indeed man is ungrateful to his Lord and he bears witness to that (by his ingratitude) for he is intense in his love for wealth (that he wants to horde up)” (100:6-8).

“Indeed man is bound to be a loser - except those who believe and do good deeds and enjoin truth and enjoin patience” (103:2-3). 

“Woe to all slanderers and fault-finders, (And woe to) those who amass wealth and multiply it thinking his wealth would make him last. But he will be given over to an agonizing punishment (at the Resurrection)” (104:1-4).  

“Do you see the one who gives a lie to the din (moral laws)? It is he who rebuffs the orphan and has no urge (lit., ‘does not urge each other’) to feed the poor. So, woe to those prayerful - those who are heedless of their prayer, those who aim to be seen (in public) but hold back from helping (others)” (107:1-7)

It is clear from these verses that the Qur’an pits humans face to face against God and repeatedly reminds him that He will judge them based on their deeds and not on religion.

Some Muslim scholars, however, advocate that the non-Muslims (in its present day sense), who do not believe in the Prophet Muhammad, will not qualify for God’s mercy. They interpret the generic word Islam (submitting/ orienting oneself to God) in the verse 3:85 (underlined below), in its popular restrictive sense as the religion of the followers of the Prophet Muhammad. This is misleading as the preceding verses (3:83-84), demonstrate the generic character of the word Islam appearing in 3:85. 

“Do they seek any (religion) other than the din (religion) of God, to whom all in the heavens and on earth have submitted, willingly or unwillingly, and to whom they will all be returned (3:83)? Say: ‘We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us, and in what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and to Jesus and Moses and (other) prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them; and surely to Him do we all submit (84). If anyone seeks other than Islam (self-surrender to God) as a din (religion), it will not be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be among the losers” (3:85).

The foregoing argument also holds for the identically worded verses 9:33 and 61:9, some scholars quote to claim exclusivity of Islamic faith:

“He is the One who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam - submission to God), that he may distinguish it from all religions, however the pagans detested this” (9:33/61:9). [48:28 is identically worded except for the underlined remarks.]

To leave no doubts about the universality of its message, the Qur’an warns those who take a restrictive view of their faith that their desires will not prevail and that whoever does evil will be requited accordingly.

“Neither your desires, nor the desires of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever does evil will be requited accordingly, and he will not find any protector or helper besides God” (4:123).

Others citetheverse9:113 that was specific to the context of the revelation that forbade the Prophet and his followers to seek forgiveness for the dead among the pagans (Mushrikin), “after it has become clear to them that they (died as polytheists and therefore) are condemned to the Blazing Flame” (9:113).

The express mention of the Prophet in this verse lends it an existential dimension and puts to question the eternal validity of its pronouncement. Besides, the Mushrikin of the Qur’an were its immediate pagan audience and cannot be conflated with the polytheists of this era as expounded in the article referenced below [2]. No doubt, the Qur’an barred the father of the Prophet Abraham, the son of the Prophet Noah and the wife of the Prophet Lot from divine forgiveness but these were the next of kin of the Prophets and thus direct recipient of the divine message. The present day atheists and polytheists cannot be paralleled with them as they had no remote connection with any prophet. Besides, many of them could have been foremost in good deeds and Taqwa and having no means of guidance, can earn divine forgiveness and blessing (4:98/99).Besides, all Muslims including the offspring of a non-Muslim are commanded to pray for the forgiveness of their deceased parents. This militates against the notion of excluding the non-Muslims from the prayers. Finally, there could be a grave problem in taking the referenced verse of Surah Tawbah on its face value.

The same Surah has verses that forbid the Prophet to pray over any of them (hypocrites) who had died, nor to stand by his grave (9:84).As the Prophet may still have prayed for all his followers, including the hypocrites, the revelation warns him that even if he sought forgiveness for them seventy times, God will never forgive them (9:80). This obviously indicates the existential dimension of these verses (9:80, 84, 113). If we give eternal validity to one of these verses (9:113), we must do the same to the other two verses and exempt the 'likely hypocrites among the Muslims of this era from our prayers.  But we never do it. We claim that all hypocrite Muslims of the Prophet’s era gave up hypocrisy and became devout Muslims – without any basis whatsoever.

Finally, let us address the biggest doctrinal challenge against bringing religions on a level playing field.

The Qur’an singles out Shirk (associating partners with God) as the most abominable crime (Zulmun Azim, 31:13) and unpardonable sin (4:48, 4:116) that bars entry into paradise (5:72). But these verses were addressed to the Qur’an’s immediate audience and it is debatable if they remain binding for those of the polytheists and unbelievers who fell outside the revelation corridor (the Prophet’s time and space). Moreover, God may pardon those who had no means of guidance or were otherwise helpless on earth (4:97-99):

It is conceivable that Allah will not judge the pagans of other parts of the world of the Prophet’s era in the same fashion as the pagan Arabs to whom the Qur’an was introduced as a miracle – a divine speech that cast a spell on them and filled them with awe and admiration and spiritually overwhelmed them into submission. The Qur’an did not interact with people outside of Arabia and in fact there is hardly any chance of any single non-Arab witnessing the majestic unfolding of the Qur’anic revelation that caused it audience to run away from it in dread like frightened donkeys fleeing a lion (74:49-51). So it will untenable to suggest that all the non-Arab polytheists and atheists of the Prophet’s era or even of a later era will be condemned to hell for denying the Qur’an which they were not even aware of.

It is true that the Qur’an barred the fathers of the Prophet Abraham, the son of the Prophet Noah and the wife of the Prophet Lot from any prospect of divine forgiveness as they persistently denied God, but we must not forget that they were the next of kin of the Prophets of God and therefore the common pagans and atheists who never came in contact with any prophet cannot be paralleled with them. The Qur’an cites the example of the followers of Jesus who took him and his mother as deities besides God (5:116). Jesus pleaded for them that if God punished them, they were His servants, but if He forgave them, He was mighty and Wise (5:118). 

From all the above illustrations it is clear that the divine judgment for all humanity, according to the Qur’an will be deed specific and not religion specific. That means no religion will be accorded any preference before God as He is the fountain-head of all religions which He evolved over time, each specific to an era and culminated his scheme of guiding humanity in the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad which merely acknowledges all past scriptures, recaptures what was lost of them over time and preserves the eternal message of God, Thus, the Muslims may argue that this amounts to Islam commanding a higher position over other scriptures. But the Qur’an corrects such misconception and asks humanity to believe in all the prophets and previously revealed scriptures, and to make no distinction between any of the Prophets (4:152), 3

“As for those who believe in God and His messengers, and do not make a distinction between any of them – it is they who will be given their rewards, for God is Most Forgiving and Merciful” (4:152).

Thus, the Qur’an does not rank the Prophet or His scriptures. In fact such rankings would have militated against the Qur’anic pluralism and based on common divine code to all humanity:

“O People! We have created you as male and female, and made you into races and communities* for you to get to know each other. The noblest among you near God are those of you who are the most heedful (Atqakum). Indeed God is All-Knowing and Informed” (49:13).

Hence, as expounded in a recently authenticated exegetic work, the Qur’an espouses “a universal brotherhood of humanity that will allow people of diverse faith, culture, colour and language to live together, to know each other and assist each other, to make life easy and peaceful for all human beings” [2]. To put it in the wake of rising claims of religious supremacy among the sibling religions, it is time to recognize and declare that “Human beings are equal, have the same Rights, the human race is one, we are all brothers.” At the same time, by a UN resolution all hatred inspiring theological materials, must be regarded as era specific or human machination and must not be used to promote religious supremacism, rivalry, hatred or bigotry.

1.       Kenneth Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, One world Publication, England 1994, The Sense of History, p. 177]

2.       The Hindus are not ‘the Mushrikin’ mentioned in the Qur’an

http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamDialogue_1.aspx?ArticleID=5655

3.       Essential Message of Islam, posted on this website, Chap. 9.7.

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. KhaledAbou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-pluralism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/human-beings-are-equal,-have-the-same-rights,-the-human-race-is-one,-and-we-are-all-brothers-–-global-call-for-improving-inter-faith-relations-and-combating-religious-supremacism-and-bigotry/d/104737

Political Ferment in the Muslim World

By Shahid Javed Burki

September 28, 2015

The world of Islam is not a homogenous place, not even in the way religion is practised in its many parts. To better comprehend the phenomenon of the rise of militant Islam in the Middle East and parts of South Asia, the Muslim world should be divided into several constituent parts.

The total world Muslim population is estimated at 1.6 billion, of which only 400 million live in Arab countries. The rest are in Central Asia, South Asia and East Asia. The differences among these separate groups of people are not just in the way religion is followed. There are also important differences in the state of political, social and economic development. The Middle East is the most backward Muslim region in terms of the development of political structures and social values. Its underdevelopment can be attributed to the fact that for centuries, it stayed under colonial rule — first the Ottomans and then Western Europe. When colonial powers withdrew, they left the reins of government in the hands of a small elite, mostly belonging to the military.

There are, at this time, five raging civil wars in Muslim countries. The worst of these is in Syria followed by the one in Yemen. Several competing groups in Libya are fighting it out among themselves for controlling the state. Iraq, unhinged by America’s 2003 invasion of the country, has, at its hand, a sectarian conflict of huge proportions. Most serious analysts have concluded that notwithstanding 14 years of efforts to build an Afghan nation out of so many disparate parts, Kabul is nowhere near bringing several powerful warlords under its control. Not only that, the Afghan Taliban continue to harass the Afghan Army, whose mobilisation and training cost tens of billions of dollars to the United States.

Four years ago, when the student-led middle class revolt in Egypt threw out the long-enduring authoritarian regime headed by Hosni Mubarak, there was hope that the Arab Spring of 2011 would bring democracy into the Arab world’s most populous country.

But that did not happen. In this sorry state of affairs, a few Muslim countries in the western part of the world of Islam seem to be making political progress. They, in alphabetical order, are Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey. To a varying extent, they have succeeded in dealing with the problems that have kept back the political development of Muslim nations. In all three, elections have led to peaceful and orderly transition from one set of rulers to another.

Both Bangladesh and Turkey have made notable advancement in keeping the men in uniform out of politics. In Pakistan, the military, while accepting civilian authority in most areas, has retained the ‘right’ to provide guidance in matters pertaining to national security. Bangladesh has made progress in keeping religion out of politics; so has Pakistan, but to a lesser extent. In Turkey, one of the most secular states in the non-Arab part of the Muslim world, has slipped back towards politics tinged with religion. Again, Bangladesh has made the most noticeable progress in dealing with minorities. This is neither the case in Pakistan nor in Turkey.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 persuaded several scholars to conclude that mankind had found, in liberal democracy, the most suitable way of being governed. But voters the world over are losing faith in democratic institutions. As Robert Foa and Yascha Monuk point out in a recent article, “rising income inequality has transformed the views of the rich more radically than those of the poor. In egalitarian societies, elites identify with the middle class, and believe that uncorrupted democratic institutions serve their economic interests. In oligarchic societies, economic elites share few material interests with ordinary people and have much to lose from policies that improve their lot.”

This view is not simply academic conjecture. It is supported by surveys. For instance, World Values Survey, which studies representative samples of citizens in almost 100 countries found erosion of support for democracy, especially among those born after the Second World War and among these, especially those born after 1980. Only a little over half of Americans born in the post-war boom gave maximum importance to living in a democracy. Among those born since the 1980s when economic inequality became an important feature of the political landscape, less than 30 per cent did.

In the days of social media, ideas travel fast and over long distances. Behind the Arab Spring of 2011 were millions of young people who had bought into ‘the end of history’ type of arguments. They were able to bring about revolutionary change in several Middle Eastern nations, but that change persevered in only one country — Tunisia. In the remaining, the collapse of authoritarian rulers was either reversed (Egypt) or led to civil wars (Libya, Yemen and Syria). The youth are alienated and disgruntled again, and are picking up the questioning of democracy as the preferred system of governance. They are looking for alternatives: among them is Islamic extremism.

Source: tribune.com.pk/story/963371/political-ferment-in-the-muslim-world/

URL: http://newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/shahid-javed-burki/political-ferment-in-the-muslim-world/d/104730

Weed Out LeT and Its Sponsors to Boost India-Pakistan Ties

By Shishir Gupta

Sep 27, 2015

Security forces during a terrorist attack on a convoy of Border Security Force (BSF) on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway in Udhampur district of Jammu and Kashmir. (PTI?File Photo)

During a meeting in New Delhi this month, the United Arab Emirates’ minister for foreign affairs, Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, surprised the Indian side when he linked the birth of global terrorism to three cataclysmic events in 1979: The erstwhile Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan; the overthrow of Shah of Iran Reza Shah Pahlavi by cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; and the siege of the Holy Mecca shrine by ultra-orthodox Islamists known as Juhayman’s Ikhwan led by Juhayman al-Otaybi.

The rise of Shia Iran led to Saudi Arabia taking over the leadership mantle of Sunni Islam and the post-siege purges by Riyadh pushed Islamists into armed confrontation with the erstwhile Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the backing of the United States and its proxy, Pakistan. The siege of Mecca assumes significance in the context of the Indian subcontinent. In his recent book, Call for Transnational Jihad, the US-based Pakistani senior journalist Arif Jamal has correctly linked the leader of the siege, Juhayman al-Otaybi, and his fellow practitioners of Salafism to the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

According to Jamal, some of the Juhayman’s Ikhwan — Syed Allama Badiuddin Shah Rashdi, Hamid Mohammed Bahaziq, Mahmood Bahaziq, Hassan As-Sareehi, Ahmad Saad al-Ghamdi and their Pakistani followers — established the Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI) in 1987.

The MDI was renamed the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) in 2001; the LeT is the armed wing of the JuD. Clearly identifying the LeT as a global jihad group from the days when its operational commander and 26/11 Mumbai attack main accused Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi fought the Red Army in Afghanistan, Jamal writes that the JuD and later al-Qaeda are the remnants of the Juhayman ideology.

The author then goes on to add that the JuD, led by Hafiz Saeed, a designated terrorist, has ensured that the LeT focuses on anti-Indian operations, while his brother-in-law Abdul Rehman Makki, who heads the ‘department of foreign affairs’ in the outfit, aims to bring the rest of the world under Islam through jihad.

The terror attacks in November 2008 in Mumbai and the recent ones in Gurdaspur in Punjab and Udhampur in Jammu and Kashmir prove that the LeT has the support of the Pakistan army when it comes to planning, training and logistics. This support ensures that the relationship between Islamabad and New Delhi is permanently on the boil. The Salafi terrorist group, according to Jamal, has had serious differences with groups like Harkat-ul-Ansar owing to its ideological affiliation to the Deoband school of thought since 1979.

This rivalry between the two continues with the LeT acting as a bulwark in Pakistani Punjab against the Deobandi Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) which are targeting the rule and rulers of Islamabad.

Saeed’s men have a presence in Kunar, Nuristan and Nangarhar provinces of Afghanistan and they have targeted both Indian and Nato assets in that country together with the Haqqani network under the guidance of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The terror group has a global footprint — the US, Europe, West Asia and Indian Ocean littoral states — far beyond the Kashmir valley.

While terrorism will be one of the main topics of discussion between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama today, it is high time that both countries defanged the LeT and its sponsors if they want to restore normalcy between India and Pakistan and minimise the threats of accidental flare-up along the border.

There is also an urgent need to revive the national security adviser (NSA)-level talks on terrorism as those opposed to normal relations between the two neighbours are using terrorists to escalate the war of words between the two.

From the first recorded terror attack outside Kashmir in Himachal Pradesh in 1998, the LeT is now actively involved in targeting Indian interests in Afghanistan under the direction of Muridke-based Abdullah Mujahid and Kunar-based Khatlib Shafiq.

The first attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008, was traced by the US intelligence to the ISI with Haqqani network as the cat’s paw. The February 26, 2010, attack on guesthouses in Kabul, which left nine Indians dead, was carried out by the LeT, according to the Afghan intelligence sleuths. The same group was responsible for the suicide attack on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad on August 3, 2013, and then again in May 23, 2014, attack on Indian consulate in Herat.

The last attack happened days before Modi was sworn in as India’s prime minister on May 26, 2014. While Saeed has now become a TV celebrity of sorts in Pakistan with his standard anti-Indian vitriol, it does not take away from the fact that the emir of the LeT still has a $10-million bounty on his head with another $2 million on his brother-in-law Makki for heading one of the most lethal terror groups in the world.

The bounty on Saeed and Makki was declared by US State official Wendy Sherman in April 2012. When Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif pays a bilateral visit to Washington on October 22, Obama should question him on the rise and rise of the LeT and impress upon him on the threat the group poses to India-Pakistan relations and the world.

America has a stake in the war against the LeT as terror modules of the group were unearthed in the US in 2003 and six of its nationals were killed during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. With India in no mood to relent on either Kashmir or the Hurriyat, the presence of non-State players could strengthen the hands of those favouring unexpected retaliation in the case of another LeT attack.

Source: hindustantimes.com/analysis/weed-out-let-and-its-sponsors-to-normalise-indo-pak-ties/story-N6KFLGW88PDjyDzUoDIPIK.html

URL: http://newageislam.com/current-affairs/shishir-gupta/weed-out-let-and-its-sponsors-to-boost-india-pakistan-ties/d/104734

Muslim Cosmopolitanism In The Age Of Empire

 By Dr Asiya Alam

Sunday, 27 September 2015

Seema Alavi's narrative is about the little known stories of five Islamic men of learning who played key roles in the 1857 rebellion against the British, fled India and made their way to west Asia, notes Dr Asiya Alam

Cosmopolitanism

Book: Muslim Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Empire

Author: Seema Alavi

Publisher: Harvard University Press

Pages: 504

Price: Rs 495

In Muslim Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Empire, Seema Alavi makes an admirable and successful attempt to rethink some key assumptions of South Asian and global history. Specifically, the book inserts into history five important Muslim men of religion, including Sayyid Fadl, Rahmatullah Kairanwi, Haji Imdadullah Makki, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan and Maulana Jafer Thanesri, who were hounded by the British government for their role in 1857 and fled India to seek their fortunes in different cities of the Ottoman Empire.

Alavi's broader aim is to challenge the paradigms of empire-based, global history. The "contours of global history need to be redrawn at the porous intersection of the British and Ottoman Empires" she argues. By focusing on Indian Muslims instead of Britons as key players, she offers new insights into the understanding of imperialism. Located at the cusp of British and Ottoman empires, these men became significant actors in trans-Asia politics of the 19th century involving the British, Arab polities, Ottomans and the Russian Empire.

Alavi skilfully demonstrates how Mughal pathways of trade and Sufi networks along with later British and Ottoman imperial connections and technological innovations in print, communications and shipping enabled these men to flee in the aftermath of 1857 and travel across the Indian Ocean.

To contextualise the lives of these five men, Alavi hypothesizes the emergence of a 'Muslim cosmopolis' in the 19th century, characterized by an intellectual sensibility as well as global networks that allowed these men to navigate imperial boundaries. The cosmopolitan sensibility constituted the eclecticism and compromised of Delhi Naqshbandi Sufi Shah Waliullah reflecting the social diversity of India; proficiency in Arabic, Persian and Urdu that aided these men to access both Indo-Persian society and Middle Eastern Arabic world; and support for Ottoman reforms that advocated ideas of science, reason and rationality. Alavi writes that the Muslim cosmopolis provided a 'perfect global canvas' for Ottoman Caliph Abd-al Hamid II to execute his reforms. Muslim emigres, in turn, brought back their cosmopolitanism to India, creating global interconnectedness between Middle-Eastern and South Asian societies.

Alavi also adds new discoveries to South Asian history. The multilingualism of these religious scholars isn't accidental but an outcome of the Arabicist cultural and intellectual grid that emerged in South Asia in the late 18th and early 19th century. Exemplified by Shah Waliullah, Alavi argues it was based on compromise between the "more liberal Sufi saint Ibn-i Arabi and the conservative Naqshbandi Sufi sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi" which "produced an India-specific Arabic tradition with its stress on the individual, scriptures and social leveling" so that "religious knowledge was slowly disembodied from its hitherto inaccessible encasings: the person of the king, the body of the Sufi saint and single-copy Persian manuscripts". Alavi attributes this gradual transition to the larger Mughal crisis, its disintegration in the late 18th century.

After laying out this rich, historical backdrop, Alavi foregrounds the individual, devoting a separate chapter to each of the five men, who have their own brand of Muslim cosmopolitanism. The life of Sayyid Fadl highlights the large presence of Arabs — immigrant and Deccan born — in Hyderabad, and signifies ethnic ambiguity and territorial connections of the 'Indian Arab', a category coined by the British. Rahmatullah Kairanwi's life suggests a concern with cosmopolitan education. He started a madrasa in Mecca to combine religious and scientific learning offering a critique of the intellectual environment of the Hijaz that would later become a model for the Deoband seminary.

Haji Imdadullah Makki's career suggests a vibrant culture of Muslim cosmopolitanism in Mecca, blending different Sufi orders, Naqshbandi reformism and a middle ground on religious issues. Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan was based in Bhopal and his political career and publications indicate his use of imperial networks and print technologies to further his ideas and connections with the Ottoman world.

Finally, Maulana Jafer Thanesri's writings highlight a notion of 'mulk' or 'felt community' and his ideas of 'Hind' produced a proto-nationalist critique of British discrimination. In each of these lives, Alavi questions a pan-Islamic approach and repeatedly shows that they weren't only motivated by religion but operated within imperial rivalries and opportunistically pushed their careers, ambitions and desires.

This excellent book subverts dominant frameworks of our past and should be necessary reading for anyone interested in South Asian and global history.

(Dr Asiya Alam is an Islamic Studies scholar at Nirmala Niketan College.)

Source: dnaindia.com/lifestyle/review-book-review-muslim-cosmopolitanism-in-the-age-of-empire-by-seema-alavi-2129007

URL: http://newageislam.com/books-and-documents/dr-asiya-alam/book-review--muslim-cosmopolitanism-in-the-age-of-empire-by-seema-alavi/d/104735

Life And Love Of Sufis

By Raziuddin Aquil

Monday, August 24, 2015

gaah sufi gah qalandar chist

chun qalandar shawi qalandar baash

(Sometimes a Sufi, sometimes a Qalandar, what is this?

If you are becoming a Qalandar, remain a Qalandar!)

Like everyone else, medieval Indian Sufis also struggled with questions of identity and some of the big names chose to defy easy classifications. Sufis were organized into chains of lineages or silsilas – Chishti/Suhrawardi/Firdausi/Shattari/Qadiri/Naqshbandi – to name just a few, with distinguishing markers and traditions of each of them, which often tended to converge, besides the bigger and more dominating orders occasionally subsuming smaller and weaker ones; alternatively, smaller sub-branches moving on their own trajectories away from the main lineages, so Chishti-Nizami and Chishti-Sabiri, for instance.

As a lesson from the execution of Mansur Hallaj for claiming he epitomized the truth, or truth personified (anal haqq), and only a loud-mouthed person could make such claims in public, Sufis needed to steer clear of the political wrangling; and, some historians have shown Hallaj was killed for backing a wrong candidate for the caliph; his utterances were only used as a pretext. Therefore, the sane advice to the Sufis was to keep their mystical practices and spiritual experiences to themselves as personal secrets, but they would often spill the beans, as it were, or kashf-ul-asrar (revelation of the secrets) as they would like to put it.

Further, Sufis cannot be easily boxed into sectarian and political Shia/Sunni binary, nor can they be trapped in narrower and juristical Hanafi/Shafi’i struggle. And, the sharp line between shari’at (Islamic law) and tariqat (mystical path) cannot be sustained beyond a point either, for Sufis considered tariqat as the soul of the body called shari’at; or, as Delhi’s foremost Sufi, Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya, put it, shari’at cannot be abandoned altogether, because if you fall from tariqat, you fall into shari’at, and if you fall from shari’at, where will you go, except in the burning cauldrons of Hell?

Some of the leading Sufis were first rate ulama (plural of alim) to start with and they struggled to maintain a balance between the path of the shari’at, of strict conformity to the principles of Islam as interpreted by the jurists, and of tariqat, lost in love for God as generations of mystically inclined fine souls did. Thus, while some Chishtis were misunderstood as deviating too much from the straight path of Islam, some Naqshbandis were accused of acting less as broad-minded Sufis and more as champions of orthodoxy and fanaticism.

Following the mystic path, Sufis were supposed to have renounced the world in their love for God, but they were expected to live with the people and endure difficulties caused by them, not running away to lead a lonely life of an ascetic. As Hazrat Nizamuddin put it, Sufism is not about wearing a langota, or a loin-cloth, and running away to meditate in the jungle. But the ambiguity will remain, as for example, marriage is a recommended practice in Islam, but many of Sufis would remain bachelor, mujarrad, for they believed responsibilities of a married life come in the way of love and devotion to God.

Despite the occasional rise of extraordinary figures like Rabiya Basri, Sufism is supposed to be an exercise in manliness, or mardangi, sacrificing everything as a mad Majnun would do for his lovely Laila, but then stark male/female distinction would often be defied by some Sufis with homo-erotic orientation. Also, Sufis tended to avoid the company of women to generally keep clear of any khatra (danger) or tuhmat (accusation of sexual misdemeanor from the point of view of patriarchy of the khap variety), but they would sometime get involved in somewhat embarrassing associations with clean-shaven and fun-loving Qalandar boys, perhaps queered!

As the Sufis would like to put it, the ma’mla (transaction or relation) between Sufis and God and between Sufis and His creations are personal to them, and it is inappropriate to accuse the Sufis of indulging in any inappropriate activities; they were accountable to God for their actions, they feared and loved Him, and they were preparing all the time to submit to His judgment. Why create difficulties for people devoted to the love of God?

Source: thecitizen.in/NewsDetail.aspx?Id=4877&Life/And/Love/Of/Sufis

URL: http://newageislam.com/islamic-society/raziuddin-aquil/life-and-love-of-sufis/d/104732

Malala Yousafzai’s Fight Continues

 By Nicholas Kristof

SEPT. 26, 2015

WHEN the deputy head mistress pulled Malala Yousafzai out of high school chemistry class one morning a year ago, Malala nervously searched her mind for recent offenses.

“You usually get a bit scared if your head teacher comes, because you think you are being caught doing something,” Malala recalled. “But she told me: ‘I need to tell you something. You have won the Nobel Peace Prize.’ ”

After a brief celebration, Malala returned to class for the rest of the school day; as the world’s news organizations clamored for interviews, she wrestled with physics. She’s a champion of girls’ education worldwide, she explains, and that must include her own.

Malala, now a high school junior, was in New York this past week to address the United Nations, attend the premiere of a full-length documentary movie about her life and hound world leaders to pay attention to girls’ education.

She hopes the movie, “He Named Me Malala,” will galvanize a push to provide 12 years of quality education to all children worldwide.

The movie relates Malala’s extraordinary story: How she grew up in rural Pakistan, became an advocate for girls’ education and spoke out against the Taliban. Then when she was 15 years old, Taliban gunmen retaliated: They stopped her school bus and shot her in the head.

As she hovered between life and death, supporters held candlelight vigils, and a plane rushed her to a hospital in Birmingham, England, that specializes in brain injuries. Today the left side of her face is still partly paralyzed, and she is somewhat deaf in that ear, but she’s as outspoken as ever. And the Taliban is still determined to kill her, so she and her family remain in Birmingham.

The movie offers a revealing portrait of a global icon — who’s also a teenager giggling about sports heroes, worrying about acceptance by peers and rolling her eyes at siblings.

“People think she is, like, very kind, and she speaks for people’s rights,” her younger brother Khushal grumbles at the breakfast table, needling her. “But that’s not true, I think. At home she is so violent!”

Malala squeals with outrage. “I’m not violent!”

It’s clearly awkward to be a teenager and have your sibling rivalries, your skirt length (long) and your boyfriend history (none) explored on the big screen, along with your painstaking physical therapy to recover from brain damage. But Malala embraces the film as a way to highlight the transformative power of education.

Her own mother is deeply conservative — she has discouraged Malala from shaking hands with men or looking them in the eye — but is moderating her views and now also learning to read for the first time. The mother also takes the global fuss about her daughter in stride, and has no problem ordering a Nobel laureate to clean up her room.

Malala’s main message is that all children should get 12 years of free, safe, quality education, and that girls are too often left behind. Some 63 million girls between the age of 6 and 15 are not in school.

Millions of others attend but sit in classes of 100 students, taught in a language they don’t understand, without so much as a pencil, and learn nothing. Teachers often don’t show up (the big truancy problem in the developing world is with teachers), and when teachers do show up, they sometimes prey on girls.

A 2007 U.N. study in Pakistan found that 24 percent of primary schools don’t have any textbooks for students, and 46 percent lack desks for them.

Yet education is still the best hope to transform countries as well as individuals. Malala’s father, Ziauddin, told me that when he was a teenager he was brainwashed into praying for war between Muslims and non-Muslims, hoping to become a martyr. The antidote to such extremism, he says, is education.

Malala is determined not to be used as window dressing by world leaders, and her advice to presidents and prime ministers is to focus not on elementary school or middle school but on 12 full years of education. “Your dreams were too small,” she tells U.N. members. “Your achievements are too small. Now it is time that you dream bigger.”

She scolded Nigeria’s president at the time for not helping girls abducted by Boko Haram. She told President Obama at the White House that drones were counterproductive and that he should invest in education. Just eight days of global military spending, she notes, would pay to get all remaining kids in school worldwide.

“No world leader would want nine years of education for their children,” she told me. “Every world leader wants quality education for their children. They need to think of the rest of the world’s children as their own children.”

Source: http://goo.gl/OP6crt

URL: http://newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/nicholas-kristof/malala-yousafzai%E2%80%99s-fight-continues/d/104731

Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam Must Discover على الهندوس والبوذيين والمسلمين اكتشاف التكافل الروحي من أجل إقامة البيئة السلمية العالمية

سلطان شاهين، المحرر لنيو إيج إسلام

28 سبتمر عام 2015

المبادرة العالمية التي افتتحها مؤخرا رئيس الوزراء الهندي نارندرا مودي و ورئيس الوزراء الياباني شينزو آبي بين الهندوس والبوذية (من خلال الفيديو) تركز على مواجهة المد المتصاعد من العنف الذي يهدد النظام العالمي من قبل "بناء الهندسة المعمارية الفكرية غير الرسمية والجغرافية السياسية في الاستئناف، والتأثير، وإقناع و هدأ قوى العنف". ومن أجل كشف أسباب الصراع الناجم عن أيديولوجيات العنف، ومنع تصاعد العنف، فإن ورقة المفهوم المرسومة جيدا للمؤتمر اقترحت "دراسات مكثفة عن مصادر ودوافع العنف".

هذه مهمة عاجلة. ورغم أن العنف يمكن أن يصدر من أشخاص يعتنقون عقائد أخرى، فإننا في الوقت الحاضر نواجه الإرهاب إلى حد كبير من ممارسي شكل حقير من المتطرفين بإسم الإسلام. الإسلام هو مشتق من دين الإسلام، الذي يعني السلام في الاسم ذاته. الإسلام في حد ذاته يعني السلام، على الرغم من أن ممارسيه يمارسون العنف الدفاعي والهجومي، في نقاط مختلفة في التاريخ الإسلامي. وخلافا لتوجيهات صريحة في القرآن الكريم، وقد اتخذ بعض المسلمين على عاتقهم مهمة فرض الإسلام على العالم من خلال وسائل عنيفة. وهذا ما يسمى الجماعة الاسلاموية وعقيدتهم الإسلاموية.

كانت الإسلاموية حاضرة في الإسلام تقريبا من البداية. بعد عقود من وفاة النبي محمد عليه الصلوة والسلام فإن المسلمين، السنة والشيعة كليهما، حاربوا مع الإسلامويين، وضحوا بحياتهم في أعداد كبيرة، وأطلقوا عليهم تسمية الخوارج أي الخوارج من الإسلام. معظم المسلمين يقولون إن الإسلامويين اليوم هم الخوارج الجدد. و في شكل واحد أو آخر فإن الخوارج الجدد أو الإسلامويين هم تطوروا بإسم الإسلام طوال تاريخه. وسيطروا حتى لفترات وجيزة. اليوم هم في موقف قوي جدا. مع عشرات المليارات من الدولارات التي تنفق سنويا على نشر أيديولوجية الخوارج الجدد على مدى العقود الأربعة الماضية، فقد أدركت الإسلاموية خيال أعداد كبيرة من المسلمين في جميع أنحاء العالم. إنها ليست إنجازا متوسطا لهذه الأيدولوجية غير الإسلامية أن جيشا من الفدائيين، مستعدون للتضحية بحياتهم، ويصبحون متاحين داخل المجتمع الإسلامي اليوم، أينما ومتى تحتاج مجموعة من الإسلامويين إلهيم. وبالتأكيد فإن غابية عظمى من المسلمين لم يكونوا عنيفين ولكن فكرة فرض السيطرة على الأرض هي الأمر الذي يؤدي إلى العنف وقد اكتسب الكثير من الجر في العقود الأخيرة.

العوامل الرئيسية التي أدت إلى الفاشية واضحة في سلوك الإسلامويين اليوم هو تفردهم وكراهيتهم للأجانب، الاعتقاد في التفوق الديني. في حين أن القرآن يعلمنا أن الله أرسل أنبياء كثيرين ( يذكر في الحديث النبوي أن عدد الأنبياء عليهم الصلوات والسلام هو 124 الف نبي)، وأن ليس لهم أي فرق فو كونهم رسولا. أما الإسلامويون فهم يؤمنون في حصرية تفسيرهم الطائفي أن الإسلام هو الدين الصحيح الوحيد. في الواقع العديد من العلماء بما في ذلك أولئك الذين يعملون في الحوار بين الأديان، والذين لهم سمعة الاعتدال، يدعون أن الإسلام وحده هو دين عالمي. على سبيل المثال، قال إمام المركز الثقافي الإسلامي في نيويورك، الشيخ شمسي علي، إن "وسيدنا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم جاء لخدمة الإنسانية. وجاء جميع الأنبياء الآخرين لخدمة شعوبهم فقط. والاسلام هو دين عالمي للبشرية جمعاء".

والترياق للتفرد والتفوق الذي يوجد بين المواقف المتطرفة هو أن مبادرة الهندوسية والبوذية تقترح وتختبر. وقد تم بالفعل جربت في الماضي وكانت النتائج جيدة جدا. وصلح الكل، فلسفة الصوفية التي كانت اعتمدت أيضا الإمبراطور الهندي للملك أكبر أو موجودا في كتاب الاوبنيشد الذي كان أيضا وربما كتب في عهد أكبر. وكان ذالك على وجه التحديد نتيجة لما وضعت ورقة المفهوم بأنه "ديناميكية تلاقح" و "قبول الرأي الآخر". قيم الهندوس والبوذيين، جنبا إلى جنب مع الفلسفات والأديان الأخرى، قد لعبت دورا رئيسيا في هذه الدينامية الملاقحة.

قد عاش الهندوسيون والبوذيون مع المسلمين عبر ما يزيد عن أربعة عشر قرنا، منذ بداية الإسلام.  بدءا من مصطلحي دارما والدين، ومع التأكيد على وحدانية الله سبحانه وتعالى ، فإن رؤية النظام الأخلاقي السائد في الكون شيء مشترك بين المسلمين والهندوسيين. كلا منهما يبلغنا عن وكالات الكونية التي تحفظ حساب جميع أعمالنا التي سوف نكون مسؤولين عنها. ويتحدث كل منهما عن الحياة بعد الموت. الاعتقاد الهندوسي في التناسخ هو معروف. ولكن ليس من المعلوم جدا أن القرآن يكفر شخصا لا يؤمن بإمكانية الخلق بعد الموت. العديد من الآيات في كتابات الصوفي العظيم، جلال الدين السيوطي عليه الرحمة تصف عملية التطور من خلال التناسخ - من المعادن والنبات إلى الحيوان والإنسان ومن ثم إلى فطرة الملاك وخارجها.

والصوفي العظيم الآخر منصور الحلاج المعروف بقول "أنا الحق" كتب:

"مثل الكلأ لقد انتشرت مرارا وتكرارا

على ضفاف الأنهار المتدفقة.

لمئة ألف سنة،

 لقد عشت وعملت في كل نوع من الجسم".

بينما تصورهم الفكري للبشرية مختلف لأسباب مفهومة، كل من الكتب الإسلامية والهندوسية تعطي أعلى قيمة للاستخبارات، والعقل. وتركيز القرآن المتكرر على العقل والتعليم معروف جدا. فلا عجب أن ظهور الإسلام قد جاء بفترة من الإنجازات الفكرية والعلمية الكبيرة التي لعبت دورا أساسيا جزئيا على الأقل في دفع الأوروبيين من العصور المظلمة إلى التنوير.

يعتبر استخدام العقل من المبادئ العشرة للدارما الهندوسي أيضا. أعظم العبادة في كتاب الفيدا يشجع على استخدام العقل. وتدعو حتى تعويذة غاياتري إلى "توجيه سديد لعقولنا". وفي يوغافاسستا حكيم المهيب فاسستا يحض شري رام  "لتجاهل اللاعقلانية حتى لو جاءت من الخالق نفسه." لا عجب أن الهندوسين القدماء أدوا العالم في ما يقرب من جميع تخصصات المسعى العلمي والفني لعدة آلاف من السنين.

وشبهت الهندوسية إلى اسفنجة واسعة، مع استيعاب كل ما في وسعها. من حيث الدارما القديم يجب أن تعمل من أجل البقاء في العصر الحديث. الفيدا تسبق الخلق. هذا ما يؤكده الكتاب المقدس: "في البدء كانت الكلمة": جون: 1: 1-4). الإسلام يأمر أتباعه  بأن يصدقوا وتعلموا من جميع الأنبياء السابقين. ولا نجد في القرآن مناقشة تفصيلية حول وحدانية الله تعالى. فإنه لا يعلم تقنيات التأمل في الله، على الرغم من أنها العناصر الحيوية للصلاة. ليست هناك حاجة. كتبنا الهندوسية أي آدي غرانت، كانت قد فعلت في وقت سابق من ذلك بكثير. فلسفاتنا مدحية، لا متناقضة. التعايش الروحي حقيقة واضحة. التزام الهندوسية المطلق بالتعددية، على سبيل المثال، يمكن دعم سلالات التعددية في الفكر الإسلامي.

وبالمثل هناك مفاهيم متطابقة تقريبا في البوذية والإسلام يمكن أن تكون بمثابة أدوات لإجراء حوار مثمر بين الأديان. المفهوم الاسلامي للإنسان الكامل ومفهوم بوذي المعروف ببوديساتفا، على سبيل المثال، أو المهاتما بوذا المسعي للتنوير. ويقال إن الإشارة إلى شجرة التين في القرآن (95:1) يشير في الواقع إلى نبوة بوذا كما حصل بوذا على النيرفانا (التنوير) تحت شجرة التين البري، الأمر الذي لا يظهر في قصة حياة أي نبي آخر.

مفهوم المساءلة النهائية والتركيز على العمل الصالح في كل الديانات الثلاث. والبوذية والإسلام يجعلانه مقال الايمان. وتوجد الحقائق النبيلة للبوذية في الإسلام أيضا. بالتأكيد فإن فكرة المكافأة لكل عمل صالح  ومواجهة العقوبة على كل عمل سيئة هي حجر الزاوية في البوذية والإسلام و الهندوسية.

ويتم مناقشة تأثير البوذية وتقاليد الهندوسية والصوفية. في الواقع كما يذكر أن تطوير الزهد أو التقليد النسكي في الإسلام يعود كليا إلى التلقيح بين الثقافات، مع تأثير الأديرة المسيحية وكذلك الهندوسية والبوذية من رحلات بوذا نفسه. ويقال إن العديد من الصوفية مستوحون من رحلات بوذا في البحث عن الحقيقة كما أن الناس مستوحون من عمل النبي محمد (صلى الله عليه وسلم) في غار حراء، بالقرب من مكة المكرمة، لمدة أسابيع على نهاية.

يمكن للمرء أن لا يكون في شك، أن مفهوم المبادرة العالمية للهندوس والبوذيين على تجنب الصراعات والوعي البيئي هو فكرة مستوحاة قد حان وقتها، نظرا إلى التهديد المتزايد للسلام العالمي من حفنة من الإسلامويين المضللين. في المقام الأول فإنه مهمة المسلمين لمواجهة هذا النمو السرطاني في الجسم السياسي للإسلام، ولكن المساعدة من الثقافات الأخرى هي موضع الترحيب تماما.

ولم يكن من الممكن الحديث عن البيئة في الحيز المتاح، ولكن ما هو صحيح حول تجنب الصراع ينطبق أيضا على الوعي البيئي، على الرغم من أن المرء يضطر إلى طلب المساعدة خاصة في هذا الصدد من علم كونيات جاين وتيرثانكارس أيضا.

URL  for English:  http://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/sultan-shahin,-editor,-new-age-islam/hinduism,-buddhism-and-islam-must-discover-their-spiritual-symbiosis-for-a-conflict-free,-environment-conscious-world/d/104577

URL for this article: http://www.newageislam.com/arabic-section/sultan-shahin,-editor,-new-age-islam/hinduism,-buddhism-and-islam-must-discover---على-الهندوس-والبوذيين-والمسلمين-اكتشاف-التكافل-الروحي-من-أجل-إقامة-البيئة-السلمية-العالمية/d/104728

Mecca Belongs To All Muslims, and Saudi Arabia Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Run It

By Haroon Moghul

September 25, 2015

Petroleum and the Pilgrimage

The two combined give Saudi Arabia the chance to punch well above its weight, affording one of the world’s most regressive regimes the chance to exercise an outrageous influence on Islam. It’s time to think of alternative arrangements.

It might seem obvious to you why Saudi Arabia is bad for Islam. Because the House of Saud controls Mecca, the direction of Muslim prayer and location of the hajj pilgrimage, and Medina, where the Prophet Mohammed built the first Muslim society, died and is buried, the Kingdom is linked to Islam. And vice versa. Though there is only one Muslim-majority country in the world where women can’t drive, because it is the country that rules over Islam’s holy land, it is assumed that Islam does not want women to drive. Because it is one of the few Muslim-majority countries that suffers an absolute monarchy, it is presumed Islam prefers unaccountable government too.

In so many ways, Saudi Arabia stains the reputation of Islam. But Saudi Arabia has another kind of influence on Islam. Every year, millions of pilgrims descend on Mecca to circumambulate the Ka’ba; the cubical shrine we believe was built by Abraham to honour God, and restored by Mohammed to His worship. Many are from poor countries, and are visibly bedazzled by Saudi conspicuous consumption, the magnificence of the wealth on display, the awesomeness and indescribable hugeness of the great mosques that have been constructed to accommodate their numbers.

I know how many feel. God has given the Saudis money beyond measure, and power over His holy land; this must mean God approves of their Islam.

And what an Islam it is. The official Saudi interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, was born in violent revolt not only against Shi’a Islam, and the strong traditions of spirituality embedded in Shi’a and Sunni Islam, but even against the Sunni Ottoman caliph. Far from being the world’s leading Sunni power, Saudi Arabia has usurped the mantle of Sunni Islam, helped in its power projection by its small population, great wealth, and the collapse of its erstwhile rivals. (The Ottomans, after all, are long gone.) Saudi Arabia uses oil money to push its Wahhabism onto the Muslim world, and to change Mecca and Medina too.

In recent decades, the Saudis have rebuilt much of Mecca and Medina. Some of this has been necessary. Some of this has been very good. But some of it has come at a great cost to Islam’s dearest relics, monuments and oldest mosques, which have been bulldozed without the least concern.

To be fair, some of the criticism levelled at Saudi Arabia for these urban transformations is unreasonable. Think about it this way: Thanks to modern technology, and rising standards of living, millions of people not only want to go to Mecca, but can afford to. It’s no longer a journey of months, but of days, even hours. They speak different languages, represent different customs, and all want to not only worship in the same mosque, but get to the Ka’ba at the centre of it. While it is nice to imagine Mecca and Medina could retain the features and architecture of old cities, it is also fanciful. When you are dealing with traffic flow in the hundreds of thousands, slippery stones and narrow alleys aren’t just problematic.

They Can Be Deadly.

Too, skyscrapers might ruin the alleged vibe of an ancient city, but as every modern urbanist knows, building up is often the only realistic option. So it’s not surprising, or terrible, that Saudi Arabia has built the world’s third-tallest skyscraper right outside the Great Mosque of Mecca. But the bigger question is: Why is it the first-ugliest building in the world? In an age of cell phones and, God help us, a religion that features a regular call to prayer, what is the purpose of attaching a gaudy clock to the top? The biggest question: These high towers are part of the progressive income stratification of a city dedicated to a levelling religion. We’re all equal on the pilgrimage, wearing the same robes, praying side-by-side, but then when we get to our hotels, the stratification resumes. There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim, and even worse, this money has been introduced even while sacred history is wiped away. So while, yes, the needs of modern religious life might mean old mosques, shrines and historical sites are in the way, that doesn’t demand destroying them.

Flush with Ample Funds, the Saudis Could Have Easily Rebuilt Islam’s Sacred Heritage Elsewhere.

They haven’t even tried. They appear to be going to war with Islamic history, probably so that nothing is left that might challenge the idea that Wahhabism is an intrusion into Islamic history, and not faithful to it.

There’s far too much money in Mecca, squeezing out the average pilgrim. This money has been introduced as sacred history is wiped away.

If you think the Islamic State’s war on antiquities is horrifying, you are right. But it is not exceptional. It has its roots in a perverse and excessive iconoclasm, which has seen Saudi Wahhabist mandates literally crush, demolish, smash, erase, and break down the very sites and landscapes that Muslims worldwide know so well. If you think I am exaggerating, don’t. Several years ago, I helped lead a small group of American Muslims on a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. We had a Saudi guide with us who, during our bus tour around Mecca and Medina, refused to let our driver stop at mosques of historical significance, because he thought we might cross the line and worship in a manner unbecoming of an austere and hard-headed Wahhabist. He treated us like children.

Which, of course, none of us were: Wahhabist, or children. (In revenge, I spent the ride back happily pointing out sites of Ottoman significance, while describing the House of Saud’s unseemly alliance with non-Muslim powers against their fellow Muslims.) My fellow pilgrims were incensed. They had paid, scrounged up and saved, and here they were, in their holy city, and they weren’t allowed to stop at, for example, the mosque where Mohammed was commanded by God to turn away from the first direction of prayer, Jerusalem, to the current direction of prayer, Mecca. (It matters if you’re Muslim.) They felt outraged. They felt they were denied the chance to experience their Islam because someone else had decided their interpretation of Islam mattered more.

And that is precisely the point. Mecca and Medina are ruled by Saudi Arabia, but they belong to the Muslim world. They are our collective sacredness. They shouldn’t be an individual possession. Islam is a very egalitarian religion. (As some Muslims joke, people who dislike organized religion should join Islam, because we’ve mastered disorganization.) Islam has few hierarchies, and those that exist are not widely shared. Why then does a regime which represents a sliver of Muslims, exports and enforces an ideology that is historically antithetical to Islam’s rich traditions of pluralism, spirituality and cosmopolitanism, allowed to control our holy cities? Why don’t everyday Muslims get a say?

Mecca And Medina Are Ruled By Saudi Arabia, But They Belong To The Muslim World.

This is, for the moment, a matter of conjecture. The European Union includes some of the world’s wealthiest, most progressive and secure societies. Yet before the refugee crisis, they are hopelessly divided, and their cooperation pushed backwards. If Europe now can’t do it, how can the present Muslim world manage to come to any kind of alternative arrangement, some more inclusive shared administration of its common properties? The Muslim world is deeply and badly divided; it is hard to imagine how any kind of cooperative agreement could ever be reached, and also, depressingly, not difficult to conceive of other Muslim-majority governments who would make a different kind of mess out of Mecca and Medina.

As it is, Saudi Arabia has the wealth to pour into subsidizing the pilgrimage, and Muslim piety in the Holy Land, in a way few other countries can.

But For How Long?

Years back, pilgrimage was the preserve of the lucky few. It was too far, too risky, too expensive. My own great-great-grandfather began a travelogue describing his own journey from northern India to Mecca, but he died on the return trip. Today, we have Snapchat hajj channels. Aircraft make the world much smaller. News travels fast. Muslims live all over the world. What I mean to say is, in the past, the idea that Mecca and Medina belonged to all of us was deeply felt, but at best an abstraction. In the years to come, it will be harder for Saudi Arabia to deny the desire of the world’s Muslims to see their holy cities reflect their pieties, and to cease the imposition of a view of Islam which is not only deeply alienating to the rest of the world, but deeply unpopular within the Muslim world.

How that happens is anyone’s guess. But it will happen. I’d say hell or high water, but in the case of a sacred desert, neither seems quite right. But not as wrong as what is happening to the centre of my sacred universe.

Haroon Moghul is an academic and commentator on Islam and public affairs. He is currently a PhD candidate at Columbia University.

Source: qz.com/511115/its-time-to-take-mecca-out-of-saudi-hands/

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/haroon-moghul/mecca-belongs-to-all-muslims,-and-saudi-arabia-shouldn’t-be-allowed-to-run-it/d/104727

Reflections on Annual Pilgrimage to Mecca Named as Hajj

By Rashid Samnakay, New Age Islam

26 September 2015

Muslim world is literally being bled on all fronts today. But economically and religiously it is being destroyed from within!

Economically: The Pilgrimage annually to Mecca by the millions, contribute billions of dollars to just one country, Saudi Arabia, not counting the additional all-round the year income from the lesser rituals for which many well-to-do go there now for additional spiritual reward.

The concomitant slaughter and waste of millions of animals, for commercial gains, all around the Muslim world as sacrifice to God is an immeasurable waste of animal life and drain on the poor Muslims ‘meagre resources.

The airlines ferrying pilgrims consume staggering amount of Arab oil adding further to the kingdom’s coffers.

As there is no accountability in monarchy, estimates of income vary widely as being between ten to fifteen billion dollars from these rituals to the already very rich monarchy.

All this causes huge foreign exchange loss to poor Muslim countries and on gullible individuals ‘lifesavings adding to their woes of poverty.

There is a flow-on effect though on the international commercial community.

From the West mainly: the food suppliers, cattle ranchers shipping live animals and the traders in hides and skins enjoy the bonanza. Prayer rugs, skull caps and trinkets inscribed in Arabic are merrily traded as holy items, though made in China, Japan and Korea etc.

The economic impact of this can only be commented upon by economists, by providing data and its detail analyses. But for anybody to suggest this lucrative holy “business” should be curtailed in order to eliminate a bit of third-world poverty, would be courting condemnation if not outright danger.

On Quranic basis: it calls for thoughtful investigation as the rituals are in the name of Islam: that which is derived from its source Book.

Although, the hajjis ordained for Huda Llil-Naas--for guidance of humanity and for itsFalaah-benefit (22-27, 28) it is has now a ritual restricted to Muslims only; where cleansed of all sins their passage to paradise’s assured to them. Islam has thus become a confessional religion.

Hajj- an intellectual challenge, is traditionally based on Apostle Abraham/Ibrahim’s visit to Mecca and him erecting a temple there for worshipers of God. Abraham is the spiritual father of the nation of ‘People of the Book’.

With reference to Quran therefore, which claims that there are no ambiguities in it (2-2), the whole issue of traditional hajj as practiced, is confusing and questionable on the following basis!

16-123says.…follow the ways of Abraham the true in faith, and he joined not gods with God. …For “gods” come in many different forms!

Iqbal, in his poem Laa Ilaaha-Illallaah translates this as:

‘Yeh Doar Apne Brahim Ki Talaash May Hai--Sanam-Kadah hai Jahan, Laa Ilaaha-Illallaah’

This is the age where search is on for its Abraham-- where there is a Temple of idols,Laa Ilaaha-Illallaah!

The following few verses are of interest. It needs scholars, linguists, archaeologists and historians to give answers to the doubts raised with regard to the rituals which appear as throwback from pagan practices.

36-5, It is a revelation sent down by Him (God), the exalted in might, the most merciful.

36-6…in order that you (Muhammad) may warn a people, whose forefathers had received NO warning and who therefore, paid no attention to it.

It seems his forefathers have had NO divine messenger sent to them previous to Muhammad.

34-44says: But we had Not given them books which they could study, NOR sent Apostles to them before you (Muhammad) as warners.

32-3, few steps back: that you (Muhammad) may warn a people to whom NO warner has come before you in order that they may receive guidance.

Confirms that Abraham had NOT visited Mecca

28-47, if calamity had befallen them……The people (of Moses) might have said “why did you (God) NOT send us an Apostle?”Affirmation that God always sends an Apostle to those who had not had one sent previously. So Muhammad was the first one sent to Arabia.

The above therefore establishes that NO Apostle had previously visited Arabia and built the Ka’abah in Mecca.

Then who built it?

Hajj, a Quranic obligation to the first house 3-96,97should not therefore be pegged atone geographic place.

What is more, Ka’abah is not named as the focus/Qiblah for the Muslim nation that prays facing it ( 2-142 to145).This is logical because Ka’abah after all was a tribal polytheist Temple and not acceptable to others 2-145.

What is more, Quran proclaims “…To God belongs Easts and Wests“2-115 to177, 9-116”.

Could then the “my house “referred to in Quran is not the man-made temple on earth for God but a “Primal House”-these menial institution for mankind? Or else why did an Apostle exclaim in desperation, after fruitless search for God in other entities:

6-79,…“for me, I have turned my attention as sincere Muslim towards Him who is the primal Creator of heavens and earth, and I am not among the polytheists”.

Why would he then build an iconic House for God in Arabia, after reputedly having destroyed the one in his own town in Mesopotamia?

Of all Apostles’- their message was that God is the only Lord of the universe, Rabbil-A’lameen; of the heavens and earth and everything in between.

Therefore, to confine Him to a manmade cubical, and a black stone embedded in one corner as additional icon, makes Islam an iconolatry religion as well.  Yet Muslims recite the above verse 6-79, facing Mecca five times daily in prayers.

How is then Abraham’s monotheism different to polytheisms of other religions where the worship to God is associated with manmade objects, clearly contradicting Laa Tushrik Bihi 22-26, 31-13?

“The greatest number of houses in this world is for God Who has no need of a house”. Saut ul Haq of September 2015 summed it up.

The fact that Apostle Muhammad was born there, adds to Mecca’s marketing value, but alas on false premises, for:-

-The Messenger escaped from Masjid al-Haraam where he had found no peace, to take refuge in a distant city the surrounds of which were blessed17-1.

-For more than a decade, till the end of his life he lived in Madinah and established a viable city State.

-In the penultimate year of his life he visited Mecca once and that too to subdue the warmongers.

-Gave his last sermon emphasising the Deen/ the Code of Islam, and returned to Madinah, thus obeying the command of chapter 109 “your Deen with you and mine with me”.

-He died and is buried in Madinah. Hence his tomb there which conveniently serves as the ‘second Haram’ that pilgrims are compelled to visit as part of Hajj.

But, Mecca, Ka’abah, Masjid ul-Haraam, Hajar-Aswad, Zam-Zam, Madinah etc. are now the Church’s, the Muslim Vatican’s holy shrines and icons.

To question what seems to be confusing and conflicting, is mankind’s God given right. Quran commands human beings to use their intelligence and questioning capacity:

25-73, those who when they are warned with the signs of their Lord, do not droop down in acceptance as deaf and blind.

Socrates?, is supposed to have said that he does not believe that the one who had given him intelligence would not then want him to use it!

To many in the environment of 25-73 it would obviously be considered lunacy (Junoon) to claim that this religion is huge conspiracy against Islam instituted for commercial gains!

As a result, just as the illiterate fanatics Taliban and IS destroyed maliciously mankind’s historic heritage elsewhere; the Custodians are demolishing ancient important historic places in Mecca to construct mega hotels. It therefore lends credence to the above statement.

The rule of supply and demand comes into play, for it is the gullible Muslims in increasing numbers demand these facilities there. The traders are obliged and happy to provide for which the visitors who pay a heavy price often in life as well! Conspiracy or not, that is the nature of “commerce”.

Others as well took the risk of saying so in very scholarly way.

Bulleh Shah said: “Tired of studying Vedas, Quran--Bruised foreheads in prostrations--God is neither in Tirath nor in Mecca”.

Also refer. - ‘Arab Conspiracies against Islam’: ISBN 0-953422/ 9 780953 422500, published by Bodensee Logistic-UK’.

Mankind is supposed to have advanced intellectually beyond the prop of reverential tangible objects and to attempt to please God by offering Him blood and flesh 22-37 like the pagans of the old.

The only requirement to please Him is service to mankind. The Book teaches that all goodly human deeds- a’millus-salihati should be beneficial to humanity as a whole…in this world and hereafter (2-201).

Most importantly, Abraham the apostle stands falsely accused of having abrogated his apostolic duty by keeping the people there ignorant! No apostle, once charged with this duty abrogates it, says the Book.

So it was left to Muhammad to give the message of monotheism:

37-37: Nay! He (Muhammad) has come with the very truth, and he confirms the message of the previous Apostles—all apostles, not just Abraham.

When Mecca’s economy was threatened by Muhammad’s message and the Temple lost its trading importance, the change was resisted with full force of arms. After all, historically Mecca’s economy was heavily dependent upon the pagan rites of the ancient temple.

So the Divine threat2-79: Then, woe to those who write the books with their own hands and then say “This is from God” to traffic with it for miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands write (or translate!)And the gains they make from it…, was overcome later with cleaver and different marketing strategy all together.

It seems that soon after Muhammad the Muslim Nation not only was lulled into 25-73 condition, but also was convinced to adopt the old practices of their forefathers 2-170,171 but this time in the name of Islam.

The confusion is not just theological to resolve but of history, linguist, ideological and more. Issues, such as economic benefits to the Muslims, maintenance of brotherhood, unity of mankind, difference between Haram and Haraam, which or what is Balad Ul Ameen-city of sanctuary, Bakkah, Makkah and so on should be put under the microscope.

Unlike the iconic Big Mac’s burger king’s budget of millions for advertisement; the Custodian kings, with manipulative skills have marketed successfully the iconic spiritual city ‘‘Big Mec’’ without spending a cent on advertising their product.

Many a tour operator issue a certificate in appreciation of the custom the tourist give them. Not so the Custodians of Two Harams. Although there is only ONE in the Book and that is the universal Bakkah, the seminal institution Masjid un Ussisa, whose foundation was laid from the very first day for observance of duty 3-96, 9-108.

Hajjis, welcome back from the sacrificial spirituality to the commercial reality of religion.

Foot Note. The above does not in any way suggest that the place should not be visited. That would be in contradiction to Quran which highly commands “Travel in the world to gain knowledge22-46”. 

A regular contributor to New Age Islam, Rashid Samnakay is a (Retd.) Engineer

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/rashid-samnakay,-new-age-islam/reflections-on-annual-pilgrimage-to-mecca-named-as-hajj/d/104714