Indian Society: An Interesting Interplay of Religion With Culture!

Alain de Botton, one of the best known intellectuals of Britain, suggests that in modern world, culture should have upper hand overreligion. Ultimately, he prescribes that the former should replace the latter in the longer run of the evolution of post-modern society.

It’s fascinating to see how far Alain’s ideas can go in an oriental society like India.Recently, I visited my native district, Deoghar, situated in Jharkhand to celebrate Durga-puja. What surprised me was not the scale with which the festivity was celebrated there, but with the degree of strictness that people still follow the religious rituals. Hardly one can identify any change in the methodology of worship over these years. Even, the animal sacrificeswithin the premise of goddess’ temple still happen uninterrupted. It made me think how strongly religion governs culture in our society. In other words, I saw Alain de Botton’s thesis failing in that small district of Jharkhand.

Islam, Democracy And Violence

By M H Ahssan

I was invited last week to Indonesia for a series of lectures by Asia Calling International Radio to speak on Islam, Democracy and Nation state. These days Indonesian intellectuals are rocked with questions we were faced with in early fifties in India. Also, all over Islamic world the question is being asked is Islam compatible with democracy and nation state? In Indonesia too, a largest Islamic country in the world the radical Islamists have raised this debate. The progressive Islamic thinkers there, are therefore, seized with these questions.

In a Asia Calling talk show where number of prominent public figures and diplomats were present these questions were raised by many. Also I spoke at Wahid Institute founded by former president of Indonesia and a leading scholar of Islam Abdur Rehman Wahid on experiences of Muslim minority in secular India. Indonesia, though a largest Muslim country in the world is still not an Islamic country but a Panchsila State. The doctrine of Panchsila was adopted during president Sukarno’s time.

But now Indonesia is under pressure to become an Islamic state where Shari’ah law would be the official law and religious minorities like Christians and Buddhists and others would become second-class citizens. Still, it seems, Indonesian people are resisting this demand and are hence keen to know the experiences of secular countries like India. Also what is the experience of nation building in South Asia including Pakistan and Bangla Desh. I was also asked to speak on the concept of human rights in Islam as in a democratic country human rights have fundamental importance. Indonesia, a largest Islamic country, is also faced with this question as minorities are coming under attack and their human rights are being violated.

Of course it is not at all correct to say that Islam is incompatible to democracy, I said in my talk. This myth is being spread by the supporters of authoritarian regime in the Islamic world. Kings, Sheikhs and military dictators are spreading such ideas, doesn’t matter if Islam gets bad name in the process. I firmly refuted this myth and maintained Islam does not come in the way of democracy; it is dictators and monarchs who come in its way.

We should remember, I said, that the Qur’an does not give any concept of state but a concept of society. Qur’an wants to establish a just society and what other way could be better suited to establish a just society than a democratic society. Also the Qur’an emphasizes equality of all human beings and equal dignity for all despite different languages, colours and race and nationality. How can it be achieved except through democratic society?

The authoritarian societies negate all these and hence not democracy but monarchy and dictatorship is un-Islamic, not democracy. During medieval ages, the concept like equal dignity, gender equality and human rights were just non-existent and hence monarchy was quite acceptable. It is no longer so. The modern society is emphatic about human equality without any distinction and human rights and gender equality are of great significance and hence democracy is the only way out for Qur’anic concept of just society to be realized Some people, especially radical Islamic groups do argue that the only just government could be through institution of khilafah. Let me say that the institution of khilafah has not been sanctioned by the Qur’an as pointed out above Qur’an does not recommend any form of government at all. The institution of khilafa was a result of historical situation. It was not even a part of Prophet’s (PBUH) Sunna.

That is why there were differences among Muslims about the question of succession. Even most prominent companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were not sure about the mode of succession of the successor. Shia’s maintain that the Prophet (PBUH) appointed his cousin and son-in-law Ali to succeed him. But only the supporters of Ahl-e-bait agreed with this view and others gathered in Saqifa Banu Sa’ida to discuss the question of his successor. There too there was no unanimity and after lot of suggestions and debates Umar proposed the name of Abu Bakr and did bay’ah on his hand and others followed.

Then there was no unanimity in electing the Caliph. Many said the Khalifah could be only from the tribe of Quraish of Mecca and Ansar of Madina who were from other tribes like Khazraj and Aus maintained that caliph should be from among them as they had helped the Prophet (PBUH) in Madina. It was also suggested that two persons be elected one from Quraish and one from Ansars. But this viewpoint was also rejected and ultimately Abu Bakr of Quraish was elected.

Then it was said that there could be only one caliph at one time but this concept also proved to be fragile as when the Abbasid defeated Umayyads, one of Umayyad’s family fled to Spain and founded another empire there and at a time there came into existence two caliphs and when Buwahids captured power and caliph became merely a nominal head, caliphate turned into sultanate. The institution of Caliphate also lasted only for thirty years and Mu’awiyah captured power without any sanction from Muslims as in the case of first caliph and what is more he nominated his own son Yazid against the wishes of all Muslims and against the wishes of prominent companions of the Prophet many of whom were then alive.

All this clearly shows that the institution of khilafah was a tentative historical construct, not the result of any divine injunction either based on Qur’an or Sunnah. Thus it cannot be argued that the institution of khilafah be restored and that is the only way out. Also, institution of khilafah, whatever way it came into existence was after all more democratic than monarchy or sheikhdoms and dictatorship which have no sanction of any kind at all.

Also, in case of electing a caliph tribal experience of the time was used as successor to a tribal chief was elected by the members of the tribe. There was no concept of one-man one vote at the time. In the institution of modern democracy one man one vote is the tried and tested method for electing public representative. New historical experience has resulted in new methods of election. There should be no hesitation in excepting and assimilating new experiences. During the period of Khilafat many institutions were readily borrowed from Roman and Sassanid empire like keeping salary register for soldiers from Iran. Earlier only share in the loot was given to those taking part in the fight.

Another question which is raised by Islamists is imposition of Shari’ah law. They argue that in democracy there are man made (human made) laws and Shari’ah law is divine law and this cannot be allowed in an Islamic state as only Shari’ah law should be enforced. This is also an erroneous concept. Shari’ah laws can be divided into two categories: ‘ibadat and mu’amalat (i.e. laws pertaining to salah, saum, haj etc. which are part of ‘ibadat.

Then the laws pertaining to mu’amalat which include relations between human beings and human beings. Laws about mu’amalat cannot be permanent. Of course no changes can be made as far as Shari’ah laws concerning ‘ibadat are concerned but as for mu’amalat laws cannot be permanent and parliament should be empowered to make laws in those respects. All modern democracies allow people to pursue their respective religions and do not interfere in their religious affairs. In all secular democracies also right to religion is a fundamental right.

Also, as far as ‘ibadat are concerned it does not require enforcement by any state but its importance lies in its voluntary nature. ‘Ibadat pertain to ones heart and soul and real ‘ibadat is one which is done most sincerely and from ones core of heart. It cannot be enforced. And it will cease to be ‘ibadat if it is enforced by a state machinery. This is what Qur’an also maintains when it says there is no compulsion in matters of religion.

Thus no Islamic state is required even to enforce provisions of Shari’ah. An Islamic state again would mean the majority of Muslim sect who live in that country would enjoy real freedom and those Muslims who belong to other sects would be persecuted. We see this right in the beginning of Islamic history. The Abbasids initially subscribed to the doctrine of createdness of Qur’an and all those who rejected this doctrine were severely persecuted. Even eminent Imam like Abu Hanifa was flogged for rejecting this doctrine.

In modern Islamic states too we see this phenomenon. In Saudi Arabia only Wahabi Muslims enjoy real freedom of religion. Those who do not subscribe to this doctrine are persecuted or do not enjoy freedom like Wahabis to practice their religion. Similarly the Shias are persecuted in Sunni majority states and Sunnis in Shiah majority states. In Iraq a Sunni minority dominated and persecuted Shi’ahs and in Syria, Alawi minority dominate over Sunni majority as it wields political power.

Real freedom of religion is possible only in democratic state where all enjoy equal rights irrespective of caste, creed and colour. Large number of Muslims today live as minority in various secular democratic states in various Asian, African and Western countries and enjoy right to freely practice their religion. This it is not correct to maintain that you need an Islamic state to practice Islam freely.

Every democratic state permits Shari’ah laws pertaining to personal laws like marriage, divorce, property, inheritance etc. In secular India too Muslims are completely free to practice these laws. Indian Muslim refuse any reform in their laws and state does not insist on that though in many Muslim countries these laws have been reformed.

Now the question about criminal laws whether it would be permitted in a secular democratic state to be permitted. The answer is certainly no. In India the Britishers had abolished Islamic criminal laws in 19th century itself and enforced a criminal code drafted by their parliament. The Muslim Ulama agreed to abolition of the Islamic code and agreed to enforcement of common criminal code. Today in the modern world many Muslim majority countries have also taken similar steps. Criminal punishments are largely contextual. In the tribal Arab society certain punishments were thought to be more effective and hence they were recommended. The main purpose is to prevent crime and nature and extent of punishment can certainly change. Also, there is provision for tazir punishment also in Islam and the rulers did enforce tazir punishments too. So it is not matter of principle whether hudud laws are enforced or not. Main thing is to check crimes.

Thus it would be seen that a secular and democratic state is equally good as long as it permits Muslims to practice their religion. It is also important to note that the Indian Ulama voluntarily opted for a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state in the form of Pakistan in 1947 when India was divided. They vigorously opposed creation of separate Muslim country and preferred to have a secular democratic and multi-religious, multi-cultural country. And who knew Islam better than the Ulama of Darul Ulum Deoband.

An Islamic state itself, as pointed out before, is a historical construct and not a Qur’anic concept and hence it is in no way obligatory for Muslims to set up an Islamic state. Those who argue in favour of Islamic state cannot produce any argument from the Qur’an and Sunna. In every country there are certain forces who adopt majoritarian aggressive postures and want their religion to be associated with the affairs of the state. In India, for example, a section of Hindus want India to become Hindu Rashtra (i.e. Hindu nation) but secular Hindus resist that demand.

In any religious state all citizens of different religious persuasions cannot enjoy equal rights and no modern state can allow this. The very essence of modern polity is that all citizens irrespective of their religion should enjoy equal rights. Maulana Maududi of Jamat-e-Islami of Pakistan had argued that no non-Muslim can become head of the state or prime minister of Pakistan. He or she cannot even hold any key post in the government. Sure in secular states also no person from minority religion will find it easy to become head of the state but theoretically it is not ruled out. In India a Sikh, a non-Hindu became a prime minister and three Muslims could become president of the country.

Another objection raised by many Islamists is that in secular democratic states human rights are sacred and the very concept of human rights is un-Islamic. This is also not in keeping with the Qur’anic teachings. Firstly, most of the Islamic countries with few exceptions have signed the UNO’s Human Rights Declaration. Some countries who did not sign the declaration their objection was that one who renounces Islam cannot be put to death as freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of human rights.

However, as pointed out above Qur’an itself upholds right to freedom of religion and the Qur’an pronounced it much before modern world realized its significance. It is very strange that now some Muslims in contradistinction to Qur’anic principle, of which they should have been justly proud, reject the doctrine of freedom of religion as modern western and hence unacceptable. The Shari’ah rule that one who renounces Islam should be given death sentence is highly controversial and there is no unanimity on this among Muslim jurists. Maulana Aslam Jairajpuri, for example, disagrees with it and advances several arguments from Qur’an and Sunna to show death punishment for renouncing Islam is not justified.

In fact freedom and faith go together. One cannot genuinely believe in any religion unless one is completely free to accept or reject it. If one is forced to accept a religion it cannot be accepted by his heart and soul. He may accept it outwardly but his heart and soul may resent it. It is precisely for this psychological reason that Qur’an made principle of freedom of religion so important. The Shari’ah provision for death sentence was more for sedition than for renouncing religion. It was feared that a Muslim living in an Islamic state, if renounces Islam, he may join hands with the enemy and conspire against Islamic state. Punishment for sedition world over is death.

The fear of sedition was genuine because Muslim states were surrounded by Christian states and there was direct political, though not religious confrontation between the two and hence anyone renouncing Islam there was genuine fear that he may help the Christian state. The crusades are well known from 11th to 13th century. That period of confrontation between Muslims and Christians was most intense. Thus death punishment for renouncing Islam makes sense during that period. This context must be kept in mind but in the long run the Qur’anic doctrine of freedom of religion must be upheld.

As for other principles of human rights even the most orthodox Muslim cannot object to them. For example, equality of all human beings is very central to Qur’anic teachings too. Human dignity is sacred in Islam as well. Gender equality is also clearly enunciated in the Qur’an. Moreover, woman has been given equal rights for contracting marriage and husband and wife have been described as each others garment. All these are enshrined in declaration of human rights issued by the UNO. Those Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia who did not sign Human Rights’ Declaration also did not object to these provisions.

Those who argue that implementation of Shari’ah is an obligation of Islamic State should understand that Shari’ah evolved gradually and there were great deal of differences among the Muslim jurists on many issues. Thus Shari’ah, as one Islamic scholar Prof. Muhammad Mujeeb maintained, is a human approach to divine injunctions. That is very apt description of Shari’ah laws as evolved by many eminent jurists during first four centuries of Islam.

The great Urdu poet Iqbal from Indian sub-continent also maintained that every generation of Muslims should be entitled to rethink Shari’ah issues and in a Muslim majority country parliament will be the right forum to do so. He also maintained that ijtihad is the dynamic principle in Islam and ijtihad becomes necessary in changed conditions in modern society. Thus a democratic society with an elected parliament would be a better institutional arrangement for making Shari’ah more relevant to our contemporary world. Many new issues have arisen which need use of ijtihad quite urgent.

And where Muslims are a minority and live in secular democratic state should evolve their own forums to bring about necessary changes. Today more Muslims live in minority situation than in majority and hence they would have to evolve their own institutions to do ijtihad with the cooperation of Ulama and modern scholars. No secular democratic state can stop them from attempting these creative changes in their laws. All this has to be done within the framework of Islam. No changes can be brought outside this framework if they are to be accepted by Muslims at large.

To accept democratic state would be far more beneficial to Muslims and would enable Muslims to practice their religion faithfully and fearlessly than in so called Islamic state where sectarianism and fundamentalism will prevail. A democratic state is much better guarantee of genuine freedom of religion than a state based on any religion. This seems to be contradictory but in fact true.

Thus we must properly educate Muslim masses and prepare them for acceptance of democracy in Islamic world. They should be made aware that those who oppose democracy in the name of Islam are really serving certain vested interests rather than Islam. Islamic world is still reeling under the impact of feudal and medieval forces who serve their own interests in the name of Islam. Islam is quite compatible with democracy. It is rather interests of rulers of Muslim countries which are not compatible with democracy.

Indonesia, I said in my lectures, has achieved democracy after a long spell under dictatorship and it must be protected at any cost and all religious minorities also should be guaranteed full freedom to follow their respective religion. Tolerance of differences is an important principle of democracy and due tolerance should be shown to all different religious opinions too. It will not violate any Islamic principle at all.

Islam, Democracy And Violence

By M H Ahssan

I was invited last week to Indonesia for a series of lectures by Asia Calling International Radio to speak on Islam, Democracy and Nation state. These days Indonesian intellectuals are rocked with questions we were faced with in early fifties in India. Also, all over Islamic world the question is being asked is Islam compatible with democracy and nation state? In Indonesia too, a largest Islamic country in the world the radical Islamists have raised this debate. The progressive Islamic thinkers there, are therefore, seized with these questions.

In a Asia Calling talk show where number of prominent public figures and diplomats were present these questions were raised by many. Also I spoke at Wahid Institute founded by former president of Indonesia and a leading scholar of Islam Abdur Rehman Wahid on experiences of Muslim minority in secular India. Indonesia, though a largest Muslim country in the world is still not an Islamic country but a Panchsila State. The doctrine of Panchsila was adopted during president Sukarno’s time.

But now Indonesia is under pressure to become an Islamic state where Shari’ah law would be the official law and religious minorities like Christians and Buddhists and others would become second-class citizens. Still, it seems, Indonesian people are resisting this demand and are hence keen to know the experiences of secular countries like India. Also what is the experience of nation building in South Asia including Pakistan and Bangla Desh. I was also asked to speak on the concept of human rights in Islam as in a democratic country human rights have fundamental importance. Indonesia, a largest Islamic country, is also faced with this question as minorities are coming under attack and their human rights are being violated.

Of course it is not at all correct to say that Islam is incompatible to democracy, I said in my talk. This myth is being spread by the supporters of authoritarian regime in the Islamic world. Kings, Sheikhs and military dictators are spreading such ideas, doesn’t matter if Islam gets bad name in the process. I firmly refuted this myth and maintained Islam does not come in the way of democracy; it is dictators and monarchs who come in its way.

We should remember, I said, that the Qur’an does not give any concept of state but a concept of society. Qur’an wants to establish a just society and what other way could be better suited to establish a just society than a democratic society. Also the Qur’an emphasizes equality of all human beings and equal dignity for all despite different languages, colours and race and nationality. How can it be achieved except through democratic society?

The authoritarian societies negate all these and hence not democracy but monarchy and dictatorship is un-Islamic, not democracy. During medieval ages, the concept like equal dignity, gender equality and human rights were just non-existent and hence monarchy was quite acceptable. It is no longer so. The modern society is emphatic about human equality without any distinction and human rights and gender equality are of great significance and hence democracy is the only way out for Qur’anic concept of just society to be realized Some people, especially radical Islamic groups do argue that the only just government could be through institution of khilafah. Let me say that the institution of khilafah has not been sanctioned by the Qur’an as pointed out above Qur’an does not recommend any form of government at all. The institution of khilafa was a result of historical situation. It was not even a part of Prophet’s (PBUH) Sunna.

That is why there were differences among Muslims about the question of succession. Even most prominent companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were not sure about the mode of succession of the successor. Shia’s maintain that the Prophet (PBUH) appointed his cousin and son-in-law Ali to succeed him. But only the supporters of Ahl-e-bait agreed with this view and others gathered in Saqifa Banu Sa’ida to discuss the question of his successor. There too there was no unanimity and after lot of suggestions and debates Umar proposed the name of Abu Bakr and did bay’ah on his hand and others followed.

Then there was no unanimity in electing the Caliph. Many said the Khalifah could be only from the tribe of Quraish of Mecca and Ansar of Madina who were from other tribes like Khazraj and Aus maintained that caliph should be from among them as they had helped the Prophet (PBUH) in Madina. It was also suggested that two persons be elected one from Quraish and one from Ansars. But this viewpoint was also rejected and ultimately Abu Bakr of Quraish was elected.

Then it was said that there could be only one caliph at one time but this concept also proved to be fragile as when the Abbasid defeated Umayyads, one of Umayyad’s family fled to Spain and founded another empire there and at a time there came into existence two caliphs and when Buwahids captured power and caliph became merely a nominal head, caliphate turned into sultanate. The institution of Caliphate also lasted only for thirty years and Mu’awiyah captured power without any sanction from Muslims as in the case of first caliph and what is more he nominated his own son Yazid against the wishes of all Muslims and against the wishes of prominent companions of the Prophet many of whom were then alive.

All this clearly shows that the institution of khilafah was a tentative historical construct, not the result of any divine injunction either based on Qur’an or Sunnah. Thus it cannot be argued that the institution of khilafah be restored and that is the only way out. Also, institution of khilafah, whatever way it came into existence was after all more democratic than monarchy or sheikhdoms and dictatorship which have no sanction of any kind at all.

Also, in case of electing a caliph tribal experience of the time was used as successor to a tribal chief was elected by the members of the tribe. There was no concept of one-man one vote at the time. In the institution of modern democracy one man one vote is the tried and tested method for electing public representative. New historical experience has resulted in new methods of election. There should be no hesitation in excepting and assimilating new experiences. During the period of Khilafat many institutions were readily borrowed from Roman and Sassanid empire like keeping salary register for soldiers from Iran. Earlier only share in the loot was given to those taking part in the fight.

Another question which is raised by Islamists is imposition of Shari’ah law. They argue that in democracy there are man made (human made) laws and Shari’ah law is divine law and this cannot be allowed in an Islamic state as only Shari’ah law should be enforced. This is also an erroneous concept. Shari’ah laws can be divided into two categories: ‘ibadat and mu’amalat (i.e. laws pertaining to salah, saum, haj etc. which are part of ‘ibadat.

Then the laws pertaining to mu’amalat which include relations between human beings and human beings. Laws about mu’amalat cannot be permanent. Of course no changes can be made as far as Shari’ah laws concerning ‘ibadat are concerned but as for mu’amalat laws cannot be permanent and parliament should be empowered to make laws in those respects. All modern democracies allow people to pursue their respective religions and do not interfere in their religious affairs. In all secular democracies also right to religion is a fundamental right.

Also, as far as ‘ibadat are concerned it does not require enforcement by any state but its importance lies in its voluntary nature. ‘Ibadat pertain to ones heart and soul and real ‘ibadat is one which is done most sincerely and from ones core of heart. It cannot be enforced. And it will cease to be ‘ibadat if it is enforced by a state machinery. This is what Qur’an also maintains when it says there is no compulsion in matters of religion.

Thus no Islamic state is required even to enforce provisions of Shari’ah. An Islamic state again would mean the majority of Muslim sect who live in that country would enjoy real freedom and those Muslims who belong to other sects would be persecuted. We see this right in the beginning of Islamic history. The Abbasids initially subscribed to the doctrine of createdness of Qur’an and all those who rejected this doctrine were severely persecuted. Even eminent Imam like Abu Hanifa was flogged for rejecting this doctrine.

In modern Islamic states too we see this phenomenon. In Saudi Arabia only Wahabi Muslims enjoy real freedom of religion. Those who do not subscribe to this doctrine are persecuted or do not enjoy freedom like Wahabis to practice their religion. Similarly the Shias are persecuted in Sunni majority states and Sunnis in Shiah majority states. In Iraq a Sunni minority dominated and persecuted Shi’ahs and in Syria, Alawi minority dominate over Sunni majority as it wields political power.

Real freedom of religion is possible only in democratic state where all enjoy equal rights irrespective of caste, creed and colour. Large number of Muslims today live as minority in various secular democratic states in various Asian, African and Western countries and enjoy right to freely practice their religion. This it is not correct to maintain that you need an Islamic state to practice Islam freely.

Every democratic state permits Shari’ah laws pertaining to personal laws like marriage, divorce, property, inheritance etc. In secular India too Muslims are completely free to practice these laws. Indian Muslim refuse any reform in their laws and state does not insist on that though in many Muslim countries these laws have been reformed.

Now the question about criminal laws whether it would be permitted in a secular democratic state to be permitted. The answer is certainly no. In India the Britishers had abolished Islamic criminal laws in 19th century itself and enforced a criminal code drafted by their parliament. The Muslim Ulama agreed to abolition of the Islamic code and agreed to enforcement of common criminal code. Today in the modern world many Muslim majority countries have also taken similar steps. Criminal punishments are largely contextual. In the tribal Arab society certain punishments were thought to be more effective and hence they were recommended. The main purpose is to prevent crime and nature and extent of punishment can certainly change. Also, there is provision for tazir punishment also in Islam and the rulers did enforce tazir punishments too. So it is not matter of principle whether hudud laws are enforced or not. Main thing is to check crimes.

Thus it would be seen that a secular and democratic state is equally good as long as it permits Muslims to practice their religion. It is also important to note that the Indian Ulama voluntarily opted for a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state in the form of Pakistan in 1947 when India was divided. They vigorously opposed creation of separate Muslim country and preferred to have a secular democratic and multi-religious, multi-cultural country. And who knew Islam better than the Ulama of Darul Ulum Deoband.

An Islamic state itself, as pointed out before, is a historical construct and not a Qur’anic concept and hence it is in no way obligatory for Muslims to set up an Islamic state. Those who argue in favour of Islamic state cannot produce any argument from the Qur’an and Sunna. In every country there are certain forces who adopt majoritarian aggressive postures and want their religion to be associated with the affairs of the state. In India, for example, a section of Hindus want India to become Hindu Rashtra (i.e. Hindu nation) but secular Hindus resist that demand.

In any religious state all citizens of different religious persuasions cannot enjoy equal rights and no modern state can allow this. The very essence of modern polity is that all citizens irrespective of their religion should enjoy equal rights. Maulana Maududi of Jamat-e-Islami of Pakistan had argued that no non-Muslim can become head of the state or prime minister of Pakistan. He or she cannot even hold any key post in the government. Sure in secular states also no person from minority religion will find it easy to become head of the state but theoretically it is not ruled out. In India a Sikh, a non-Hindu became a prime minister and three Muslims could become president of the country.

Another objection raised by many Islamists is that in secular democratic states human rights are sacred and the very concept of human rights is un-Islamic. This is also not in keeping with the Qur’anic teachings. Firstly, most of the Islamic countries with few exceptions have signed the UNO’s Human Rights Declaration. Some countries who did not sign the declaration their objection was that one who renounces Islam cannot be put to death as freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of human rights.

However, as pointed out above Qur’an itself upholds right to freedom of religion and the Qur’an pronounced it much before modern world realized its significance. It is very strange that now some Muslims in contradistinction to Qur’anic principle, of which they should have been justly proud, reject the doctrine of freedom of religion as modern western and hence unacceptable. The Shari’ah rule that one who renounces Islam should be given death sentence is highly controversial and there is no unanimity on this among Muslim jurists. Maulana Aslam Jairajpuri, for example, disagrees with it and advances several arguments from Qur’an and Sunna to show death punishment for renouncing Islam is not justified.

In fact freedom and faith go together. One cannot genuinely believe in any religion unless one is completely free to accept or reject it. If one is forced to accept a religion it cannot be accepted by his heart and soul. He may accept it outwardly but his heart and soul may resent it. It is precisely for this psychological reason that Qur’an made principle of freedom of religion so important. The Shari’ah provision for death sentence was more for sedition than for renouncing religion. It was feared that a Muslim living in an Islamic state, if renounces Islam, he may join hands with the enemy and conspire against Islamic state. Punishment for sedition world over is death.

The fear of sedition was genuine because Muslim states were surrounded by Christian states and there was direct political, though not religious confrontation between the two and hence anyone renouncing Islam there was genuine fear that he may help the Christian state. The crusades are well known from 11th to 13th century. That period of confrontation between Muslims and Christians was most intense. Thus death punishment for renouncing Islam makes sense during that period. This context must be kept in mind but in the long run the Qur’anic doctrine of freedom of religion must be upheld.

As for other principles of human rights even the most orthodox Muslim cannot object to them. For example, equality of all human beings is very central to Qur’anic teachings too. Human dignity is sacred in Islam as well. Gender equality is also clearly enunciated in the Qur’an. Moreover, woman has been given equal rights for contracting marriage and husband and wife have been described as each others garment. All these are enshrined in declaration of human rights issued by the UNO. Those Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia who did not sign Human Rights’ Declaration also did not object to these provisions.

Those who argue that implementation of Shari’ah is an obligation of Islamic State should understand that Shari’ah evolved gradually and there were great deal of differences among the Muslim jurists on many issues. Thus Shari’ah, as one Islamic scholar Prof. Muhammad Mujeeb maintained, is a human approach to divine injunctions. That is very apt description of Shari’ah laws as evolved by many eminent jurists during first four centuries of Islam.

The great Urdu poet Iqbal from Indian sub-continent also maintained that every generation of Muslims should be entitled to rethink Shari’ah issues and in a Muslim majority country parliament will be the right forum to do so. He also maintained that ijtihad is the dynamic principle in Islam and ijtihad becomes necessary in changed conditions in modern society. Thus a democratic society with an elected parliament would be a better institutional arrangement for making Shari’ah more relevant to our contemporary world. Many new issues have arisen which need use of ijtihad quite urgent.

And where Muslims are a minority and live in secular democratic state should evolve their own forums to bring about necessary changes. Today more Muslims live in minority situation than in majority and hence they would have to evolve their own institutions to do ijtihad with the cooperation of Ulama and modern scholars. No secular democratic state can stop them from attempting these creative changes in their laws. All this has to be done within the framework of Islam. No changes can be brought outside this framework if they are to be accepted by Muslims at large.

To accept democratic state would be far more beneficial to Muslims and would enable Muslims to practice their religion faithfully and fearlessly than in so called Islamic state where sectarianism and fundamentalism will prevail. A democratic state is much better guarantee of genuine freedom of religion than a state based on any religion. This seems to be contradictory but in fact true.

Thus we must properly educate Muslim masses and prepare them for acceptance of democracy in Islamic world. They should be made aware that those who oppose democracy in the name of Islam are really serving certain vested interests rather than Islam. Islamic world is still reeling under the impact of feudal and medieval forces who serve their own interests in the name of Islam. Islam is quite compatible with democracy. It is rather interests of rulers of Muslim countries which are not compatible with democracy.

Indonesia, I said in my lectures, has achieved democracy after a long spell under dictatorship and it must be protected at any cost and all religious minorities also should be guaranteed full freedom to follow their respective religion. Tolerance of differences is an important principle of democracy and due tolerance should be shown to all different religious opinions too. It will not violate any Islamic principle at all.

Holy Garb: Profane Agenda

By M H Ahssan

What do spiritual leaders talk when they meet? One thought it may be the matters pertaining to the ‘other world’ that is the focus of their attention, away from the profane World, which is the matter of concern for ordinary people. One thought they may be deliberating on the issues of moral values of the religion. But it seems that is not the case. Recently when many of them met in Mumbai they showed that the saffron garb is the mere exterior, this color of renunciation and piety, is no representative of their political core. On the top of that they use saffron color to hide their sectarian ideas and narrow politics in the name of religion. The only difference in their case being that their politics is couched in the language of religion. That their ideas are full ‘Hate’ for others, unlike the values Hinduism which teaches us Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam (whole World is my family). This got revealed once more.

Recently many a chiefs of Akharas and other assorted Saints came together at the First Conference of Dharma Raksha Manch (29th Jan 2009) in Mumbai. They were brought together by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, apparently for the agenda was Combating terrorism. They called for dropping the word secular from Indian constitution and replacing it with word religious. They Ram Temple, Malegaon blasts, terrorism, and amongst other things and demanded that they need Manu’s parliament and not Christ’s. They drew attention to terrorism breeding in Madrassa, and hit out at media for using the term Hindu terrorism. Finally Beginning Mid Feb. (2009) they plan to take out series of yatras (religious marches) covering large parts of the country, with the call for ending Jihad.

Who are these assorted Holy seers, coming together on the call of Vishwa Hindu Parishad? VHP itself is the creation of RSS in the mid sixties. Initiative was taken by RSS chief and his close lieutenant to get different established mutt’s to form VHP. It primarily became a religious wing of RSS, involving the Hindu achrayas etc, and attracted especially traders, affluent processionals and those who did not want to openly associate with RSS, as at that time RSS stood fully discredited in people’s eyes due to its association with Nathuram Godse, who killed Mahatma Gandhi.
VHP got involved in the identity issues strengthening the conservative politics and Ram temple became its central rallying point. Along with this it called for Dharma Sansad (religious parliament) where they stated that in the matters religious, in this case Ram Temple, the decision of saints is above the judgement of the courts. Place of Lord’s birth became a matter not of History but of faith, and who else can decide these issues than these custodians of faith.

This congregation of holy seers has taken place long after their earlier meetings around Ram Temple issue. It seems it is their next innings where the focus is also on terrorism apart from its earlier concerns. At the same time they are reiterating that Indian Constitution is not welcome; let’s go back to Manu Smriti. In a way there is nothing new in this. The RSS politics has always been against the Indian Constitution, against the values of secularism, democracy as these stand by Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Right from the time Constituent Assembly was formed, RSS opposed the same, saying that ‘we’ already have the best of Constitutions in the form of Manu Smirit so why a new Constitution. It was backed by eulogies for Lord Manu by the RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar, who also at the same time has heaped immense praise on the methods of Hitler. Later K.Surshan also openly called for scrapping of Indian constitution and bringing Manu Smriti instead.

While the saints are overtly for the subjugation of Muslims and Christians, at the same time their agenda is to push back the concept of equality for dalit, Adivasis and women. Interestingly RSS came up as a reaction to social changes of caste and gender during the freedom movement. Our national movement stood not only for freedom but also for the transformation of caste and gender towards equality. Barring some exceptions the concept of democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Freedom movement was the epitome of these political and social processes, leading to the emergence of secular India. Today RSS has many mouths to speak and many fora to articulate its agenda. VHP is the crude version of expressing its agenda while BJP, due to electoral compulsions, puts the same agenda in more subtle ways.

The VHP agenda is quite striking in combing the Holy language with profane goals. It will totally ignore the problems of ‘this World’; the problems related to survival and Human rights and will harp on identity issues. This brings in a politics which targets the ‘external enemies’, Muslims; Christians, and intimidates internal sectors, dalits; Adivasis and women, of society. Its call for doing away with the word secular is nothing new in that sense. Its demand to do away with secular word and secular ethos shows that their Holiness is restricted to the appearance, while they want to maintain their social hegemony through political means. Secularism is not against religion. The best of religious people like Maulana Abul Kalam and Mahatma Gandhi had been secular to the core. They knew the boundary line very well. Also they used the moral values of religion to create bonds of fraternity (community) amongst the people of different religions. There were others who created Hate against the other community, and that too in the name of religion. One can cite the parallel and opposite roles of Muslim League on one side and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.

The seers, respected because of their Holy garb are misusing their appearance at the service of sectarian politics, they are playing the role of handmaidens of the divisive politics. Secularism precisely means that secular, this-worldly, issues should be the base of politics. So the genuine religious person like Gandhi could distinguish between the moral values of religion which should be adopted in life while shunning the identity related issues from political life, “In India, for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion is. The state is bound to be wholly secular.” It is a matter of shame and disgust the identity of a religion is being used to pursue the political goals of an organization, supplementing the goals a communal political party by appealing in the name of religion.

At the same time to further demonize the Muslims it is taking up the issue of terrorism in lop sided manner. The slogan end of Jihad is a way to hide the anti Muslim agenda. There is an attempt to put the blame on Islam and Muslims for terrorism, which is totally false. A political phenomenon is being presented as the one related to religion. So Islamic terrorism word is acceptable to them! All terrorist are Muslims formulation is acceptable to them. But how dare you use the word Hindu terrorism if Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pande and their ilk is involved in acts of terror? In this meet, overseen by RSS representatives, lot of anger was expressed for the Maharashtra ATS for starting investigations against Sadhvi and Company.

The timing of the meet and the planned Yatras is more then striking. As we await elections, the VHP is trying to revive Ram Temple as an issue and will also be talking of terrorism; about Afzal Guru and will be reprimanding the state for ‘torturing’ Pragya Thakur. As a matter of fact VHP and this motley crowd of saints is an adjunct to the electoral goals of BJP. It articulates emotive things which BJP will not be able to do because of election commission and the media watch.
Of all the techniques evolved by RSS, the use of these Holy men for political goals may be the worst insult of the Hindu religion. While these Holy seers infinite in number, many of them have succeeded in building up their own five star Empires, there are others who are sitting on the top of already established mutts. What unites them through VHP is the politics of status quo, the opposition to democracy. We had saints, who talked against caste system and social evils. We had Kabir, Chokha Mela, Tukaram and the lot who stood for the problems of the poor, and now we have a breed, whose agenda is to undermine the prevalent social evils of dowry, female infanticide, bride burning, atrocities on dalits and Adivasis. Their goal is to keep talking about the spirituality and religiosity which is so different from the concerns taken up by the likes of Gandhi and the whole the genre of Saints of Bhakti tradition in India. One hope the people of India can see this clever game of communal politics and differentiate the grain from the chaff.

OpEd: 'Being Hindu Indian Or Muslim Indian Is Our Wish'

By Chetan Bhagat (Star Guest Writer)

One is always apprehensive about writing a column on religion. Most Indians don’t discuss it in public, fearing misinterpretation. The only people who talk about religion are passionate extremists. Consequently, in our society extremists control our religion and politics panders to this. 
    
Important religious issues are ignored in the process. One such issue is confusion that exists in the minds of youth about interpreting their own religion and its place in modern society. 
    
Let us begin with Hinduism. There is a section of Hindus who believe in mutilating themselves to please the Gods. They poke their cheeks with javelins. They pull chariots with metal hooks dug into their back. Hindu sadhus live the life of ascetics. 

Insight: Are Hindutva Hawks Giving Hinduism A Bad Name?

By Prakriti Shah / Delhi

Of the several identifiers Indians fall back upon to define themselves  language, caste and religion are the foremost. While  these aspects of the Indian social identity have had some association with political wrestling matches and consequent violence, religion holds the distinction of riling the most number of people in most number of ways in our country.

Religion today is a sharp knife that slices through the country’s educated classes dividing them into to either pro-Hindu or anti-Hindu. The social media version of the debate is often abrasive, offensive, ill-informed or just a bitter verbal boxing match with the parties zealously trying to be the most vengeful, mistaking that to be a moral triumph. Within this context, the concept of secularism has been reduced to Congress’ vote bank politics in India.

Who Says Religion Is Just About God And Dogmas?

It is so much more. Define and live your religiosity in your own way. Some questions that have been discussed in this column earlier (“Who am I? What is the purpose of my life? Am I really honest?“) came up for discussion at a Delhi party recently, held in honour of Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post. Arianna threw in an interesting perspective ­ “Indians find it easier to discuss these topics openly because it is so much a part of your culture, religion and upbringing. 

Islam And Compassion – An Scriptural, Historical And Contemporary Perspective

By M H Ahssan

Islam is generally associated with Jihad popularly interpreted as war. But the fact is that a careful understanding of the Qur’an in its totality clearly establishes that mercy, compassion and peace are the predominant values. There are few verses in Qur’an on war and killing. These verses have been given more importance both by some Muslims as well as antagonistic non-Muslims.

Muslims, because they wanted to justify war for territorial conquests and non-Muslims as they wanted to prove Islam is a religion of war and violence. Both these Muslim’s as well as non-Muslims, have strong vested interests in understanding the Qur’an in their own ways so as to promote their interests. However, those who have no such interests, would like to understand Qur’an in its real spirit.]

Before we proceed further I would like to emphasize that Islam is a religion, not a political system or ideology, as some Muslims and non-Muslims would like to project it. It is also not true that in Islam politics cannot be divorced from religion. If we examine Islamic history, it would be abundantly clear that Islam as a religion had always been twisted to suit political ends. It is politics which always reined supreme subordinating religion to its interest.

Religion represents human beings’ inner, spiritual need and always stresses spiritual values and practices designed to realize these spiritual values. Spiritual values can be realized only when there are conditions of peace both inner and outer. Inner peace is necessary for outer peace and similarly peace out there reinforces peace within. No religion thus will promote war and destruction.

It is only rulers and conquerors who resort to war and often use religion or certain aspects of religion for the justification of territorial war. But a truly religious person who takes spiritual aspects of religion seriously, would not only shun war but oppose it, whatever justification by the rulers.

The Prophet of Islam was intensely spiritual person and hence Qur’an describes him as Rahmatun lil alamin (Mercy of the worlds). Had he been in pursuit of power he would not be described as such. The whole biography of the Prophet (PBUH) shows he never went out in pursuit of power. He never raised an army for that purpose. He remained committed to peace.

However, there were occasions in his life when he had to fight, fight in defence of himself and fledgling community of Muslims as unbelievers of Mecca never left him in peace. He had to migrate from Mecca when oppression by Meccan unbelievers became intolerable. It speaks volumes for the Prophet (PBUH) that he never prayed against them even during worst of the situations he faced.

When he entered Mecca during last years of his life he never sought revenge from anyone.[1] He showed compassion to worst of his enemies like Hinda who had chewed liver of his Uncle Hamza. The tribal law of Arabia required that she be killed and her liver also be chewed. However, Prophet (PBUH) being highly spiritual man, resorted to compassion rather than qisas (retaliation in equal measure).

The Prophet never declared war against any nation, nor against any tribe. But when attacked he fought for his defense. All such verses in Qur’an about war pertain to such situations Prophet faced. In many cases the tribes with which Prophet had entered into peace treaty broke it and treacherously attacked Muslims. It was only then that Qur’an ordered him to fight in self defence.

We would like to quote some such verses so that we can understand its context. In this context the chapter 9 known as Surah Bara’ or chapter on Immunity. This chapter mainly deals with the problem of some tribes breaking their treaty with Muslims repeatedly and advises Muslims to declare immunity (bara’) from such treaty as these tribes were not observing terms and conditions of the treaty.

Maulana Muhammad Ali, a noted commentator on the Qur’an observed in the opening statement to this chapter, “The title of this chapter is taken from the opening statement, which contains declaration of immunity from obligations with such of the idolatrous tribes as had repeatedly broken their engagements. This declaration is one of the most important events in the history of Islam, for hitherto the Muslims had constantly suffered from the hostility of the unscrupulous idolatrous tribes who had no regard for their treaties, dealing a blow at the Muslims wherever they had an opportunity of doing so.”

Thus it should be remembered that in this chapter there are verses asking Muslims to fight and kill wherever they find members of the tribe who had broken the treaty and dealt heavy blow to Muslim’s. Taken out of this context the verses will surprise any reader of these verses as to how a compassionate and just God could order such killings. But these verses must be read in the context in which they were revealed and utter adversity which Muslims were facing in that society where violence was very way of life.

Thus this chapter opens with these words, ” A Declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.” (9:1) Now this statement right at the outset of the chapter 9 explains why Muslims were allowed to fight against idolatrous tribes. The fact that Muslims had entered into treaty with these tribes clearly show that they wanted to co-exist with these idolaters provided they reciprocated. Peaceful co-existence was the main objective.
But when these tribes broke their promise the Qur’an said to Muslims, “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first. Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.” (9:13)

Thus this verse clearly states that Muslims have been attacked first and hence they should defend themselves and fight back fearing only Allah and not the enemy. It is well known principle of the civilized world to defend oneself if attacked. How can then one say that Qur’an promotes war and bloodshed and requires believers to kill kafirs. The verses in isolation may seem to mean that way but one must understand significance of these verses only in totality of the Qur’anic verses including value-giving or normative verses. They cannot be taken in isolation.

What is often quoted is the following verse which is apparently shocking, if read in isolation, not only of the historical context but also of normative Qur’anic verses. The verse reads, “Fight those who believe not in Allah, not in the last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (9:29)
Obviously this verse refers to Christians and not idolaters as it uses the words ‘those who have been given the Book’. The Qur’an validates the religions brought by previous prophets from Adam to Christ and calls their followers as people of the Book. And hence there is no reason to declare war against them on the grounds of idolatry. The only reason to declare war against them was determination of Roman Empire which was Christian to uproot Islam and hence Qur’an wanted Muslims to fight to finish with them.

There are other verses in the Qur’an which clearly say that Jews and Christians are also believers and Allah has sent His prophets with truth to them and Muslims must respect them. The Prophet of Islam extended hand of friendship to the Christians of Najran and met their delegation inside his mosque and insisted that they (Christians) pray inside the mosque. He also signed a treaty with them guaranteeing them freedom of their religion and protection of their churches.

Also there are verses in Qur’an which guarantees paradise to Jews and Christians if they do good deeds. Thus in verse 2:62 we read, “Surely who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve,” if the above verse clearly states that those Jews and Christians who believe in Allah and the Last Day and do good deeds they shall have their reward with their Lord then why Quran ask Muslims to fight until the followers of the Book are defeated unless they are trying to wipe out Muslims and uproot Islam as the Roman Empire wanted to?

The Qur’an in fact is book of guidance, not of war and encourages Muslims to live in peace and harmony and coexist with all people be they unbelievers or Jews or Christians or of any other persuasion whatsoever. It is thus highly necessary that we understand Qur’an and its purpose for which it was revealed. Thorough Meccan period Qur’an kept on advising Muslims to bear all problems with patience and steadfastness and not to retaliate. The Muslims bore all oppression with greatest patience.

In fact the great virtues Qur’an stresses are compassion (rahmah), forgiveness (’afw) and patience (sabr). The Qur’an opens with four words Bism Allah al-Rahman Al-Rahim i.e. I begin in the name of Allah who is Merciful and Compassionate. Thus mercy and compassion are among Allah’s names, among others. And Muslims begin all their work with these words i.e. I begin in the name of Allah who is Merciful and Compassionate. This is so to make Muslims aware of importance of mercy and compassion.

I can say without any hesitation that peace, mercy and compassion are very central to Islam not fighting with non-believers, as one finds in the theology developed during medieval ages. We must thus explore why mercy, compassion, steadfastness, justice and benevolence so central to Qur’anic teachings lost their importance compared to ‘jihad’. In the contemporary world also, some misguided youth who commit acts of terrorism continue to draw from this theology.

As for theology and religious laws called shari’ah were human product in as much as human beings formulated them on selective readings of Qur’an and hadith (Prophet’s sayings. There is definite difference between Qur’anic pronouncements and theological or Shari’ah formulations.

As to this difference we must bear in mind that a religion is practiced at various levels, by people of first generation who live and work with the founder, by ordinary people who convert to that religion for their own reasons, or conviction, by ruling classes to suit their own interests and by those who completely identify themselves with its spirit and renounce their worldly interests.

Among those who were of first generation and lived and worked with the Prophet (PBUH) there were those who imbibed true spirit of Islam and practiced its values and virtues given above. Then there were those who developed political ambitions and interpreted religion in their own way, yet tried also to follow its spirit to a limited extent. Also, Islam kept on spreading outside Arabia and people of non-Arab origin embraced it for their own reasons.

Thus various groups developed in Islam apart from the ruling class Muslims. Many ‘ulama sided with the ruling class and did what was desired by the rulers and some ‘ulama resisted temptations to side with rulers and ruling classes to adhere to the spirit of Islam. Many Muslims withdrew from this struggle and began to live life in isolation from public view in khanqah (hospices).

Those ‘ulama who sided with rulers interpreted Qur’an and hadith in a way acceptable to rulers but never became popular among ordinary Muslims and their views were rejected. But those who developed Islamic laws or constructed Islamic theology independently became acceptable and popular among people but they too carried stamp of their time on their legal and theological systems.

Entire legal and theological system was formulated in a situation in which Muslims were an overwhelming majority and also the time frame and the period in which they worked had its own logic which could not be avoided. Though the Qur’an repeatedly stressed that all previous religions were also true and brought by prophets sent by Allah the view that Islam was superior could not be avoided and Muslims became more privileged than others.

The entire legal and theological system carried stamp of this thinking and is fully validated even today. Muslims belonged to the ruling majority and non-Muslims, even those described as people of the Book faced the same fate though they were fully protected and their lives guaranteed. Yet they were non-equal. I think according to the values of the time it was the best bargain for them as among other religious communities Muslims or people of other religions, other than those belonging to non-ruling religious communities, they were treated in a much worse manner.

But the world of Sufis was very different. Their lives were completely devoted to spiritual practices and there was no question of any discrimination. The Muslim Sufis, Christian mystics and Jewish Cabala parishioners met and indulged in spiritual practices on equal terms. The Sufis were devoted to values and not only rituals. The virtues promoted by Qur’an – compassion, patience, humility and quest for truth were practiced in their real spirit.

The Sufis were not drawn towards grandeurs of this world. They preferred utter simplicity and were content with basic needs. One can practice values in their true spirit only when one resists desires and greed. We find striking examples of compassion and forgiveness among these Sufis. They could not bear suffering of others and were moved to remove suffering.

A Sufi saint called Junaid once saw an ant crawling in his room. He thought he would unconsciously trample upon it and it is likely to be killed and this thought made him very restless. He began thinking of ways and means to save the ant. He saw a vessel containing wheat flour and he gently lifted the ant and left it inside the vessel so that it can feed on it and also be saved.

They never wanted to possess anything beyond their basic needs and would give away the rest in the way of Allah. They used to receive offerings from their followers and they would spend all that by running kitchen called langar where all those hungry could eat whenever they liked. Langar was free for all. Even if they had little they would share with those needier.

Once a poor man came to Nizamuddin Awliya, a great sufi saint of thirteenth century India. He wanted few tankas (currency unit of the time) but Nizamuddin had none. He thought for a while and gave him his worn out shoe. The man was surprised as to how this is going to solve his problem. But he had no other way and took it and went out. On the way he met a man and inquired about the worn out shoe. He said it was given to him by Nizamuddin.

He said how much do you need and the poor man told him how much he needed. He gave him twice as much and took away the shoe as some thing highly precious. Then the man understood why Nizamuddin gave him his worn out shoe. These Sufis would help all suffering souls in whatever way they could. They tried to control their desire and interpreted the word jihad, unlike the ruling classes as war against ones own desires rather than war against eternal enemy. For them greatest enemy was ones own desire as this desire actually leads to war for grabbing others territory, others possessions. They called fighting against own desire as jihad-e-akbar i.e. the greatest jihad.

On their scale of values compassion and forgiveness and reducing others suffering stood much higher than fighting against external enemies. They considered themselves as followers of those of Prophet’s companions who were poor and had no worldly ambition and were ever ready to sacrifice everything they had. It is these Sufis who attracted non-Muslims to Islam by being role model.

Today in our contemporary world consumerism and greed are our great enemies. Without resisting undue desire for luxury and comforts at the cost of others we cannot avoid wars. Gandhiji, the saint of modern India observed that there is enough on this earth to fulfill our desires but not enough to satisfy the greed of one. Only those devoid of compassion and blinded by naked desire are responsible for war and destruction in our age also.

Islam’s basic emphasis is also on compassion, human dignity and justice and peace. Islam as a religion spread fast among people because of these values, not because of sword. Sword was wielded by rulers and they frightened rather than attracted whereas Sufis attracted rather than frightened because of their emphasis on values. Those misguided terrorists need to coolly reflect on these values.

Unfortunately they hardly take into account Islamic values of forgiveness, compassion for human suffering and upholding sanctity of human life. This is possible only when you separate religion and religious conduct from power. Powerfulness and religiosity can never go together. Power and arrogance go together. Any individual or nation drunk with power becomes arrogant.

Maulana Rum, a great sufi of his time chided his disciples when they started beating a drunkard when he fell down on them saying he is not in his senses but you are real drunkard as you are drunk with power on helpless person and he is drunk with wine not with power. We cannot be compassionate if we are too drunk with power. I would like to conclude with a quotation from Maulana Rum who represents real spirit of Islam. He said ‘come come to me if you are a Jew or Christian or a Muslim or even if you are a sinner as you are all human beings. Allah is compassionate and forgives sinners, if they repent sincerely. Compassion and forgiveness, not power and arrogance, will make us better Muslims’.

Islam And Compassion – An Scriptural, Historical And Contemporary Perspective

By M H Ahssan

Islam is generally associated with Jihad popularly interpreted as war. But the fact is that a careful understanding of the Qur’an in its totality clearly establishes that mercy, compassion and peace are the predominant values. There are few verses in Qur’an on war and killing. These verses have been given more importance both by some Muslims as well as antagonistic non-Muslims.

Muslims, because they wanted to justify war for territorial conquests and non-Muslims as they wanted to prove Islam is a religion of war and violence. Both these Muslim’s as well as non-Muslims, have strong vested interests in understanding the Qur’an in their own ways so as to promote their interests. However, those who have no such interests, would like to understand Qur’an in its real spirit.]

Before we proceed further I would like to emphasize that Islam is a religion, not a political system or ideology, as some Muslims and non-Muslims would like to project it. It is also not true that in Islam politics cannot be divorced from religion. If we examine Islamic history, it would be abundantly clear that Islam as a religion had always been twisted to suit political ends. It is politics which always reined supreme subordinating religion to its interest.

Religion represents human beings’ inner, spiritual need and always stresses spiritual values and practices designed to realize these spiritual values. Spiritual values can be realized only when there are conditions of peace both inner and outer. Inner peace is necessary for outer peace and similarly peace out there reinforces peace within. No religion thus will promote war and destruction.

It is only rulers and conquerors who resort to war and often use religion or certain aspects of religion for the justification of territorial war. But a truly religious person who takes spiritual aspects of religion seriously, would not only shun war but oppose it, whatever justification by the rulers.

The Prophet of Islam was intensely spiritual person and hence Qur’an describes him as Rahmatun lil alamin (Mercy of the worlds). Had he been in pursuit of power he would not be described as such. The whole biography of the Prophet (PBUH) shows he never went out in pursuit of power. He never raised an army for that purpose. He remained committed to peace.

However, there were occasions in his life when he had to fight, fight in defence of himself and fledgling community of Muslims as unbelievers of Mecca never left him in peace. He had to migrate from Mecca when oppression by Meccan unbelievers became intolerable. It speaks volumes for the Prophet (PBUH) that he never prayed against them even during worst of the situations he faced.

When he entered Mecca during last years of his life he never sought revenge from anyone.[1] He showed compassion to worst of his enemies like Hinda who had chewed liver of his Uncle Hamza. The tribal law of Arabia required that she be killed and her liver also be chewed. However, Prophet (PBUH) being highly spiritual man, resorted to compassion rather than qisas (retaliation in equal measure).

The Prophet never declared war against any nation, nor against any tribe. But when attacked he fought for his defense. All such verses in Qur’an about war pertain to such situations Prophet faced. In many cases the tribes with which Prophet had entered into peace treaty broke it and treacherously attacked Muslims. It was only then that Qur’an ordered him to fight in self defence.

We would like to quote some such verses so that we can understand its context. In this context the chapter 9 known as Surah Bara’ or chapter on Immunity. This chapter mainly deals with the problem of some tribes breaking their treaty with Muslims repeatedly and advises Muslims to declare immunity (bara’) from such treaty as these tribes were not observing terms and conditions of the treaty.

Maulana Muhammad Ali, a noted commentator on the Qur’an observed in the opening statement to this chapter, “The title of this chapter is taken from the opening statement, which contains declaration of immunity from obligations with such of the idolatrous tribes as had repeatedly broken their engagements. This declaration is one of the most important events in the history of Islam, for hitherto the Muslims had constantly suffered from the hostility of the unscrupulous idolatrous tribes who had no regard for their treaties, dealing a blow at the Muslims wherever they had an opportunity of doing so.”

Thus it should be remembered that in this chapter there are verses asking Muslims to fight and kill wherever they find members of the tribe who had broken the treaty and dealt heavy blow to Muslim’s. Taken out of this context the verses will surprise any reader of these verses as to how a compassionate and just God could order such killings. But these verses must be read in the context in which they were revealed and utter adversity which Muslims were facing in that society where violence was very way of life.

Thus this chapter opens with these words, ” A Declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.” (9:1) Now this statement right at the outset of the chapter 9 explains why Muslims were allowed to fight against idolatrous tribes. The fact that Muslims had entered into treaty with these tribes clearly show that they wanted to co-exist with these idolaters provided they reciprocated. Peaceful co-existence was the main objective.
But when these tribes broke their promise the Qur’an said to Muslims, “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first. Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.” (9:13)

Thus this verse clearly states that Muslims have been attacked first and hence they should defend themselves and fight back fearing only Allah and not the enemy. It is well known principle of the civilized world to defend oneself if attacked. How can then one say that Qur’an promotes war and bloodshed and requires believers to kill kafirs. The verses in isolation may seem to mean that way but one must understand significance of these verses only in totality of the Qur’anic verses including value-giving or normative verses. They cannot be taken in isolation.

What is often quoted is the following verse which is apparently shocking, if read in isolation, not only of the historical context but also of normative Qur’anic verses. The verse reads, “Fight those who believe not in Allah, not in the last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (9:29)
Obviously this verse refers to Christians and not idolaters as it uses the words ‘those who have been given the Book’. The Qur’an validates the religions brought by previous prophets from Adam to Christ and calls their followers as people of the Book. And hence there is no reason to declare war against them on the grounds of idolatry. The only reason to declare war against them was determination of Roman Empire which was Christian to uproot Islam and hence Qur’an wanted Muslims to fight to finish with them.

There are other verses in the Qur’an which clearly say that Jews and Christians are also believers and Allah has sent His prophets with truth to them and Muslims must respect them. The Prophet of Islam extended hand of friendship to the Christians of Najran and met their delegation inside his mosque and insisted that they (Christians) pray inside the mosque. He also signed a treaty with them guaranteeing them freedom of their religion and protection of their churches.

Also there are verses in Qur’an which guarantees paradise to Jews and Christians if they do good deeds. Thus in verse 2:62 we read, “Surely who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve,” if the above verse clearly states that those Jews and Christians who believe in Allah and the Last Day and do good deeds they shall have their reward with their Lord then why Quran ask Muslims to fight until the followers of the Book are defeated unless they are trying to wipe out Muslims and uproot Islam as the Roman Empire wanted to?

The Qur’an in fact is book of guidance, not of war and encourages Muslims to live in peace and harmony and coexist with all people be they unbelievers or Jews or Christians or of any other persuasion whatsoever. It is thus highly necessary that we understand Qur’an and its purpose for which it was revealed. Thorough Meccan period Qur’an kept on advising Muslims to bear all problems with patience and steadfastness and not to retaliate. The Muslims bore all oppression with greatest patience.

In fact the great virtues Qur’an stresses are compassion (rahmah), forgiveness (’afw) and patience (sabr). The Qur’an opens with four words Bism Allah al-Rahman Al-Rahim i.e. I begin in the name of Allah who is Merciful and Compassionate. Thus mercy and compassion are among Allah’s names, among others. And Muslims begin all their work with these words i.e. I begin in the name of Allah who is Merciful and Compassionate. This is so to make Muslims aware of importance of mercy and compassion.

I can say without any hesitation that peace, mercy and compassion are very central to Islam not fighting with non-believers, as one finds in the theology developed during medieval ages. We must thus explore why mercy, compassion, steadfastness, justice and benevolence so central to Qur’anic teachings lost their importance compared to ‘jihad’. In the contemporary world also, some misguided youth who commit acts of terrorism continue to draw from this theology.

As for theology and religious laws called shari’ah were human product in as much as human beings formulated them on selective readings of Qur’an and hadith (Prophet’s sayings. There is definite difference between Qur’anic pronouncements and theological or Shari’ah formulations.

As to this difference we must bear in mind that a religion is practiced at various levels, by people of first generation who live and work with the founder, by ordinary people who convert to that religion for their own reasons, or conviction, by ruling classes to suit their own interests and by those who completely identify themselves with its spirit and renounce their worldly interests.

Among those who were of first generation and lived and worked with the Prophet (PBUH) there were those who imbibed true spirit of Islam and practiced its values and virtues given above. Then there were those who developed political ambitions and interpreted religion in their own way, yet tried also to follow its spirit to a limited extent. Also, Islam kept on spreading outside Arabia and people of non-Arab origin embraced it for their own reasons.

Thus various groups developed in Islam apart from the ruling class Muslims. Many ‘ulama sided with the ruling class and did what was desired by the rulers and some ‘ulama resisted temptations to side with rulers and ruling classes to adhere to the spirit of Islam. Many Muslims withdrew from this struggle and began to live life in isolation from public view in khanqah (hospices).

Those ‘ulama who sided with rulers interpreted Qur’an and hadith in a way acceptable to rulers but never became popular among ordinary Muslims and their views were rejected. But those who developed Islamic laws or constructed Islamic theology independently became acceptable and popular among people but they too carried stamp of their time on their legal and theological systems.

Entire legal and theological system was formulated in a situation in which Muslims were an overwhelming majority and also the time frame and the period in which they worked had its own logic which could not be avoided. Though the Qur’an repeatedly stressed that all previous religions were also true and brought by prophets sent by Allah the view that Islam was superior could not be avoided and Muslims became more privileged than others.

The entire legal and theological system carried stamp of this thinking and is fully validated even today. Muslims belonged to the ruling majority and non-Muslims, even those described as people of the Book faced the same fate though they were fully protected and their lives guaranteed. Yet they were non-equal. I think according to the values of the time it was the best bargain for them as among other religious communities Muslims or people of other religions, other than those belonging to non-ruling religious communities, they were treated in a much worse manner.

But the world of Sufis was very different. Their lives were completely devoted to spiritual practices and there was no question of any discrimination. The Muslim Sufis, Christian mystics and Jewish Cabala parishioners met and indulged in spiritual practices on equal terms. The Sufis were devoted to values and not only rituals. The virtues promoted by Qur’an – compassion, patience, humility and quest for truth were practiced in their real spirit.

The Sufis were not drawn towards grandeurs of this world. They preferred utter simplicity and were content with basic needs. One can practice values in their true spirit only when one resists desires and greed. We find striking examples of compassion and forgiveness among these Sufis. They could not bear suffering of others and were moved to remove suffering.

A Sufi saint called Junaid once saw an ant crawling in his room. He thought he would unconsciously trample upon it and it is likely to be killed and this thought made him very restless. He began thinking of ways and means to save the ant. He saw a vessel containing wheat flour and he gently lifted the ant and left it inside the vessel so that it can feed on it and also be saved.

They never wanted to possess anything beyond their basic needs and would give away the rest in the way of Allah. They used to receive offerings from their followers and they would spend all that by running kitchen called langar where all those hungry could eat whenever they liked. Langar was free for all. Even if they had little they would share with those needier.

Once a poor man came to Nizamuddin Awliya, a great sufi saint of thirteenth century India. He wanted few tankas (currency unit of the time) but Nizamuddin had none. He thought for a while and gave him his worn out shoe. The man was surprised as to how this is going to solve his problem. But he had no other way and took it and went out. On the way he met a man and inquired about the worn out shoe. He said it was given to him by Nizamuddin.

He said how much do you need and the poor man told him how much he needed. He gave him twice as much and took away the shoe as some thing highly precious. Then the man understood why Nizamuddin gave him his worn out shoe. These Sufis would help all suffering souls in whatever way they could. They tried to control their desire and interpreted the word jihad, unlike the ruling classes as war against ones own desires rather than war against eternal enemy. For them greatest enemy was ones own desire as this desire actually leads to war for grabbing others territory, others possessions. They called fighting against own desire as jihad-e-akbar i.e. the greatest jihad.

On their scale of values compassion and forgiveness and reducing others suffering stood much higher than fighting against external enemies. They considered themselves as followers of those of Prophet’s companions who were poor and had no worldly ambition and were ever ready to sacrifice everything they had. It is these Sufis who attracted non-Muslims to Islam by being role model.

Today in our contemporary world consumerism and greed are our great enemies. Without resisting undue desire for luxury and comforts at the cost of others we cannot avoid wars. Gandhiji, the saint of modern India observed that there is enough on this earth to fulfill our desires but not enough to satisfy the greed of one. Only those devoid of compassion and blinded by naked desire are responsible for war and destruction in our age also.

Islam’s basic emphasis is also on compassion, human dignity and justice and peace. Islam as a religion spread fast among people because of these values, not because of sword. Sword was wielded by rulers and they frightened rather than attracted whereas Sufis attracted rather than frightened because of their emphasis on values. Those misguided terrorists need to coolly reflect on these values.

Unfortunately they hardly take into account Islamic values of forgiveness, compassion for human suffering and upholding sanctity of human life. This is possible only when you separate religion and religious conduct from power. Powerfulness and religiosity can never go together. Power and arrogance go together. Any individual or nation drunk with power becomes arrogant.

Maulana Rum, a great sufi of his time chided his disciples when they started beating a drunkard when he fell down on them saying he is not in his senses but you are real drunkard as you are drunk with power on helpless person and he is drunk with wine not with power. We cannot be compassionate if we are too drunk with power. I would like to conclude with a quotation from Maulana Rum who represents real spirit of Islam. He said ‘come come to me if you are a Jew or Christian or a Muslim or even if you are a sinner as you are all human beings. Allah is compassionate and forgives sinners, if they repent sincerely. Compassion and forgiveness, not power and arrogance, will make us better Muslims’.

Islam And Compassion – An Scriptural, Historical And Contemporary Perspective

By M H Ahssan

Islam is generally associated with Jihad popularly interpreted as war. But the fact is that a careful understanding of the Qur’an in its totality clearly establishes that mercy, compassion and peace are the predominant values. There are few verses in Qur’an on war and killing. These verses have been given more importance both by some Muslims as well as antagonistic non-Muslims.

Muslims, because they wanted to justify war for territorial conquests and non-Muslims as they wanted to prove Islam is a religion of war and violence. Both these Muslim’s as well as non-Muslims, have strong vested interests in understanding the Qur’an in their own ways so as to promote their interests. However, those who have no such interests, would like to understand Qur’an in its real spirit.]

Before we proceed further I would like to emphasize that Islam is a religion, not a political system or ideology, as some Muslims and non-Muslims would like to project it. It is also not true that in Islam politics cannot be divorced from religion. If we examine Islamic history, it would be abundantly clear that Islam as a religion had always been twisted to suit political ends. It is politics which always reined supreme subordinating religion to its interest.

Religion represents human beings’ inner, spiritual need and always stresses spiritual values and practices designed to realize these spiritual values. Spiritual values can be realized only when there are conditions of peace both inner and outer. Inner peace is necessary for outer peace and similarly peace out there reinforces peace within. No religion thus will promote war and destruction.

It is only rulers and conquerors who resort to war and often use religion or certain aspects of religion for the justification of territorial war. But a truly religious person who takes spiritual aspects of religion seriously, would not only shun war but oppose it, whatever justification by the rulers.

The Prophet of Islam was intensely spiritual person and hence Qur’an describes him as Rahmatun lil alamin (Mercy of the worlds). Had he been in pursuit of power he would not be described as such. The whole biography of the Prophet (PBUH) shows he never went out in pursuit of power. He never raised an army for that purpose. He remained committed to peace.

However, there were occasions in his life when he had to fight, fight in defence of himself and fledgling community of Muslims as unbelievers of Mecca never left him in peace. He had to migrate from Mecca when oppression by Meccan unbelievers became intolerable. It speaks volumes for the Prophet (PBUH) that he never prayed against them even during worst of the situations he faced.

When he entered Mecca during last years of his life he never sought revenge from anyone.[1] He showed compassion to worst of his enemies like Hinda who had chewed liver of his Uncle Hamza. The tribal law of Arabia required that she be killed and her liver also be chewed. However, Prophet (PBUH) being highly spiritual man, resorted to compassion rather than qisas (retaliation in equal measure).

The Prophet never declared war against any nation, nor against any tribe. But when attacked he fought for his defense. All such verses in Qur’an about war pertain to such situations Prophet faced. In many cases the tribes with which Prophet had entered into peace treaty broke it and treacherously attacked Muslims. It was only then that Qur’an ordered him to fight in self defence.

We would like to quote some such verses so that we can understand its context. In this context the chapter 9 known as Surah Bara’ or chapter on Immunity. This chapter mainly deals with the problem of some tribes breaking their treaty with Muslims repeatedly and advises Muslims to declare immunity (bara’) from such treaty as these tribes were not observing terms and conditions of the treaty.

Maulana Muhammad Ali, a noted commentator on the Qur’an observed in the opening statement to this chapter, “The title of this chapter is taken from the opening statement, which contains declaration of immunity from obligations with such of the idolatrous tribes as had repeatedly broken their engagements. This declaration is one of the most important events in the history of Islam, for hitherto the Muslims had constantly suffered from the hostility of the unscrupulous idolatrous tribes who had no regard for their treaties, dealing a blow at the Muslims wherever they had an opportunity of doing so.”

Thus it should be remembered that in this chapter there are verses asking Muslims to fight and kill wherever they find members of the tribe who had broken the treaty and dealt heavy blow to Muslim’s. Taken out of this context the verses will surprise any reader of these verses as to how a compassionate and just God could order such killings. But these verses must be read in the context in which they were revealed and utter adversity which Muslims were facing in that society where violence was very way of life.

Thus this chapter opens with these words, ” A Declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.” (9:1) Now this statement right at the outset of the chapter 9 explains why Muslims were allowed to fight against idolatrous tribes. The fact that Muslims had entered into treaty with these tribes clearly show that they wanted to co-exist with these idolaters provided they reciprocated. Peaceful co-existence was the main objective.
But when these tribes broke their promise the Qur’an said to Muslims, “Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first. Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.” (9:13)

Thus this verse clearly states that Muslims have been attacked first and hence they should defend themselves and fight back fearing only Allah and not the enemy. It is well known principle of the civilized world to defend oneself if attacked. How can then one say that Qur’an promotes war and bloodshed and requires believers to kill kafirs. The verses in isolation may seem to mean that way but one must understand significance of these verses only in totality of the Qur’anic verses including value-giving or normative verses. They cannot be taken in isolation.

What is often quoted is the following verse which is apparently shocking, if read in isolation, not only of the historical context but also of normative Qur’anic verses. The verse reads, “Fight those who believe not in Allah, not in the last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (9:29)
Obviously this verse refers to Christians and not idolaters as it uses the words ‘those who have been given the Book’. The Qur’an validates the religions brought by previous prophets from Adam to Christ and calls their followers as people of the Book. And hence there is no reason to declare war against them on the grounds of idolatry. The only reason to declare war against them was determination of Roman Empire which was Christian to uproot Islam and hence Qur’an wanted Muslims to fight to finish with them.

There are other verses in the Qur’an which clearly say that Jews and Christians are also believers and Allah has sent His prophets with truth to them and Muslims must respect them. The Prophet of Islam extended hand of friendship to the Christians of Najran and met their delegation inside his mosque and insisted that they (Christians) pray inside the mosque. He also signed a treaty with them guaranteeing them freedom of their religion and protection of their churches.

Also there are verses in Qur’an which guarantees paradise to Jews and Christians if they do good deeds. Thus in verse 2:62 we read, “Surely who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve,” if the above verse clearly states that those Jews and Christians who believe in Allah and the Last Day and do good deeds they shall have their reward with their Lord then why Quran ask Muslims to fight until the followers of the Book are defeated unless they are trying to wipe out Muslims and uproot Islam as the Roman Empire wanted to?

The Qur’an in fact is book of guidance, not of war and encourages Muslims to live in peace and harmony and coexist with all people be they unbelievers or Jews or Christians or of any other persuasion whatsoever. It is thus highly necessary that we understand Qur’an and its purpose for which it was revealed. Thorough Meccan period Qur’an kept on advising Muslims to bear all problems with patience and steadfastness and not to retaliate. The Muslims bore all oppression with greatest patience.

In fact the great virtues Qur’an stresses are compassion (rahmah), forgiveness (’afw) and patience (sabr). The Qur’an opens with four words Bism Allah al-Rahman Al-Rahim i.e. I begin in the name of Allah who is Merciful and Compassionate. Thus mercy and compassion are among Allah’s names, among others. And Muslims begin all their work with these words i.e. I begin in the name of Allah who is Merciful and Compassionate. This is so to make Muslims aware of importance of mercy and compassion.

I can say without any hesitation that peace, mercy and compassion are very central to Islam not fighting with non-believers, as one finds in the theology developed during medieval ages. We must thus explore why mercy, compassion, steadfastness, justice and benevolence so central to Qur’anic teachings lost their importance compared to ‘jihad’. In the contemporary world also, some misguided youth who commit acts of terrorism continue to draw from this theology.

As for theology and religious laws called shari’ah were human product in as much as human beings formulated them on selective readings of Qur’an and hadith (Prophet’s sayings. There is definite difference between Qur’anic pronouncements and theological or Shari’ah formulations.

As to this difference we must bear in mind that a religion is practiced at various levels, by people of first generation who live and work with the founder, by ordinary people who convert to that religion for their own reasons, or conviction, by ruling classes to suit their own interests and by those who completely identify themselves with its spirit and renounce their worldly interests.

Among those who were of first generation and lived and worked with the Prophet (PBUH) there were those who imbibed true spirit of Islam and practiced its values and virtues given above. Then there were those who developed political ambitions and interpreted religion in their own way, yet tried also to follow its spirit to a limited extent. Also, Islam kept on spreading outside Arabia and people of non-Arab origin embraced it for their own reasons.

Thus various groups developed in Islam apart from the ruling class Muslims. Many ‘ulama sided with the ruling class and did what was desired by the rulers and some ‘ulama resisted temptations to side with rulers and ruling classes to adhere to the spirit of Islam. Many Muslims withdrew from this struggle and began to live life in isolation from public view in khanqah (hospices).

Those ‘ulama who sided with rulers interpreted Qur’an and hadith in a way acceptable to rulers but never became popular among ordinary Muslims and their views were rejected. But those who developed Islamic laws or constructed Islamic theology independently became acceptable and popular among people but they too carried stamp of their time on their legal and theological systems.

Entire legal and theological system was formulated in a situation in which Muslims were an overwhelming majority and also the time frame and the period in which they worked had its own logic which could not be avoided. Though the Qur’an repeatedly stressed that all previous religions were also true and brought by prophets sent by Allah the view that Islam was superior could not be avoided and Muslims became more privileged than others.

The entire legal and theological system carried stamp of this thinking and is fully validated even today. Muslims belonged to the ruling majority and non-Muslims, even those described as people of the Book faced the same fate though they were fully protected and their lives guaranteed. Yet they were non-equal. I think according to the values of the time it was the best bargain for them as among other religious communities Muslims or people of other religions, other than those belonging to non-ruling religious communities, they were treated in a much worse manner.

But the world of Sufis was very different. Their lives were completely devoted to spiritual practices and there was no question of any discrimination. The Muslim Sufis, Christian mystics and Jewish Cabala parishioners met and indulged in spiritual practices on equal terms. The Sufis were devoted to values and not only rituals. The virtues promoted by Qur’an – compassion, patience, humility and quest for truth were practiced in their real spirit.

The Sufis were not drawn towards grandeurs of this world. They preferred utter simplicity and were content with basic needs. One can practice values in their true spirit only when one resists desires and greed. We find striking examples of compassion and forgiveness among these Sufis. They could not bear suffering of others and were moved to remove suffering.

A Sufi saint called Junaid once saw an ant crawling in his room. He thought he would unconsciously trample upon it and it is likely to be killed and this thought made him very restless. He began thinking of ways and means to save the ant. He saw a vessel containing wheat flour and he gently lifted the ant and left it inside the vessel so that it can feed on it and also be saved.

They never wanted to possess anything beyond their basic needs and would give away the rest in the way of Allah. They used to receive offerings from their followers and they would spend all that by running kitchen called langar where all those hungry could eat whenever they liked. Langar was free for all. Even if they had little they would share with those needier.

Once a poor man came to Nizamuddin Awliya, a great sufi saint of thirteenth century India. He wanted few tankas (currency unit of the time) but Nizamuddin had none. He thought for a while and gave him his worn out shoe. The man was surprised as to how this is going to solve his problem. But he had no other way and took it and went out. On the way he met a man and inquired about the worn out shoe. He said it was given to him by Nizamuddin.

He said how much do you need and the poor man told him how much he needed. He gave him twice as much and took away the shoe as some thing highly precious. Then the man understood why Nizamuddin gave him his worn out shoe. These Sufis would help all suffering souls in whatever way they could. They tried to control their desire and interpreted the word jihad, unlike the ruling classes as war against ones own desires rather than war against eternal enemy. For them greatest enemy was ones own desire as this desire actually leads to war for grabbing others territory, others possessions. They called fighting against own desire as jihad-e-akbar i.e. the greatest jihad.

On their scale of values compassion and forgiveness and reducing others suffering stood much higher than fighting against external enemies. They considered themselves as followers of those of Prophet’s companions who were poor and had no worldly ambition and were ever ready to sacrifice everything they had. It is these Sufis who attracted non-Muslims to Islam by being role model.

Today in our contemporary world consumerism and greed are our great enemies. Without resisting undue desire for luxury and comforts at the cost of others we cannot avoid wars. Gandhiji, the saint of modern India observed that there is enough on this earth to fulfill our desires but not enough to satisfy the greed of one. Only those devoid of compassion and blinded by naked desire are responsible for war and destruction in our age also.

Islam’s basic emphasis is also on compassion, human dignity and justice and peace. Islam as a religion spread fast among people because of these values, not because of sword. Sword was wielded by rulers and they frightened rather than attracted whereas Sufis attracted rather than frightened because of their emphasis on values. Those misguided terrorists need to coolly reflect on these values.

Unfortunately they hardly take into account Islamic values of forgiveness, compassion for human suffering and upholding sanctity of human life. This is possible only when you separate religion and religious conduct from power. Powerfulness and religiosity can never go together. Power and arrogance go together. Any individual or nation drunk with power becomes arrogant.

Maulana Rum, a great sufi of his time chided his disciples when they started beating a drunkard when he fell down on them saying he is not in his senses but you are real drunkard as you are drunk with power on helpless person and he is drunk with wine not with power. We cannot be compassionate if we are too drunk with power. I would like to conclude with a quotation from Maulana Rum who represents real spirit of Islam. He said ‘come come to me if you are a Jew or Christian or a Muslim or even if you are a sinner as you are all human beings. Allah is compassionate and forgives sinners, if they repent sincerely. Compassion and forgiveness, not power and arrogance, will make us better Muslims’.