A Case for Islam - An Opinion

Islam was born in the sands of Saudi Arabia in 622, the first year of Muslim calendar.  Islam literary means 'surrender', surrender to the God Almighty.  History tells us that prophet Mohammed started getting revelations at the age of 40 in the cave of Hira near Mecca.  He came to realize, through Archangel Gabriel, that there is but one God Allah and everything else is surrendered to His wishes.  Islam considers Mohammed as its prophet and advocates surrender to God into one brotherhood called 'umma'.  It preaches us to give alms for His love, at least 2.5 % of one's yearly income, for the poor. It is called 'Zakat' and asks us to pray five times a day, facing towards Mecca, the center of Arab power.  It preaches us to fast during the ninth lunar month, Ramadan, and make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca in one's lifetime.  It prohibits use of wine and allows keeping unto 4 wives.

Islam believes in Jihad. It is considered a holy war. Those who do not submit to God get themselves destroyed by the call of Jihad against them.  Islam is not very specific as to who is authorized to make a call for Jihad, as is seen today in such random calls by self-made groups of terror.  Even the true spirit and relevance of Jihad is not transparent.  Every one seems to have his own interpretation to serve his own self-interest.  The liberals have no voice as against the fanatics and the fundamentalists.
Islam vividly lays down that on the last Day of Judgment when all the dead would be raised from the grave to hear God's judgment, Muslims would surely get favor of a like of paradise and a nymph.  This reflects that the God of Islam is a selective God and not the God of all mankind and of other religions. Is it not the fact that there is but one God and the ways to God are many?

As an Equalitarian Religion
It is generally believed that Islam is an equalitarian religion.  It stands for equality and rejects all systems that are discriminating.  For centuries Islam remained in the forefront of civilization.  Since its advent, for three centuries, the Arab army of Islam conquered Christian lands of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa and even South Europe.  The march of Islamic forces lasted till the extinction of Ottoman Empire.  In the meantime the religion was spread with the might of the ruler's sword, whose superior military power dominated and terrorized the land and the people with threat of extinction Later on.  The Islamic march of forces was repelled by the more superior fire-power of cannons, muskets, and trained and organized military of the Christians.

The continued Islamic conquests resulted in the feeling of superiority among Muslims. This gave birth to aristocracy at different times and under different circumstances. The emergence of elite or caste was never the part of Islam.  It was denounced as non-Islamic yet it prevailed. There are several institutionalized groups now in Islam.  Besides Sunni and Shiite, there are twelvers (Ithna-Asharis); Seveners (Ismailis) and Fivers (Zaydis).  An off-shoot of the 19th century is Bahais (Ahamadiyans).  Then there are Sufis in both Sunnis and Shiites.  Among small sectarian groups with unorthodox beliefs can be counted Druza; Alevis; and Alawis.  In India the division is more distinct between sects such as Wahidies, Deobandis, Bareilvis, Ahle Hadies, Jafaries and so on.

The Nature and Meaning of Equality in Islam
The Islam with its superior military might stressed on inequality on the basis of Holy Writ and discriminated between man and man and between man and woman.  It can be easily marked in its relationship between master and slave, man and woman, and believers and non-believers. It should be noted that the Islamic world for centuries fought for civic rights of the people.  From time to time, there arose a number of social reformers who tried to overthrow differences between high born and low born, rich and poor, Arab and non-Arabs and proclaimed that the difference is contrary to the Islamic brotherhood but none of them questioned the above three discriminations as non-Islamic.

Islam on Slavery
Islamic law opposes hereditary privileges of all kinds and also monarchy inheritance but it is seldom followed in practice.  It is true that it accepted concessions in human rights for slaves.  The slaves and the woman remained part of the household but were never treated on equal footing. Islamic law sanctioned slavery but no one dared to raise a voice against it.  It was the Ottoman Empire that effectively tried to abolish slavery but could succeed only in 1830.  The Christian slaves had to be set free despite orthodox Muslim opposition.  On the request of the British in 1846, the Shah of Persia in 1857 issued a Ferman and the slave traffic was brought to an end.

Ahmed- Khalid-Al-Nasin (1834-1897) wrote that 'the unlimited enslavement of the Blacks and the imposition of many droves on them every year for sale in the town and country when the men traffic in them like beasts or worse.'

The orthodox Muslims on the pretext of Islamic law always defended slavery, but the Ottoman Empire and Persia in the 20th century succeeded in contributing solidly in the field of slave emancipation. Though they could not pass a law until 1962, when it was finally abolished in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.  In India, it was the slave dynasty that temporarily ruled over some part of the country but slavery gradually vanished away.  The progressive Islam today is getting inclined to treat others on equal basis and learn to co-live with them as man and man.
On women
The treatment of woman as totally inferior to man still remains justified on orthodox level. The Ottoman Empire really brought about revolutionary change in their status but even today the problem still remains unsolved and needs introspection.  The condition of woman in Islamic states is not a matter of pride as is expressed in the protesting voice of Afghan women today.  It is mainly the concern of the Islamic world and it is they who could finally do the needful.  The experience of India is not encouraging.  The Shah Bano case under orthodox Muslim influence surpassing the Supreme Court and influencing the ruling party for vote bank politics has opened the Pandora box of anti secular trends.  The mentality of issuing fatwas in case of rape and talaq many times surpasses the Supreme Law of the land which mars the secular character and creates bad blood among progressive people.

Treatment of People of Other Religions
The status of non'Muslims under Islamic rule was totally based on inequality in the garb of Islamic law but in the 19th century, Ottoman Empire granted equal citizenship rights to all its subjects.  It declared on Nov. 3, 1830, 'The Imperial concessions are extended to all its subjects, of whatever religion or sect they may be.' Even security of life, property, and justice was granted equally to all.
The Islamic rulers always treated the subject people as inferior, unequal and a second-class citizen.  The obligation of Muslim state to wage war on non-Muslims in order to bring them under Gods Law led to negative views in non-Muslim people towards Islam.  The Islamic rulers levied Jazia (Protection Tax) on non-Muslims and banned bearing of arms.  They called the protected people as Dhimmi and imposed on them many shameful restrictions and special taxes so that they may feel compelled to convert. 

The bare fact is that Islam started as religion but soon after turned into an organization of states and brutal army based on fundamentalism of Islam. The religion sharpened the sword to increase the number of religious followers.  Jazia was the way to pressurize and humiliate the subject people in order to get their conversion or extinction.

The Ottoman Empire in 1856, abolished all these inequalities.  There have been occasions when the Islamic world has succeeded in overcoming the orthodox influence to march with the time on the road of progress according to the needs of the age, The various Fatwas issued by the extremists challenging the onward march fell flat and void. The law restricting the religious freedom of non-Muslims is in affect even today but fortunately it is limited to Islamic countries only and depends upon ruler to ruler.
Islam in India

The Islamic invaders of India were made of a different stuff.  Mohammed Bin Quasim in 712 AD was first to invade Sindh, a part of vast India.  The Arab commander of the first Islamic force to reach India had reported from Sindh to caliph in 644, "Water is scarce, the fruits are poor, and the robbers are bold. If a few troops are sent, they will be slain, if many they will starve.'

It should be noted that Hindu kings ruled over Afghanistan during this period and no Muslim power dared attack.  After the invasion of Sindh, no Islamic force dared to come for 300 years unto 997, when Mohammed Ghazni made an invasion after failing at least 17 bloody times each winter into Punjab places waging Jihad on infidels as they called the Hindus.  Are the invading forces qualified in Islam to invade in the name of Jihad and also decide the nature of infidels?  No one in Islamic world raised a voice against them and their forces, even when they abducted women and destroyed countless idols, erected masjids along its side in the name of Islam, indulged in looting, plundering and killing thousands as part of Islamic Jihad. 

Ghazni singled out Somnath temple of Gujarat, which was known for its fabulous wealth and even upon 50,000 stained corpses in one single day, destroyed the temple and looted away 2 million of Dinars worth of gold and jewels. The Mughal Emperor Babar got the Ram Temple of Ayodhya destroyed to erect a mosque in its place. (Some Muslims of today dispute this fact).
Historian Cunningham writes,'Hindus united to face the attack on the Ram temple. There were 180,000 dead. Only then Meer Baqui destroyed the temple.'  Hamilton reports,'The masjid was built with mortar mixed with blood and fat from Hindu corpses.'

Thus in India, killing, raping, robbing and enslaving in the name of Jihad went on under ruling powers of the Islamic forces from the foreign lands.  Even the Indian forces of Islam indulged in such brutal acts.  The Mughal Emperor Jahangir tortured the Sikh Guru Arjun Deo to death for refusing to convert to Islam and for favoring his son Khusaro. The ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Teg Bahadur (1621-1675) was beheaded for refusing to convert.

Sir Yadunath Sarkar says that the Muslim rule ended the secular rule of Hindus and instead established purely a fundamentalist Islamic rule.  It treated non-Muslims as enemies of the royal power and made it a sacred religious duty to eradicate them and their power.  It was based on the principle that those who do not convert to Islam or do not fight on their side or keep neutral are Zimmies.  The ruler may protect them but never without charge of a prize called Jazia.  They were not to be treated equally. Many other restrictions to make them a second-class citizen were imposed on them. They had to wear ordinary dress.  Neither they were allowed to ride on horseback before a Muslim nor bear any arms. Even religious rites had to be conducted so as not to disturb or offend a Muslim.

RCMajumdar quotes Hamdin Zakhiratul Mukluk in History Of Culture of Indian People that such restrictions on Hindus were imposed in the name of Islam.  Neither new temples were allowed to be constructed nor old ones repaired.  Muslims could enter and stay in any temple without any restriction.  Non-Muslims had to pay respect to all Muslims.  They were not allowed to put on a Muslim dress or take up a Muslim name or live in any Muslim locality.  Hindus were even prohibited to lament loudly at the loss of their dear and near ones.

The Quazis and Mullas were always more oppressive. Ziauddin Barrani demanded still more restrictions on Hindus so that the flag of Islam ever remain unfurl on the Hindu sky.  Mugisuddin, a quazi, asked Allahuddin Khilzi to place only two options before Hindus ' Convert to Islam or be hanged.  However Hanifa advocated the third option of Jazia. Ibne Batuta from Africa has vividly described the brutal tortures and persecutions by the Muslim rulers in the name of Islam over the Hindus.

It should be noted that the Muslims in India were never more than 10% but always remained first class citizen, calling 90% of Hindus as Zimmies and levying Jazia (protection tax) and so many other restrictions to make their life hellish and inferior or coerce them to convert in Islamic faith.  The Hindu merchants were made to pay double the duty on some products bought and sold by Muslims.  The protesters were trampled under foot of the royal elephants'all in the name of Jihad and Islamic law.

No one came out among Muslims to oppose such atrocities committed on majority Hindu community of India in their own homeland by the minute minority of Islamic rulers.  The invading foreign forces and the Muslim rulers of India got full clandestine support from the followers of Islam.  Somehow or other, the Muslims were led to believe that the Sunnat and Quran justifies the barbarous execution of non-Muslims for their forceful conversion as the highest test of their faith.  Later during the process of partition of India, the entire Hindu population was wiped off in the Pakistani part to remain at 2%.  Tikka Khan, the martial law administrator of East Pakistan saw dissemination of 25 million Hindus (More than the then population of Palestine).  Even in Bangla Desh, the Hindus are relentlessly persecuted and its population has dwindled to 8.57%n as against 29% during its foundation.

It is a fact that Hindus never surrendered its homeland without a struggle.  Its forces on occasions became stronger. History tells us that the last Mughal Emperor was banished by the British and not a dog barked.  Actually Delhi at that time was being dominated by Maratha power.  Maratha kingdom, though later got divided, always was powerful to give tough fight to Mughal rulers. The brave Rajputs were very fierce and challenging. There were many Hindu kingdoms that were strong to face the Islamic march like Vijaynagar and Chola dynasty.  Even in the north planes the spiritual light spread by Tulsidas and Surdas was sufficient to infuse fresh vigor and enthusiasm among Hindus.  The secret of Hindu might and spiritual strength was realized by Akbar.  His diplomacy succeeded in winning over Hindus as he changed all previous rules and treated all its people equally without any distinction or favor.  He abolished the hated Jazia and brought forth the mullah and Imams to welcome the changes as in accordance with Islamic Law.

The Superiority Complex
The invaders of Islamic forces lived in the world of their own.  The subjugation of Europe and a part of Russia for centuries and then a large part of India under Islam made Islam as a great military power on earth.  Its army's non-stop invaded China, India, Africa and Europe.  Africa gave them gold and slaves and India gold and jewels.  Slave trade flourished.  The superiority sense dominated and gripped it with overconfidence so much so that the meaning of 'treaty ' changed and came to be known as total surrender to the wish of the victor.  Actually the struggle leading to the propagation of Islam was given a religious sanctity in the name of Jihad.

Some Muslims say that the term Jihad stands for financial enterprise, industry, struggle for a prosperous and peaceful brotherhood. Nabi permitted fighting in the name of Jihad when the Muslims were compelled to fight in self-defense in Medina. The best Jihad is considered in a visit to Haj pilgrimage.  Later on the quazies termed it for war during the days of Islamic conquests so that there be mass conversion under threat or compulsion, failing which extinction of the people as a whole or part.  The world was divided into two parts ' Darul Islam (The land of peace) and Darul Harab (The land of war).  The conquest of Harab was a part of Islamic Jihad.

Jihad came to be known tool for conversion out of terror, thread, and forceful compulsion under ruler's sword.  Notable is the example of the famous Urdu poet Iqbal of Sare Jahan Se Achcha Hindosita Hamara, Hindi hai Ham Watan Hai, Hindosita Hamara. His forefather Sapru of Kashmir India had to embrace Islam as he was given only two options'Be converted or get hanged in a case of financial mismanagement by the Muslim ruler.  It was this very Iqbal who said that Hindus and Muslims can not live together. He is not alive today to see that Muslims with a population bigger than that of Pakistan are living with Hindus in India today.

Daniel Pipes in his study, 'Islam and Political Power ' writes, 'for Muslims power comes first.  Ruling Hindus became so routine that political ascendance came to be seen as a Muslim prerogative. Hard as it is for a Muslim to accept British domination, this was at last mitigated by the fact of the Hindus being subjugated as well.'  Wilfred Cantwell Smith in Islam in Modern History says that "Muslims want to be in power or not in power."  Never before they knew of a share in power, how to live with others as equals this is the psychological mindset.

It is also a fact that during the British rule, the criminal law was passed abolishing the beating and torturing of the accused.  Under Islamic law, the punishment for theft is the amputation of hands and a deterrent punishment for fornication is flogging with 100 stripes  ' a 7th century deed of barbaric cruelty.  The British made Crpc. changed all this.  No Muslim cried, Islam is in danger. The progressive world of Islam welcomed this timely change with grace.

Islam and Human Rights
Provisions of Islamic law are sometimes so interpreted by the orthodox clergy that it comes into conflict with human rights and international law.  International law and Human Rights require recognition of the rights of all people to freedom of religion. It recognizes full equality of women. The countries are required to relate to each other on basis of peace and reciprocity.  Shariat law says that war can be conducted, as obligation on Islamic states, to bring people under control of Islamic Law.

Muslims in modern India
Today Hindu and Muslim in secular India are living happily.  The need of the day is that the Muslims function not as Muslims first and Indian afterwards.  India is the homeland of Muslims too as also the land of their ancestors. The partitioned part of India decided to become based on fundamentalist Islam theory but the original India remained secular. There is no room for what was said by Hakim Azamal Khan, the President of the Ahemadabad (Gujarat) Congress Session that, 'India and the Asia Minor are but the extreme links in the chain of future Islamic federation, joining together all intermediate states in one great system.'

Secular India is liberal and knows to Co-live and co-exist.  Panch sheel is its declared policy. We do still have a road in the name of Aurangzeb where as we can hardly find a Muslim named Aurangzeb.  There is Tughlaqabad, one of the seven cities of Delhi and a railway station named after him although we do not find any Muslim bearing his name after Tughalaq. 

Our outlook has to be based on reason, toleration and cooperation. Unfortunately the orthodox clergy stood in the way of progressive Islam and the moderates liberals are lost in the dint of slogan,'Islam is in danger'.  The truth still remains that Islam has all along been a religion wedded to the Absolute Truth and surrender to the Almighty Allah.  Hindus know that so long as spirituality is alive, the nation can not die. Surrender to God makes Islam something eternal and Infinite.  It has simply to guard against the tendency, which prevents and keeps it away from progressive thoughts, trends, and times.  It has to guard against those who supply irrational thinking and distorted interpretation of Islam as and when it suits their interest.  Exaggerated accounts and fake stories of oppression and humiliation based on immature imaginative thoughts, misinterpretations and shortsightedness create anger and angry people can never think properly.

No religion on earth approves of indiscriminate killing of innocent and unarmed people. or the old, infirmed people, widows and women. Children, even unborn children and unarmed people are targeted, the fair sex raped, others mercilessly killed and butchered. Even the killing of fellowmen who disagree with them in such barbarous acts is executed without any shame or sorrow.  Anger brings disgrace to mankind. It is for the liberals and thinkers to raise their voice against it effectively and discharge their religious responsibility.

Today Islamic movement has to co-live with others and accept the existence of other religions by respecting their viewpoint and expressing belief in freedom of religion and expression.  The God of Islam is not only the Allah of Muslims; it is the god of all mankind.  He is the Absolute Truth, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient.  God is One Absolute but the ways to reach Him are many.
Emperor Akbar in his letter to the king of Iran, Shah Abdus Safri wrote long ago, 'The different religions are all divine treasure and God himself has placed them in our hands. It is our duty to love all of them.' Abid Hussein in TOI Nov. 20, 03 writes, 'Truth is one, but spirituality through which we seek it has many hues.  The Creator has never commanded us to hate someone because of his belief. We have no right to denounce another religion or faith.'

This is rational thinking. We have to appreciate the value of rational thoughts Strong denunciation of religious obscurantisms and mindless terrorism is the demand of the day. The real Islam has known it since its birth and knows it even today, as rational thinking in Islam is not anti-Semitic and cannot be ignored. Amen.

Why Do Muslim Women Have To Cover Their Heads (Hijab)?

By Sameena Fatima Roohi (Guest Writer)

FRIDAY SERMON It is the general consensus among the Muslims that a Muslim woman is required to cover her head leaving only her face showing as part of an overall dress code and behaviour which Islam prescribes. It is therefore part of the social system of Islam, and a manifestation of important general Islamic principles. Firstly, an educated Muslim woman does this because she is following guidance from God and His prophet Muhammad recorded in the Qur'an, and in the Sunnah, the knowledge about the practice and example of the Prophet Muhammad.

Islam at Crossroads: Who's to Blame?

By Rajaque Rahman

It has become almost fashionable for a Muslim to say 'Islam is in danger'. The religion whose literal meaning is peace is today seen as the root cause of terror and violence. The Muslim world cannot merely dismiss this as a fallout of a grand conspiracy against Islam by people of other faiths. It has failed to present the real essence of Islam and remained a mute spectator to many atrocities against humanity committed in the name cleansing the world of infidels.

This diffidence to stand up for Islam is mainly due to lack of clarity among Muslims about what their religion truly stands for. The Muslim world is heavily weighed down by its own blinkered interpretation of what's permitted and forbidden in Islam. The most glaring misinterpretation that has led to a distortion of the very essence of Islam is its understanding of the expression 'La Ilaaha Illallaah', which is the first principle of Islam. Literally translated, it means 'there is no god but God'.

However, generations of Muslims have been taught to interpret it as 'there is no god but Allah'. Thanks to this limiting interpretation, Muslims are made to believe that there are many gods, but only Allah is the right one. This understanding totally distorts Islam's real message of tauhid (oneness of God).

A case in point is the recent statement of chairman of National Fatwa Council of Malaysia Abdul Shukor Husin while passing a fatwa against yoga. "Many Muslims fail to understand that yoga's ultimate aim is to be one with a God of a different religion." When one has affirmed to 'La Ilaaha Illallaah', how can a Muslim think of another "God of a different religion".

If a Muslim thinks there are different Gods for different religions, he is negating the essence of Islam and unwittingly subscribing to polytheist beliefs. 'La Ilaaha Illallaah' establishes beyond argument that there is only one God. However differently we may pray and by whatever name we may call, it goes to that one source. Further, the Quran clearly states that God can be invoked in different names. "Glory be to God, beyond any associations. He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names." [Al Hashr 59:22].

Despite the clear pointers in the Quran, orthodox mullahs still hold that calling God by any other name than Allah amounts to associating a partner with Him. The biggest casualty of this exclusivity of Allah has been the concept of jihad, prompting innocent Muslims to believe that fighting against 'infidels' who don't call God by Allah is an act worthy for the Quranic promise of heaven for jihad. This amounts to challenging Quran's command to invoke God by any names with a sense of reverence and beauty.

This myopic interpretation of the concept of tauhid has had a domino effect on other spheres of life. Take the case of recent fatwas forbidding yoga for Muslims on the ground that yoga will erode their faith in the religion.

As the Quran and Hadith have nothing specific that will make practice of yoga haram, the ulemas based the ruling on their own fear of supposedly 'Hindu' elements of yoga destroying the faith of a Muslim. The best way to allay their fear is to look at the Hindu philosophy on yoga and see how and where it contradicts the tenets of Islam.

Yoga simply means uniting with the Self. Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga Sutras starts by calling itself an enunciation in union. The asanas, the practice of which is the focal point of these fatwas, are just one way of attaining that union. Is striving for such a union with the Self against Islam? It cannot be. For, Prophet Mohammed has said, "He who knows his own Self knows his Lord." Anything done in pursuit of knowing the Lord will count as a meritorious act of following the Prophet.

The best explanation of why yoga is not just permissible, but also desirable for Muslims is to be found in the second sutra of the Yoga Sutras. "Yogas Chitta Vritti Nirodhah." It means yoga is stopping all the modulations of the mind. Ceasing all the outward activities of the mind and reposing in Allah is the ultimate goal of Islam. So doing yoga asanas as a means of attaining a thoughtless state will qualify as the highest form of ibadat (prayer). Hence contrary to the fatwas, yoga as a spiritual pursuit is very much permissible in Islam.

It's universally proven that yoga brings peace of mind, and on that count yoga is almost obligatory for Muslims. As Islam means peace, peace of mind is a prerequisite for one to be truly following Allah's only religion.

This leaves only one ground for orthodox mullahs to frown at yoga: that yoga stems from polytheist beliefs of Hinduism. But when yoga means union, how can it be linked to polytheist beliefs? In fact, yoga takes one away from polytheism and leads to Advaita, which is in perfect agreement with the doctrine of tauhid.

The time has come for ulemas to dispel this mistaken understanding of the real essence of Islam. Else history will accuse them of doing a great disservice to Islam and unwittingly leading innocent Muslims towards polytheism.

Zakir Naik Is An Islamic Supremacist; Speaks Of Sex Slaves, Suicide Bombing

By LIKHAVEER | INNLIVE

Islamic tele-evangelist Zakir Naik is once again in the news. And it comes as no surprise that this time too it is for all the wrong reasons.

Investigations post the Dhaka attack revealed that two of the attackers were followers of the Mumbai-based preacher.

In Their Search For Pure Islam, Many Muslim Sects Consider Others 'Insufficient' Or 'Infidels'

By NEWSCOP | INNLIVE

One of the key reasons why Muslim societies are in ferment concerns a theological tradition practiced by Islamic clerics to declare other Muslims as munafiqeen (hypocrites), kafir (infidels), or simply insufficient Muslims.

On 5 August, the Mumbai-based Urdu daily Roznama Inquilabpublished a report on its frontpage raising alarm that Qadianis have been included in the 2011 census report as Muslims.

Build The Peace Consensus

By Sadia Dehlvi

The trail of terror continues with cricketers as the latest target. The Mumbai and Lahore attacks, public executions and the murder of over a thousand civilians in the Swat valley by Taliban-style terrorists are horrifying examples of atrocities committed by militant groups thriving on political Islam. Global Muslim communities urgently need to condemn the agenda of political Islam that distorts religious scriptures to legitimise violence. This ideology of Islamism is threatening to replace a moderate and spiritual Islam, leading to the destruction of many societies and, in particular, oppression of women and minorities.

Muslims have a moral responsibility to engage in the social, political and economic development of the societies they live in. Global Muslim societies would do well to imitate the exceptional efforts of Indian clerics in denouncing terrorism and delinking it with Islam. Sincere moral outrage needs to be expressed at Taliban atrocities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, political kidnappings and assassinations, militancy in Kashmir, Shia-Sunni killings in Iraq and Pakistan, fatwas condoning suicide bombings in the Israel-Palestine conflict and other atrocities affecting innocent lives. Muslims require an international consensus on combating extremism. Our credibility is lost when we express selective outrage, as in the aftermath of the Danish cartoons controversy.

Political Islam draws its lifeblood from the ideology of fighting the oppressor, but has clearly become the oppressor itself. Though some Islamist groups have renounced violence, accepted the principles of democracy and marginally improved their stand on women and minority rights, they remain socially conservative. In Jordan, the Islamist party does not support the rights of women to file for divorce. In Kuwait, the Islamists fought against the right of women to vote. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will not allow a woman or a person from a minority community to become head of state. Unfortunately, militant Islamist groups thrive in the political vacuum created by oppressive regimes in most Islamic countries.

Muslims must stop blaming the problem of extremism on catastrophic policies of foreign countries. For, two wrongs simply do not make a right. It is primarily a Muslim problem, threatening both Muslim and non-Muslim societies. We need to acknowledge that there is a problem of theology when extremists talk of going straight to heaven after taking innocent lives.

The roots of all modern militant Islamic movements can be traced to one man, Abdul Wahab from Nejd in the Arabian Peninsula. He set out to ‘purify’ Islam, believing that Muslims had drifted away from true religion. Wahab’s followers destroyed many sacred sites that he considered linked to idolatry. Attacking the arts for being frivolous and dangerous, Wahab sanctioned the rape, murder and plunder of those who refused to follow his injunctions. He was considered a heretic by most, for Mecca and Medina were then centres of contemplative Islam, inhabited by Sufis from all over the world.

In 1774-75, Wahab negotiated a deal with the then nomadic tribe of Saud, forebears of the current royal family, in exchange for support to their quest for political domination. Most Saudis reject the name Wahhabi; they either call themselves Muwahuddin — Unitarians — or Salafi, referring to salaf, the venerated companions of the Prophet. In this blinkered view, no other version of religious truth can exist. This new face of Islam has nothing to do with Sufis, music, poetry, miracles or the countless devotional customs of Muslim cultures across the world.

Under the patronage of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism went from strength to strength. Abul Ala Mawdudi, a journalist who translated the Quran outside the classical paradigms, propagated the Wahhabi ideology. He founded the political party Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, making jihad central to Islamic discourse. Addressing non-Muslims as infidels, he grouped Muslims into ‘partial’ and ‘true’ Muslims. Mawdudi’s ideas of Islam as a revolutionary doctrine to take over governments and overturn the whole universal order deeply influenced Syed Qutub of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These groups have been motivated by political upheavals and the rejection of traditional scholars. Syed Qutub’s brother happened to be among the teachers of Osama bin Laden.

The extremism now found in Mecca and Medina, the heartland of Islam, is the Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis have spent millions in promoting through their outreach programmes. There is no tolerance for Shias, Sunni Sufis or other Muslim traditions, leave alone non-Muslims. Unfortunately, there is no collective Muslim protest against the Saudi regime for bulldozing graveyards, destroying the cultural and religious heritage of the holy cities, imposing a certain segregation of the sexes inside the Prophet’s mosque at Medina, radical sermons or distribution of radical literature outside Saudi mosques, many of them issuing calls for death to whoever they view as infidels or innovators of Islam. The problem of Muslim extremism began in the Muslim world and the responsibility of resolving it lies with us.

The inability to present Islam as a peaceful religion is a collective failure of global Muslim communities. We could begin by increasing the decibel in condemning violence and sectarianism and standing up for women’s rights. We should stop demonising the ‘other’ as infidels and show increased support for democratic movements in Muslim countries. It is time for the devout, silent and peace-loving Muslim majority to speak for Islam. Let our voices be louder than the radical voices claiming to represent us.

Focus: 'RSS Hindutva Antics Give Lease Of Life To Muslims'

Narendra Modi's prime ministership may still be a work-in-progress, but for the wider Sangh Parivar it looks like mission accomplished and it might just as well go and hang out the buntings. For, in barely six months, it has succeeded in undoing years of hard work by the Muslim community to defang its own fanatical fringe.

Just when it seemed that the Muslim Right had started to come under pressure, it has been given a new lease of life by groups such as VHP and Bajrang Dal with their relentless hate campaign. Suddenly, the mullahs are crawling out of the woodwork full of sound and fury.

Can Islam liberate women?

By Sameera Altaf

Muslim women and scholars think it does - spiritually and sexually.

We're sitting in a stylish club, ArRum, in Clerkenwell, central London. Firelight is flickering on the leather sofas, there is contemporary art on the walls and delicious "fusion" food on the table, but what distinguishes this club from its many neighbours is that it is Muslim, there is no alcohol on the menu and downstairs there's a prayer room. The stylish place conveys a complex ethos - modern, yet true to its Muslim identity.

A suitable setting, then, chosen by the six Muslim women who agreed to meet me to discuss Islam and the position of women. All university graduates, all in their mid-twenties in careers ranging from journalism to teaching, all have chosen in the past few years to wear the hijab (a scarf wrapped tightly around their heads to conceal every wisp of hair). Most strikingly, however, all of these women fluently and cogently articulate how they believe Islam has liberated and empowered them. The Islam they describe is a million miles away from that of the Taliban, let alone the Islam practised in many Muslim countries from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, but they insist - and back up their points with Koranic references - that the Islam they first discovered when they were teenagers is true to the Prophet's teachings. They don't need western feminism, which, they argue, developed as a reaction against the particular expression of western patriarchy.

Within the Koranic tradition and the life of the Prophet lie the rights and inspiration a woman needs to achieve her full potential - the challenge ahead is to educate Muslim girls and women so that they have that knowledge. They justify wearing the hijab, either as a public statement of their own spiritual quest, or of their political identity in a world where Islam perceives itself as under threat, or both.

Shagufta, the 25-year-old editor of the Muslim magazine Q News, was brought up in London, in a traditional Pakistani home where the emphasis was on cultural conservatism rather than piety. A marriage to a cousin from Pakistan was arranged for her when she was about 10. Her parents had no wish for her to continue her education, and her adoption of the hijab was her rebellion against this traditional cultural background. "When I first put on hijab, my parents were shocked," she says. They would have been happier for her to wear the Pakistani shalwar kameez and a loose headscarf. "But I found liberation in Islam. It gave me the confidence to insist on a good education and reject the arranged marriage. Islam made sense to me, and I could understand it, as opposed to what I had grown up with. Plus, it was compatible with being British - being a British Muslim, rather than Pakistani."

Shagufta was influenced by her friend Soraya's decision to put on hijab. Soraya's French Catholic/Muslim liberal background could not have been more different but, like Shagufta, she found in the Koran an affirmation of herself as a woman: "The Koran says that men and women are equal in the eyes of God, and that we are like a garment for each other to protect one another."

Again and again, the women emphasise these two themes, evoked in richly poetic Koranic metaphor: first, the equality of the sexes in the eyes of God (the most meaningful equality of all, they argue), and second, the complementarity of the sexes. As the Koran puts it, "I created you from one soul, and from that soul I created its mate so that you may live in harmony and love."

It is true that there is plenty of material in the Koran that is more egalitarian than the western Christian tradition, which was heavily influenced by the misogyny of Greek thought. Perhaps the most fundamental is that the Islamic God does not have a gender. Arabic may refer to him by use of the male pronoun, but he is never described as "father" or "lord" as he is in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, the Islamic God has characteristics that are expressly feminine; one of his most important "names" is al-Rahman (the All-Compassionate) from the Arabic rahma , which comes from the word rahim , meaning womb. In Islamic mysticism, the divinely beloved is female, unlike in Christian mysticism - for example, Bernini's famous statue in Rome of St Teresa of Avila is in love with the male Christ. As one Muslim women, Sartaz Aziz, writes, "I am deeply grateful that my first ideas of God were formed by Islam, because I was able to think of the Highest Power as one without sex or race and thus completely unpatriarchal."

Jasmin also escaped from an arranged marriage by discovering Islam. Her transition to full religious observance came after university, when she was working for a television company. "I went to Agadir on holiday, returned with a fantastic tan, but went back to work in a hijab. One week in a skimpy swimsuit, the next in a hijab. One of my colleagues couldn't understand. She was crying as she said to me, "One moment you were a sex kitten, the next you're all wrapped up. She thought I was repressing myself; I felt I had achieved liberation.

"The attention I got from the other sex changed. Instead of a sexual approach, they had to take an interest in what was in my head and in my personality, rather than my body. Sometimes, when I flick through a fashion magazine, I think of taking off the hijab, but it passes quickly. Too many women exert power through their sexuality, and that's degrading to women. It's a form of enslavement."

The importance of each of these women's decisions to wear the hijab leads quickly to a heated discussion about where and how and why one expresses one's sexuality. All the women agree that this is one of the biggest sources of misunderstanding between western feminists and Muslim women. They do not wish to express their sexuality in public, and believe that its proper place is in the privacy of an intimate relationship. Sexuality is not to be used to assert power but to express love, they add. What they hotly deny is that veiling, and modesty in public, is a form of repression. It is not about shame of the female body, as western feminists sometimes insist, but about claiming privacy over their bodies. The Moroccan writer, Fatima Mernissi, ponders on how, in the west, women reclaiming their bodies has led to the public expression of their sexuality, whereas in Islam it is about modesty. The associations with shame and repression stem from the influence of the Christian tradition's hostility to sexuality and hence women, and the legacy of confusion and guilt that has bequeathed western society. Islam, on the other hand, has a healthy honesty and acceptance of human sexuality, which is evident in a wealth of detail in Islamic jurisprudence, they argue.

Dr Tim Winter, a Muslim convert and Cambridge lecturer, probably one of the most respected Islamic scholars in Britain, corroborates the assertion that Islam does not accept the mythology of Eve seducing Adam, and thus triggering the Fall and the endless cycle of death and procreation. According to Christian thought, sex was the result of human beings' fallen state and was traditionally regarded with distaste; celibacy was promoted as a sublimation of sexual energies in pursuit of God, epitomised by Christ's celibate life.

Nothing provides a sharper contrast with that model of holiness than the life of the Prophet Mohammed, who took 12 wives after the death of his first wife, Khadija. His love for his wives and sexual relationships with them are referred to in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet). One reference even extols the Prophet's virility, revealing how he could visit all of his wives in one night. This, says Dr Winter, makes him a full, complete man, closer to models of holiness such as Krishna or a Jewish patriarch such as King Solomon with his many wives.

Indeed, one of the injunctions on a husband is that he must sexually satisfy his wife; the Prophet recommends foreplay, and a great Islamic scholar, Imam Ghazali, warned men not to come too quickly. As Mernissi points out in Beyond The Veil, Islam always understood that women's sexuality was active, while western Christianity socialised women into accepting sexual passivity - the "lie back and think of England" approach. The latter, argues Mernissi, was a way of internalising in women the control on female sexuality that men wanted; Muslim cultures used external controls of segregation and male authority.

Back at ArRum, the women say that, for them, the affirmation of women's sexuality in Islam renders pointless many of the battles fought by western feminists. They have no need of Madonna-style exhibitionism to assert the power of female sexuality. Indeed, one woman said that the one achievement of feminism that she admired was to break down the restrictive passivity of Victorian perceptions of female sexuality.

Aisha and Khadija come out as the two top Koranic role models for these women, and both are quoted as examples of the prominence of women in the development of Islam. Khadija, the Prophet's first wife, was old (40) by the standards of the day when she proposed to the 25-year-old Mohammed. His first believer, she was his sole wife and a close adviser until her death. It was only then that the Prophet took other wives; he married several older widows, but Aisha was much younger than the Prophet, highly intelligent and assertive. There are several stories of how jealous she was of the Prophet's other wives and of how much he loved her. He died in her arms, and she became one of the first teachers of Islam after his death.

All the women I interviewed roll off a long list of hadiths and Koranic verses to support women's rights: the right to education; the right to work and their right to keep the money they earn, while men must use their earnings to look after their womenfolk; property rights; in one school of Islamic thought, women don't have to clean or cook for their husbands unless they are paid for it (wages for housework long before the 20th century thought it had invented it); the fact that the Prophet, according to Aisha, was something of a new man, and used to clean and sew when he wasn't praying; and then there is the praise lavished on the emotional qualities engendered by motherhood of nurturing and patience, with the Prophet's repeated injunctions to honour your mother.

But there are other parts of Koranic tradition that, to a western eye, seem deeply shocking. By some accounts, Aisha was only nine when her marriage to the Prophet (who was then in his fifties) was consummated. Or that, although the Koran insists that a man should treat all his wives equally, the Prophet admitted that he had a favourite, Aisha. Or the controversial incident when the Prophet glimpsed the wife of his adopted son and, after she had been divorced, he married her. Worst of all to a sceptical western eye, the Prophet often invoked God to explain such incidents.

This is very sensitive territory for devout Muslim women. For believers, the Prophet's life was perfect and according to God's plan. They haven't the freedom to develop the critical analytical tradition of western feminism, which has been so important in understanding how patriarchy has influenced religious, legal, moral and political systems. So, either they offer long explanations (such as that Aisha's age was due to the custom of the time and was probably not much different from the Virgin Mary's), or they acknowledge there are some things that they find very difficult. As one woman put it, "When I read about the Prophet's life, I feel it is unjust: he favoured one wife over another, and that makes me uneasy. I haven't found a scholar who can explain it, but I believe in a just God and the wisdom of the Prophet, so I take it on trust. That's faith. To have real knowledge of Islam is to study it for a long time; eventually, I might find an interpretation that satisfies me."

These are the sort of explanations that simply fail to convince a sceptical western mind. Perhaps one of the hardest things for a woman to accept in the Koranic tradition is polygamy and, indeed, many of the women I spoke to conceded some unease here. Although some were prepared to consider a polygamous marriage, they all confessed that it would be very difficult; one married woman had even included a prohibition on a second wife in her pre-nuptial contract (a Koranic invention that is mutually negotiated and can cover everything from housework to the frequency of sex). They had various explanations for why the Koran allows men to take four wives, such as the need to provide for war widows in a nomadic warrior culture. With the advent of the welfare state, such arguments are hard to sustain, as several of the women admitted.

Dr Rabia Malik, a psychotherapist, sometimes finds herself in the difficult position of having clients who want to take another wife: "Usually, the first wife doesn't satisfy them intellectually or sexually, and they start to think of taking a second wife, and I try to help them find solutions within their existing relationship."

Both Dr Malik and Humera Khan, founder of the women-run organisation An-Nisa, believe that the Koranic conditions on polygamy are so hard to meet that they virtually rule it out: only those men who can treat their wives equally are allowed more than one. But the fact remains that polygamy, though by no means the norm, is practised in all Muslim countries. Mernissi believes that this is an explicit humiliation of women, because it asserts that one woman can't satisfy a man; interestingly, Mernissi, a stout critic of certain aspects of Islam, is regarded with some suspicion by many of the women I spoke to.

Dr Winter takes a different tack, defending polygamy by arguing that it is widely practised in the west, from Bill Clinton to Prince Charles. It is, he says, simply more cruel in the west , because all the "wives" bar one are deprived of legal status and dignity. Controversially, he insists that "men are biologically designed to desire a plurality of women... and will always do so".

Such gender stereotypes (which are guaranteed to infuriate most western feminists) peppered all my interviews. The Muslim women I spoke to happily talked of women as being "more emotional" and men as "more rational". This was not the result of socialisation, but of nature, and western science was only finally catching up with Koranic insight into the profound differences and complementarity of the sexes. But they denied that this meant that women had to stay at home and men go out to work - they pointed out that many Muslim women work, both in the UK and abroad. The point was that equality did not mean the same in the two cultures, so that the preoccupation in western feminism to achieve and compete on equal terms in the public sphere was a response to the west's own history of seeing women as inferior. What the vast majority of women really want to do is to have and care for children, they said, and a genuinely equal society would be the one that honours that role and provides them with the financial resources to concentrate on it. After such responsibilities have been met (and, with the extended family, there are many to help with childcare), the woman is free to work. To Muslim women, equality means giving their femininity equal worth in the purpose of every human life - to know God. That's as possible in the domestic life of home and children as it is in the marketplace.

As Humera points out, Islam is a home-centred, family-oriented religion that, given the central role of women in both, explains the power of women in Muslim society. Part of the reason why westerners often don't grasp this, explains Dr Winter, is because this home life is private. Muslim cities don't have the grand civic spaces of European cities; they have little alleyways and the vibrant family life takes place behind high walls. The debate about the balance between the private and the public sphere has become much more acute, he says, with the development of industrialisation and the men leaving the home to work long hours. Dr Winter is sharply critical of the west's resolution of the balance between private family life and public life, arguing that the home has almost become a dormitory where the exhausted two-career couple meet briefly, rather than a setting in which children and the elderly can thrive, and where there is a range of familial relationships.

The way in which the traditional segregation is breaking down is one of the most problematic issues in current Islamic thinking. Dr Winter believes that some form of segregation would benefit women in the way that single-sex schooling helps girls develop more confidence, and would help prevent the problems of marriage breakdown experienced in the west: "Segregation has proved a spur in Iran to employing more women, for example," he says. "They now have quotas in the universities so women can be taught by women." But he goes on to acknowledge that "the practice of early Islam did not mean strict segregation, and the historic record is of a more relaxed and open society".

Many Muslims argue that the Prophet's injunction that no one address his wives except through a veil is the model for relations between the sexes. Strict segregation with women confined to the private sphere has been the rule in most Muslim cultures, though rarely as extreme as under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Dr Winter admits that total segregation in the workplace is not practicable, so that leaves devout Muslims with a dilemma of balancing the woman's right to work and be educated with the need to keep to Koranic tradition. The women I met at ArRum all live with their families or relatives, yet they work in mixed environments and travel to attend study courses (they claim they are allowed to travel more than 50 miles from home without a male companion if they are studying Islam). They say they naturally prefer a degree of segregation, enjoying deeper female friendships, rather than the confusing ambiguities of friendships with men. But the result is intense pressure on the women themselves.

All the women I spoke to, without a moment's hesitation, dismiss the restrictions in the many Islamic countries that oppress women as unIslamic "cultural practices", for example women not being allowed to drive or travel alone in Saudi Arabia. Blaming Islam for practices such as female circumcision, they claim, is the equivalent of blaming feminism for domestic violence - it is linking totally unrelated phenomena. Again, the absence of a critical analysis of the tradition is striking, and there is no answer to the question of why, if Islam offers women a bill of rights, it has not liberated more women. The point, they reply, is that male chauvinism and its bid to control women exists the world over; it simply takes different forms, and when women are educated and know what Islam really means, they can fight back.

They refuse to accept that some of the provisions of Sharia law seem to institutionalise inequality, such as the rule that a woman's evidence must be backed up by another woman. Shagufta admitted that she could see how an outsider might find the idea of stoning adulterers to death, the punishment prescribed in Sharia, as horrific, but, as her friends quickly pointed out, it requires four witnesses to the act of sexual penetration to convict an adulterer - a standard of proof so exacting, they claim, that it would be virtually impossible to achieve.

What women such as Shagufta, Maha, Soraya, Fareena and Jasmin want is to return to the freedoms that Islam brought women in the 7th century and beyond, when women became prominent Islamic scholars, poets and thinkers."We need a reformation in this global community," said Fareena. "We need to go back to the Islam of the golden age from the 7th to the 13th century." Soraya recognises that this desire to return to the 7th century is paradoxically close to the avowed aims of the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups, but the struggle is over interpretations of what is the true Islam, and British Muslim women are all too well aware of how fragile their position is, defending themselves against criticism from all sides - both from the westerners who accuse them of being oppressed and from the traditional Muslim cultures shocked by their independence and "westernisation".

The biggest danger is of a backlash in which the position of women is politicised as it was under the Taliban, where women were not allowed to work or be educated. In such a context, Dr Winter says, women are repressed to salve the sense of Islamic pride wounded by western hegemony and the savage poverty of many Muslim countries. Women are the traditional symbol of honour, and find themselves subjected to restrictions to safeguard their (and the next generation's) contamination from western culture.

So there is a striking bravery in these British Muslim women in their struggle to understand what they see as timeless truths and apply them to 21st-century life. They assiduously attend home-study circles, travel to California and the Middle East for special courses, take up correspondence courses with Islamic scholars and read to deepen their knowledge of Islam, and they believe they are pioneering a spiritual renewal and a rediscovery of their faith that empowers women.

Zakir Naik: A Suave, Soft Spoken And Articulate Face Of Salafi Islam

By SHEENA SHAFIA | INNLIVE

Islamic tele-evangelist Zakir Naik is once again in the news. And it comes as no surprise that this time too it is for all the wrong reasons.

Investigations post the Dhaka attack revealed that two of the attackers were followers of the Mumbai-based preacher.

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.