Straight Talk: The Actual Problem With Zakir Naik Is....

By ZEENAT ALI } INNLIVE

His puritanical and intolerant approach to religion is the opposite of what Muslims need today.

Last Friday ­ while interacting with media via video conference ­ preacher Zakir Naik was defensive and elusive, complaining about a “media trial“, “hate campaigns“ and “doctored videos“. Even though he condemned terrorism and killing of innocents in terrorist attacks ­ including the recent one in Nice, France ­ and labelled Islamic State as the Anti-Islamic State of Islam and Syria, he refused to acknowledge Osama bin Laden as a terrorist and maintained that 911attacks were an inside job.

In Kerala, Parents Struggle To Shake Children From The Influence Of Ultra-Conservative Islam

By ISMAIL KUTTY | INNLIVE

They say the growth of Salafism in the state has pulled their children away from mainstream life.

The news that 21 Muslims from Kerala have gone missing and were believed to have left the country to join the Islamic State has jolted several Muslim parents in the state who have seen signs of an increasing conservatism among their wards but are struggling to address the trend.

Opinion: The Great 'Wahhabi Impact' On Present Islamism

By Maulana Fareed Baig (Guest Writer)

The growing influence of Wahhabism, a radical stream of Islam, on Indian Muslims and on the political scene, especially south Indian politics, can cause further communal polarisation if the state fails to uphold the secular ethos. 

[The term "Wahabi" is a made-up name that does not refer to any new sect or group in Islam. The term was coined to refer to Sunni Muslims, mostly in the Arabian peninsula, who are considered more strict or traditional. Basically, Abdallah ibn abi Wahab was a reformer in Arabia who detested the fact that many had started to fall back into the habits of disbelief.

Unholy War: Atheists And The Politics Of Muslim-Baiting

There was a time when atheists were seen as equal-opportunity offenders of practitioners of virtually every faith on the basis of their advocacy of a scientific and rational outlook that made no concessions in matters of religious faith.

Polemical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who were dubbed the ‘The Unholy Trinity’, have openly criticised religion in their books – such as The God Delusion (Dawkins), God is not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris). But in an earlier time, much of their atheist exertions were focused on the excesses of Christianity, and to a lesser extent, Judaism.

In his book Letters to a Christian Nation, for instance, Harris states that his aim was to “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.” Religion, he argues, may have served some useful purpose for humanity in the past, but it was increasingly becoming the greatest impediment to building a global civilization.

But the terrorist attacks of September 2001, inspired by a jihadi-minded suicide squad assembled by Osama bin Laden, brought a new planet – Islam – into the atheists’ ken. Since arguably the most audacious terrorist attack in modern times was inspired by Islam, to which Western civilization had not devoted much critical attention, the attention – of media commentators and among the authors who explored the goings-on at the intersection of faith, society and politics – turned to something an obsession with Islam and jihad.

“The men who committed the atrocities of September 11,” wrote Harris, “were certainly not ‘cowards,’ as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith—perfect faith, as it turns out—and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be.”

More generally, Harris wrote that Islam, “more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”

And while there were “other ideologies with which to expunge the last vapors of reasonableness from a society’s discourse,” Islam, he added, “is undoubtedly one of the best we’ve got.”

Outpourings like these, and other such commentaries and, more recently, Twitter rants by Dawkins (such as this one – where he called Islam the “greatest force for evil today” – and this one – where he established an equivalence between the Koran and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf) have led commentators to wonder if the “New Atheists” – as they are called – are “flirting with Islamophobia.”

Writing in Salon, Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, reasons that the New Atheists found their calling with the September 2001 attacks. “The occasion was, for them, a vindication,— proof that modernity, progress and reason were the winners in the post–Cold War era and that religion was simply man’s play toy, used to excuse the wicked and assuage fears of a fiery, heavenless afterlife as the punishment for such profane deeds.”

And emboldened by the newfound religious fervor in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the New Atheists “joined a growing chorus of Muslim-haters, mixing their abhorrence of religion in general with a specific distaste for Islam,” writes Lean.

As he sees it, conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife “slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling.” The New Atheists, he writes, became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”

These New Atheists, reasons Lean, have used the “climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment” to shift their narrative – from trying to convince people that God is a myth – to embracing Islamophobia, the “monster narrative of the day.” That, he says, is not rational or even intelligent: it’s opportunism. “Proving that a religion – any religion – is evil… is just as pointless and impossible an endeavour as trying to prove that God does or doesn’t exist.”

A similar critique of the atheists’ excessive preoccupation with painting Islam as evil is offered up by Murtaza Hussain, a Toronto-based scholar of Mideast Politics. Writing in the Al Jazeera website, Hussain likens leading figures in the New Atheist movement – like Harris – to those from an earlier era who justified racism on pseudo-scientific grounds.

“Citing ‘Muslims’ as a solid monolith of violent evil – whilst neglecting to include the countless Muslims who have lost their lives peacefully protesting the occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland – Harris engages in a nuanced version of the same racism which his predecessors in scientific racism practiced in their discussion of the blanket characteristics of ‘Negroes’,” writes Hussain.

Hussain concedes that Islam as an “intellectual movement” is not above scrutiny; and attempts to shut down legitimate debate using the charge of Islamophobia should, he says, be rejected. “However,” he adds, what is being pursued today by individuals such as Harris and others under the guise of disinterested observation is something far more insidious.”

Where once science was trotted out to justify slavery, today it is being used to push forward the belief that Muslims as a people lack basic humanity and to justify the “wars of aggression, torture and extra-judicial killings”, he adds.

“And just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalise their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview,” Hussain writes.

Hussain’s column has an epilogue. After Guardian’s columnist Glenn Greenwald tweeted out a link to Hussain’s column, Harris e-mailed him (here) to object to his retweeting “defamatory garbage” and to claim that there was in fact “nothing defamatory” about his criticism of Islam and that he criticised “white, western converts in precisely the same terms.”

The truth, says Harris, is that the “liberal (multicultural) position on Islam is racist. If a predominantly white community behaved this way–the Left would effortlessly perceive the depth of the problem. Imagine Mormons regularly practicing honor killing or burning embassies over cartoons…”

Greenwald responded to Harris to say that he was probably “embarrassed that people are now paying attention to some of the darker and uglier sentiments that have been creeping into this form of atheism advocacy.” In his estimation, he added, “a bizarre and wholly irrational fixation on Islam, as opposed to the evils done by other religions, has been masquerading in the dark under the banner of rational atheism for way too long.”

Exclusive Interview-'Ready To Return Whenever Govt Wants Me': Dr.Zakir Naik

By M H AHSSAN | INNLIVE

Controversial preacher Zakir Naik has said he is wil ling to return to India “whenever the government or the agencies want me“. Last week, Naik had cited “travel plans“ and said he would come to India only next year. In an interview to INNLIVE from Jeddah, Naik said he was ready to face action if he had broken any law and challenged anyone to show he had attempted to disrupt harmony in India. 

How Akhila became Hadiya – and why her case has reached the Supreme Court?

A young woman adopted Islam, defying her Hindu family. The case has roiled Kerala.

It is called Devi Krupa – the blessings of the goddess. But inside the modest single-storeyed house in TV Puram village in Kerala’s Kottayam district, a young woman has been confined against her wishes, on the orders of Kerala High Court. Outside the house, six policemen stand guard round-the-clock.

Islam in Modern India

By M H Ahssan

Muslim influx and influence in India started almost at the inception of the religion. The traders from Arabia were frequent visitors to the Indian subcontinent even before Prophet Muhammad revealed the Koran. They brought the word of Muhammad to India in the 7th century and this resulted in some peaceful conversions of Hindus to Islam. Following this, Mohammad-ibn-Quasim in the year 712 A.D conquered the Province of Sindh. However, this event in history does not seem to have influenced India as much as expected. Beginning with the invasion of Mohammad of Ghazni in the 10th century, followed by a barrage of invaders from Persia, Turkey and Afghanistan in the 11th and 12th centuries, a full force of Islam was thrust upon India. Forcible conversions of people of other faiths with inducements as well as unfair taxation resulted in spread of the Islam in Hindustan. The British conquest in India that started insidiously with the establishment of the East India Company, eventually usurped the Muslim stronghold of India, in the 18th century.

Today there are more than a quarter of a billion Muslims living in the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh). This amounts to more than a quarter of the total Muslim population of the world. Muslims form about fifteen percent of the Indian population. It is unique that the Muslim population of India has been influenced by the Hindu religion throughout history. Sufism, for example is an adaptation of Vedanta. Over many centuries, Islam in India has undergone several attempts at reforms, some towards modernization and some leaning more towards fundamentalism.

The Muslims in India are categorized into two distinct classes based on their origins. This is similar to the caste system of Hinduism (so called Varnashrama). Muslims are broadly divided into two groups, namely, Ashraf and Ajlaf. Ashraf are again grouped as Sayyeds, Sheikhs, Mugahls and Pathans. The Sayyeds are said to be descendents of the Prophet and regarded in high esteem. The Sheikhs are of Arab descent and are next in line in prestige. The Mughals are descendents of the greatest Muslim rulers of India, the Mughals and occupy third place. Pathans including Sepahis hail from the northwestern regions including Afghanistan and form the last group of Ashraf. The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts and are considered to be of common ancestry. They are considered to be of inferior class when compared to the Ashraf.

Nineteenth century India saw great socio-religious reform in Hinduism. The reform movements of Rajaram Mohan Roy in 1827 first started the abolishing of Sati and recognition of widow marriage as well as education of women by founding of his Brahmo Samaj in Bengal. Many reform movements followed this, significantly the Prarthana Samaj started by Keshab Chandra Sen in 1867 (later popularized by G.M.Ranade and Bhandarkar), Arya Samaj established in 1875 by Dayananda Saraswati and Ramakrishna Mission of Vivekananda. The Theosophical Society of Colonel Cleott popularized by Annie Besant in 1886 in Madras, the Rehnumai Mazdayasan Sabha of the Parsees established by Dadabhai Navaroji in 1851 in Bombay and the Sri Narayan Dharma Paripalan Yogam started by Sri Narayana Guru in 1903 in Travancore were some other reform movements of late 19th century. All these reforms were attempts at steering the Hindu religion towards Vedanta, which is the backbone of its philosophy.

Unlike Hinduism, which is flexible and amenable to reform, Islam is rigid and difficult to change. Criticism of old archaic practices is shunned and viewed as anti- Muslim rhetoric. Modernization is seen as a threat to the way of life of a Muslim. In the face of such persistent orthodoxy all the reforms of the 19th century generally have been reverting to more fundamentalism rather than modernization. Two such reforms were the Wahabis and Tabligis.

The Wahabis
The Wahabi movement started in Saudi Arabia in the 18th century by Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahab (1703–1792) regards all other religions as heretical and thus intolerant towards them. The Indian Wahabi movement was founded by Syed Ahmed Brelavi (1789-1831) belonging to Rai Baraili. When he saw Islam drifting towards superstitions and exaggerated veneration of saints and prophets, he steered Islam to its more fundamental roots similar to the Arabian Wahabi movement. However, the Brelavi Wahabis had no direct contact with their counterparts in Arabia. Its aim was to establish Muslim sovereignty in India or a Dar-ul-Islam.

Though the Wahabis took part in fighting the British, the basic tenet of the movement did not change, that is to establish Muslim supremacy over all of India. Influenced by the Wahabi movement, two other fundamentalist movements came into existence. Shariatullah started Fairazi movement in attempt to aid the poor peasants in Bengal against the oppressive zamindars. Soon this became an anti-Hindu movement as well. More significant was the second movement called the Deoband. They established the Muslim schools for education, the model of which is still followed in the madrassahs around the Muslim world. These Deoband faction attracted students from all over the Muslim world. Financed by the rich Muslim Arab nations, fundamentalism was institutionalized in these schools. In India there is an undercurrent of discord between the Deoband faction and the Brelavi Wahabis, mainly due to the financial disparity. In course of time the movements started as reform of Muslims shifted course and has been preoccupied with power and control of the populous.

The Tabligis
Dayananda Saraswati’s Arya Samaj targeted Muslim converts and attempted a purification drive (shuddhikaran). As a response Maulana Iliyas of Mewat in Rajastan started the Tabligi movement in 1927. The Hindu converts were practicing a mixed form of Islam as they were culturally more Hindu than Muslim. Maulana Iliyas started his movement to transform these converts into ‘complete Muslims’ and put forward the slogan, ‘Aye Musalmano! Musalman bano’ (O Muslims! Be Muslims). True Islamic teachings and practices were taught in an uncompromising way. Initially localized to Mewat, the movement caught on and spread rapidly after the death of the Maulana.

The Tabligis follow strict codes of the Islamic law. They are bound by the religious dogma, dressing patterns, detailed methods of religious practices. Meetings of thousands of Muslim gatherings (Jama’at) are held where minute details of the religious practices are taught for Muslims to follow. Half the populations of Muslims in the subcontinent are now adherents of this movement. Though apolitical in its organization, they have a capacity of mobilizing a large number of Muslims at short notice to gather.

More moderate reforms of the Islamic religion also occurred simultaneously. The adherents of such reforms are much less in number today. The Aligarh and the Ahmedia movements are the two main moderate attempts at reform.

The Aligarh Movement
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1891) attempted a social upsurge amongst the Indian Muslims with his so-called Aligarh movement. His main contribution was to enhance education with starting of many schools and colleges. Much importance was given to Urdu language. He undertook reconciliation between Islam and Christianity and he pointedly showed the similarities between the two religions. He even published a sympathetic study of the Bible. Urdu translation of books on western arts and sciences were done by a translation society founded by him. Despite all the successful launching of social reforms, Sir Syed failed to bring about much needed moderation of the religion such as women’s education and the purdah system for oppressed women. Only the education of upper and middle class and has been criticized for not going far enough with his reforms of the entire Muslim society.

The Ahmedias
Founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, the movement was based on universal religion of all communities. It spread western liberal education among Muslims by starting a number of schools and colleges. It was opposed to Jihad but at the same time infused vigorous religious spirit among Muslims. It is the most closely knit and organized group of Muslims in the country. Its perceived mysticism was its downfall.

The Aga Khan’s Flock
Apart from the Sunnis (the followers of Omar, the Caliph) and Shiites, (followers of Ali, Prophet’s son in law) there is another sect in Indian subcontinent called the Aga Khanis. It is the Nizari Ismaili community with Aga Khan as their Imam. It originated as a splinter group of Shi’ite sect, when they accepted Ismail as the seventh Imam instead of his brother. They trace an unbroken line of Imams up to the current day Aga Khan (Prince Karim), who is 49th in succession. Many Shiite sects refused to accept any Imams after the elevnth Imam died without an heir. In this way the Nizari Ismailis are different. Thirteen generation after Ali, the Shiite sect further divided between followers of Nizar and his brother (later came to be known as Bohra community). Nizari Ismailis follow Aga Khan as their leader and celebrate his birthday as a holy day rather than the Muharram, which most of the Shiites celebrate as a holy day because of the death anniversary of Hussein, son of Ali.

Followers of Aga Khan are more westernized than any other Muslim community. Most of the recent Aga Khans have been educated in England. Thousand years ago they were rivals of the caliphate of Baghdad and ruled as the Fatimid caliphate of Cairo. After the decline of their influence in Egypt and Asia, they remained in Persia until 1840, when the 46th Imam was forced to leave Persia. They then moved to India and Pakistan where they formed an amicable relationship with the British. They were not accepted into Mecca and did not undertake pilgrimage. In 1866 their interpretation of the Koran resulted in dissension among its followers and many left the faith and reverted to some other form of Shiite sect. The Aga Khans were also accused of mishandling the Nizari finances in 1905 though they won a court battle in this regard. However, the modernization of the religion by the Aga Khans did not sit well in the Muslim world. The Nizari Ismailis of Gujarat are called Khojas.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, Indian Nizaris often deemed it necessary to consult Hindu texts as well as The Holy Koran (which is of course their primary Book); in fact even today a fair number of Aga-Khanis enjoy and derive some inspiration from the Bhagavad-Gita. Unlike other Muslims, they sometimes sing hymns during their services, usually in an Indian language such as Gujarati. In addition, many Nizaris believe that reincarnation of souls is possible under certain circumstances. Mostly these are Muslims who embrace Sufism. An attempt was once made to categorize Hazrat Ali as the tenth avatar of Vishnu by Aga Khan though they no longer believe this.

As a result of the rift between the reformers and the orthodox sections of the religion, many deserted and joined other Shiite sect, thus becoming indistinguishable from them. It was thought that only about four million Muslims remained faithful to Aga Khan. However, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and birth of independent countries like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan where many Aga Khanis were found to be followers of the faith. Now it is believed that there are about 20 million followers.

Other attempts
Other attempts have been made to modernize the religious practices with varying effects. Shibli Numani attempted Muslims to adopt a more flexible attitude towards Hindus and accept new ideas, but failed. Barruddin Tyebji (1844-1906) attempted to do away with the Purdah in Bombay. Moves toward re-interpretation of scriptures, history and behavior have been attempted by Hali and more recently by Maulana Vahiddudin Khan.

Traditional Muslim forces are too strong to allow any radical changes in the socio-religious front. Unlike Hindu reforms, real radical reforms of Islam have remained a dream of certain individuals over the course of history. Phadke wrote in 1989 that “ So tight has been the hold of orthodoxy on the Muslim mind that nowhere in India has Muslim society been so far able to support a vocal group of liberal Muslims committed to modern values. There has been no serious attempt of a thorough critical appraisal of their heritage”. After Indian Independence the reform of the Islam has become even more difficult as any attempt is viewed with suspicion because of the minority status of the Muslims.

Another moderate Muslim movement attempting to reform is the Bohra Reformist Group. Bohras are mainly business people mostly in the hardware and gun smithy. This is a modern movement attempting to soften the authority of the religious leaders on the religion. Started by Engineer, Contractor and Poonawala they have even attempted to interpret Koran in the perspective of a Christian liberal theology.

In the 1970’s a reformist named Hamid Dalwai made a serious attempt at modernizing Islam in India. He proposed abandonment of purdah and more freedom to women among the Maharashtra Sunni Muslim community. For this effort he was branded as heretic and his movement did not survive after his death. Dalwai’s movement was called Muslim Satayshodhak Mandal (MSM). Many more similar attempts have so far failed to produce significant results in reforming the socio-religious aspect of Islam in India. The fundamentalism is readily accepted whereas the moderate reforms are shunned.

The Future
Any attempt to bring the religion in par with the modern scientific world is perceived as a threat to Islamic identity. Religion is law in Islam and any change is thought to be breech of faith and belief. Sir Syed (Aligarh Movement) was called a kafir or infidel for his attempts and Dalwai (MSM) was branded as munafique or a heretic. Religion forms an integral part of the day-to-day practice of Islam that any reform devoid of religion is bound to fail. At the same time the injudicious reliance on religion can result in extreme fundamentalism like the Wahabi or directionless organization of the Tablig Jama’at. Being a minority status in India has resulted in any attempt at modernization to be called as an attempt at ‘Hindu-isation’ of Islam. Even the purdah system is defended as a religious identity, discarding the humanitarian aspect and discrimination.

Somehow a middle ground has to be sought both by the minority Muslims and the majority Hindus in India. There has to be an exchange of moderate ideas in a non-religious context that does not cross the line of infuriating the religious faction. From a distance this looks like an impossible feat as both sides have vowed not to give an inch. This rigidity has made the clash of two of the great religions all the more difficult to avoid. The divergent paths followed by both in their philosophy and theosophy seems to be drifting apart at a rapid pace.

Islam And Compassion – An Scriptural, Historical And Contemporary Perspective

By M H Ahssan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam And Compassion – An Scriptural, Historical And Contemporary Perspective

By M H Ahssan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam And Compassion – An Scriptural, Historical And Contemporary Perspective

By M H Ahssan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countering Pakistani Terrorists’ Anti-India Propaganda

By M H Ahssan

For almost two decades now, self-styled jihadist outfits based in Pakistan have been engaged in a war against India in Kashmir. This war of theirs has no sanction in Islam, which does not allow for proxy war, and that too one declared by non-state actors. It is an explicit violation of all Islamic principles. These outfits, which have considerable support inside Pakistan, see the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir as a religious struggle, and they wrongly describe it as a jihad. They regard their role in Kashmir as but the first step in a grand, though completely fanciful, plan to annex India into Pakistan and convert it into what they style as dar- ul-islam, the Abode of Islam. But what they finally dream of establishing, or so they boast, is Muslim hegemony throughout the entire world.

I have used the term ‘hegemony’ here deliberately, for radical Muslim groups in Pakistan and in the Arab world have been indelibly influenced and shaped by the hegemonic designs of European colonialism in the past and Western imperialism today, and, in some senses, are a reaction to this hegemonic project. They seek to counter Western political supremacy and replace it by what they conceive of as Islamic political supremacy.

In my view, this approach is in sharp contradistinction to Islamic teachings. The term ghalba-e islam, the establishment of the supremacy of Islam, used in the context of the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet (Hadith), refers not to any political project of Muslim domination, but, rather, to the establishment of the superiority of Islam’s ideological and spiritual message. This, in fact, was the basic crux of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad. However, the term has been distorted at the hands of the self-styled jihadists, who present it as a project to establish Muslim or Islamic political domination over the entire world.

War against India
Today, as the case of the Pakistani self-styled jihadists so tragically illustrates, many of those who claim to be struggling in the cause of Islam themselves work against Islamic teachings by deliberately or otherwise misinterpreting them. This is the case with their misuse of the term jihad in the context of Kashmir in order to win mass support for themselves. Needless to add, this is a major cause for growing anti-Islamic sentiments among many non-Muslims.

The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has been lingering for more than half a century. A major hurdle in the resolution of this conflict is the self-styled jihadists based in Pakistan, who insist that the conflict over Kashmir is an Islamic jihad and that, therefore, war is the only solution. They claim that participation in this so-called jihad has become a farz-e ayn, a duty binding on all Muslims, and some of them, most prominently the dreaded Lashkar-e Tayyeba, even go so far as to claim that the war in Kashmir is nothing but the ghazwat ul-hind, the ‘war against India’ which is mentioned in a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. By this they want to suggest that waging war against India is an Islamic duty, something prophesied by the Prophet Muhammad himself.

What is the actual meaning and implication of the statement attributed to the Prophet regarding the ghazwat ul-hind, which the Pakistan-based self-styled jihadists regularly refer to, and grossly misinterpret, in order to whip up anti-Indian sentiments and seek what they wrongly claim is Islamic sanction for their deadly terror attacks against India, in Kashmir and beyond? Before I discuss that, I must point out that the statement attributed to the Prophet regarding the ghazwat ul-hind is found in only one of the sihah sitta, the six collections of Hadith reports of the Sunni Muslims—in the collection by al-Nasai. This statement was narrated by Abu Hurairah, a companion of the Prophet. According to him, the Prophet prophesied a battle against India.

If he (Abu Hurairah) got the chance to participate in this battle, Abu Hurairah said, he would do so, sacrificing his wealth and life. If he died in this battle, he said, he would be counted among the exalted martyrs. According to another narration, related by the Prophet’s freed slave Thoban, the Prophet once declared that there were two groups among the Muslims whom God had saved from the fires of Hell. The first would be a group that invaded India. The other group would be those Muslims who accompanied Jesus (after he returned to the world). A similar narration is contained in the collections of Hadith by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Baihaqi and Tabrani.

Explanation
Because this hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind mentions India, and is marshaled by self-styled Pakistan-based jihadists active in Kashmir, it marks the Kashmir conflict out as clearly distinct from other conflicts elsewhere in the world between Muslims and others. These self-styled jihadists regularly invoke this hadith, trapping people in their net by claiming that if they were to die fighting the Indians in Kashmir they would be saved from hell and would earn a place in heaven. This claim, false though it is, is regularly and constantly repeated, as is evident from a host of Pakistani websites and periodicals.

Let me quote a revealing instance in this regard. Recently, I came across the August 2003 issue of ‘Muhaddith’, an Urdu magazine published from Lahore, Pakistan. It contains a 20-page article on the ghazwat ul-hind, written by a certain Dr. Asmatullah, Assistant Professor at the Islamic Research Academy of the International Islamic University, Islamabad. The article represents a pathetic effort to project the ongoing conflict in Kashmir as precisely the same ghazwat ul-hind that the Prophet is said to have predicted. And it is on the basis of this reported hadith of the Prophet that ultra-radical Islamists in Pakistan talk about unleashing a so-called jihad, extending out of Kashmir and to consume the whole of India. This is no longer limited to just fiery rhetoric alone, but, in fact, is also now accompanied by deadly terror attacks in different parts of India, which Pakistan-based radicals wrongly style as a jihad or even as the ghawzat ul-hind reportedly prophesied by the Prophet.

It is striking to note in this connection that in the above-mentioned article, the editors of ‘Muhadith’ disagree with the views of the author, expressing their differences in the form of a footnote. Yet, this counter-view, as expressed by the editors of the magazine, is hardly ever discussed or even referred to in Pakistani so-called jihadist literature, indicating, therefore, that the rhetoric of the self-styled jihadists is based less on proper scholarly analysis of the Islamic textual tradition than on strident, heated emotionalism and a deep-rooted hatred and feeling of revenge. This applies not just in the Pakistani case. Rather, is a phenomenon common to almost all so-called jihadist movements throughout the rest of the world.

The Pakistani self-styled jihadists, it would appear, have made the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind into a plaything in their hands in order to entrap innocent people. It is quite possible that the Pakistani youth who were involved in the recent deadly terrorist attack on Mumbai were fed on this sort of poisonous propaganda and led into believing that they might go straight to heaven if they waged war against India. In India, the banned Students Islamic Movement of India appeared to have backed the same wholly erroneous and unwarranted interpretation of the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind, following in the footsteps of Pakistani radical groups. Mercifully, as far as I know, no other Indian Muslim group or scholar worthy of mention has adopted the ‘Pakistani interpretation’ of this particular hadith report.

Tragically, the concept of jihad has been subjected to considerable abuse and made to serve extremist ends by self-styled jihadists. This started in the very first century of Islam itself, when intra-Muslim wars were sought to be christened by competing groups as jihads. And because of the distorted understanding of jihad championed by many Muslims themselves, they labeled any and every controversy and conflict with non-Muslims, even if it had nothing at all to do with religion but everything to do with politics, as a jihad, as the case of Kashmir well exemplifies. Another facet of the distorted understanding of jihad by some Muslims are suicide-bombings, in which innocent civilians are killed. Yet another is proxy war by non-state actors, such as armed self-styled jihadist groups, which actually has no legitimacy in Islam at all.

Scrutiny
Coming back to the question of the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind, some aspects of the report deserve particular scrutiny. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, this report is mentioned only in the collection of al-Nasai from among the six collections of Hadith which most Sunnis regard, to varying degrees, as canonical. However, considering the merits or rewards of the ghazwat ul-hind that it talks about, it ought, one might think, to have been narrated by many more companions of the Prophet. But that, as it curiously happens, is not the case.

Secondly, and this follows from above, it is possible that this hadith report is not genuine and that it might have been manufactured in the period of the Ummayad Caliphs to suit and justify their own political purposes and expansionist deigns. On the other hand, if this hadith report is indeed genuine—which it might well be—in my view, the battle against India that it predicted was fulfilled in the early Islamic period itself, and is not something that will happen in the future. This, in fact, is the opinion of the majority of the ulema, qualified Islamic scholars. And this view accords with reason as well. It is quite likely that the ghazwat ul-hind that this report predicted took the form of the attack by an Arab Muslim force on Thana and Bharuch, in coastal western India, in the 15th year of the Islamic calendar in the reign of the Caliph Umar.

Equally possibly, it could have been fulfilled in the form of the missionary efforts of some of the Prophet’s companions soon after, in the reign of the Caliphs Uthman and Ali, in Sindh and Gujarat. Some other ulema consider this hadith to have been fulfilled in the form of the attack and occupation of Sindh by Arab Muslims led by Muhammad bin Qasim in the 93rd year of the Islamic calendar, which then facilitated the spread of Islam in the country. This might well be the case, for the hadith report about the ghazwat ul-hind contained in the Masnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a well-known collection of Hadith narratives attributed to the Prophet, mentions that the Muslim army that would attack India would be sent in the direction of Sindh and Hind.

Thirdly, this hadith mentions only a single or particular battle (ghazwa), and not a series of continuing battles, unlike what the author of the article in the ‘Muhaddith’, referred to above, echoing the arguments of Pakistani self-styled jihadists, claims.

Fourthly, one must raise the very pertinent question of how it is at possible that, in the face of the numerous attacks on India by Arab and other Muslims over the last one thousand years, the more than six hundred rule of Muslim dynasties that controlled most of India and the rapid spread of Islam in the country in the period when they ruled, any scope could be left to consider India a target of jihad in the future. Furthermore, today India and Pakistan have diplomatic relations and are bound by treaty relations. Hence, the proxy war engaged in by Kashmir by powerful forces in Pakistan in the guise of a so-called jihad is nothing but deceit, which is a complete contravention of, indeed a revolt against, accepted Islamic teachings.

Fifthly, it must be remembered that it would have been very easy for Muslim conquerors of India in the past, men like Mahmud of Ghazni, Shihabuddin Ghori, Timur, Nadir Shah and so on, to present the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind and wield it as a weapon to justify their attacks on the country. The corrupt ulema associated with their courts could well have suggested this to them had they wished. However, no such mention is made about this in history books. In the eighteenth century, the well-known Islamic scholar Shah Waliullah of Delhi invited the Afghan warlord Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and dispel the Marathas, which he accepted, but yet Shah Waliullah, too, did not use this hadith as a pretext for this.

Indian ulema
It is also pertinent to examine how some well-known contemporary Indian ulema look at this hadith report. Maulana Abdul Hamid Numani, a leading figure of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind, opines that this hadith was fulfilled at the time of the ‘Four Righteous Caliphs’ of the Sunnis, soon after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad, when several companions of the Prophet came to India, mainly in order to spread Islam. Mufti Sajid Qasmi, who teaches at the Dar ul-Uloom in Deoband, is also of the same opinion, although he believes that it might also refer to the invasion of Sindh by the Arabs under Muhammad bin Qasim in the eighth century. On the other hand, Maulana Mufti Mushtaq Tijarvi of the Jamaat-i Islami Hind believes that it is possible that this hadith report is not genuine at all and that it might have been fabricated at the time of Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh in order to justify it.

Whatever the case might be, the misuse by radical groups of this hadith report to spearhead war in Kashmir in the name of so-called jihad and to foment conflict between India and Pakistan is tragic, to say the least. It is nothing sort of a crime against God and the Prophet. In their worldviews and in their actions as well, the self-styled jihadist outfits seem to have gone the way of the Khawarij, a group that emerged in the early period of Islam and who were rejected by other Muslims.

The Khawarij believed that they alone were Muslims and that all others, including those who called themselves Muslims, were infidels and fit to be killed. With reference to the Khawarij, the Prophet predicted that they would depart from Islam in the same way as an arrow flies out of a bow. About the Khawarij the Caliph Ali mentioned that they take the word of truth and turn it into falsehood (kalimatu haqqin urida beha al-batil). This he said in the context of the Khawarij misinterpreting the Quran and claiming that Ali and his followers were infidels who deserved to be killed.

It is imperative, and extremely urgent, for Muslim scholars, particularly the ulema, to take strict notice of, and stridently oppose the radical self-styled jihadists, who are distorting and misunderstandings Islamic teachings, following in the footsteps of the Khawarij of the past, and spreading death and destruction in the name of Islam. Jihad, properly understood, is a struggle to put an end to strife and conflict, not to create or foment it, as is being done today.

The general public, particularly Muslims themselves, should be made aware of the dangerous deviation of the self-styled jihadists and the horrendous implications of their acts and views. In this regard, a major responsibility rests with the ulema of India and Pakistan. These days, ulema groups in India are very actively involved in organizing conferences and holding rallies seeking to defend themselves and Islam from the charges terrorism leveled against them. This is a very welcome thing. However, they must also stridently speak out against and clearly and unambiguously expose and denounce the self-styled soldiers of Islam who are promoting terrorism in the name of Islam.

At the same time, it is also urgent to promote re-thinking of some medieval notions of jihad, such as that of offensive jihad, which does not actually have any Islamic legitimacy. This is essential for Muslims to live in today’s times and to come to terms with democracy and pluralism. Simply verbally defending Muslims and Islam from the charges of terrorism is, clearly, not enough. Nor is it adequate to simply condemn terrorism in very general terms. The truth is, and this cannot be disputed, that today there is also a pressing need to unleash a ‘jihad’ against the self-styled jihadist outfits themselves. And in this jihad, undoubtedly, the ulema and Muslim intellectuals have a central role to play and a major responsibility to shoulder.