Muslims Condemn oppression against Sikhs

Dallas, Texas

We the Muslims, condemn the oppression of Sikhs in Taliban held territory of Pakistan, and urge the government of Pakistan to immediately put these lawless individual men behind bars for evaluation and rehabilitation. It is the duty of every government to keep law and order and faithfully guard the safety of every citizen.

A Muslim stands up against oppression, and the harassment of Sikhs by the Taliban is one that needs to be checked immediately. This is an act of gross arrogance of those in power abusing religion to their own end; we should not let bad guys use religion for their gain, shame on us if we let these evil men act in the name of Islam again, as they did on September 11. Time has come to put an end to this bullyism.

Oppression is one of the most evil elements in Islam and we have an obligation to stand up for that value.

We welcome the statement by the Indian Muslim Leaders and urge the Muslims leaders around the world to add their name in the comments section below. We also invite all such condemnations for posting on this site.

Please add your name, organization name to the list by clicking this link.

Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
# # #

Joint Statement of Indian Muslim leaders

Pakistani Taliban’s treatment of Sikhs in tribal areas is illegal and barbaric
We, religious, political and community leaders of the Indian Muslims, are alarmed at the reports coming out of Pakistan’s tribal areas about the Pakistani Taliban’s kidnapping, extortion of huge amounts of money from their Sikh compatriots as “Jizya” and demolition of the houses and shops of those who fail to pay the demanded sums.

We would like to say that Jizya is a tax paid in an Islamic state for exemption from military service by healthy non-Muslim adults who are free to follow their vocations without restriction or fear, and that there is no other tax payable by them after paying this tax, unlike Muslims who have to pay various taxes including Zakat and have to perform military service as well.

Jizya was payable by non-Muslims only in lands conquered by Muslims like Egypt, Syria and Iraq but not in unconquered areas like Madina where during the time of the Holy Prophet no Jizya was ever imposed on non-Muslim citizens who enjoyed equal rights and duties under the Constitution of Madina. For many centuries Jizya has not been levied by Muslim states and today even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Islamic Republic of Iran do not levy Jizya on non-Muslims for the simple reason that non-Muslims in these states pay all taxes payable by others. Prominent Islamic scholars of the modern times like Shaikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi are of the view that Jizya should not be imposed now as non-Muslims are equal citizens of Muslim states and pay all taxes paid by other citizens and shoulder all the duties.

We wish to make it clear that the imposition of the so-called Jizya is nothing more than extortion by an armed and lawless gang which does not constitute a sovereign government or state or even an organ thereof. Moreover, Pakistan’s tribal areas are not “conquered lands” as their non-Muslim population has been living there for centuries. These areas were part of the British India and became part of the new State of Pakistan as a result of peaceful transfer of power on Partition.

As regards the huge amounts in millions reported to be demanded, these are arbitrary and exorbitant as the amount of annual Jizya paid by non-Muslims in early Islam was merely one to one and a half dinar, which is 4.24 gram to 6.36 grams of gold. Moreover, this tax was payable only at the end of the year and not in advance.

We regard this as an act of injustice incompatible with the letter and spirit of Islam and the international covenants accepted by all Muslim states.

We demand that the Pakistani authorities must take earliest steps to retrieve the extorted sums and pay them back to their affected non-Muslim citizens and facilitate their peaceful return to their homes and properties in their traditional homelands and give them all due protection.

Maulana Mufti Mukarram Ahmad
Shahi Imam, Jama Masjid Fatehpuri, Delhi
Hafiz Muhammad Yahya
President, All India Jamiat Ahl-e Hadees
Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani
Secretary, Jamiat Ulama-e Hind
Syed Shahabuddin
Former PM & ex-President, All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat
Prof Tahir Mahmood
Member Law Commission of India
Mujtaba Farooq
Secretary, Jamaat-e Islami Hind
Maulana Ataur Rahman Qasmi
President, Shah Waliullah Institute, Delhi
Maulana Waris Mazhari
Editor, Monthly Tarjuman, Delhi
Dr Zafar Mahmood
President, Zakat Foundation of India
Dr SQR Ilyas
Member, Muslim Personal Law Board
Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan
President, All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat
Mirza Yawar Baig
President of Yawar Baig & Associates
Shahnawaz Ali Raihan
Secretary, Students Islamic Organisation

Issued at New Delhi on 2 May 2009

Issued by the All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat, Delhi
For media comments only please contact zik@zik.in or phone 09811142151

# # #

Hindu-Muslim dialogue

It reminds me of my College Professor Ramachandran and my weaver friend Fakhru Bhai; a Hindu and a Muslim respectively and I used to discuss and understand the wisdom of each aspect of religion.

As a Muslim I see great efforts on the part of Muslims to relate with Hindus, it is an effort; however, due to the complex plurality of Hindu belief system, it is much easier for a Hindu to relate with a Muslim than otherwise on a theological basis.

Muslims subtly condition themselves to relate with Hindus based on their reference to God, as one God. Although God is formless in both scriptures, subconsciously most humans give a form and insist on identifying with that One God, as though it is a physical being. Given that, the efforts of Syed Abdullah Tariq must be appreciated.

However, the common Hindus and Muslims, the ones who do not wear religious neon signs are comfortable with each other, just as they are with their own. The One God, No God or Many representations of God is not an issue to them and this is the grounding of an overwhelming majority of Muslims, Hindus or any one. Syed Abdullah Tariq will be more successful in getting the message to the majority and we need to encourage such efforts.

The idea of one God has become more of a political issue, where a few use that as the standard to judge one’s righteousness and mentally declare other practices as wrong or even sinful. We really need to review the intent or wisdom of the idea of one God. – It is a uniting element accepting the uniqueness of each creation, where we acknowledge the source of creation and cause of creation by one energy…. A conflict less system of co-existence for justice and peace.

In the long time interests of peace for every individual, each one of us have to put an effort. Any society that is built and sustained on justice takes out the fear and uncertainty from the minds of people and bring peace, allowing them to be productive and contributing members of the society.

Due to the terminal health of my wife, I have not been able to write much… but this one caught my attention. (http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/gods-grace-for-najma-ghouse.html )

We just had our Monthly interfaith (http://carrolltondiary.blogspot.com/2008/04/may-14-carrollton-interfaith-luncheon.html ) meeting at the Mosque in Carrollton, and It was such a joy to see every one respond positively to the inspiration from Jainism. The whole gathering repeated “Michami Dukadam” after me. During Tsunami, we were able to have a Bhajan in the Mosque in Richardson, which is a rare thing. These are positive improvements. God should be invoked with every name and every which way and it is happening.

I commend the efforts of Syed Abdullah Tariq. May more people participate in such efforts.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net

An innovative approach to Hindu-Muslim dialogue
Posted May 16th, 2008 by Mudassir Rizwan

* Articles
* Indian Muslim

55 year-old Syed Abdullah Tariq runs an Islamic group
based in Rampur, a town in western Uttar Pradesh, that
focuses on dialogue with Hindus. An engineer by
training, he was one of the chief disciples of the
late Maulana Shams Naved Usmani, a noted Islamic
scholar who had also a deep knowledge of the Hindu
scriptures.

Tariq collected and published the thoughts and sayings
of Maulana Usmani in the form of several books in Urdu
and Hindi, the most well-known of these being 'Agar
Abhi Na Jagey To', later translated into English under
the title 'Now Or Never'. Maulana Usmani and Tariq
have been one of the pioneers of a particular Islamic
approach to dialogue with Hindus, one that is based on
the commonalities that they perceived in Islam and
Hinduism.

In a recent meeting in Rampur, Tariq related his own
story and his association with Maulana Usmani to
Yoginder Sikand, as follows:

Having finished my engineering degree from the Aligarh
Muslim University, I was not sure what I wanted to
take up as a career. In 1974, when I was in my early
twenties, I first met Maulana Shams Naved Usmani in
Rampur. I was really impressed by his teachings, his
enthusiasm for dialogue between Hindus and Muslims. I
decided to stay in his company and to take down
whatever he used to say to his disciples. Later, I had
these published in the form of several books.

Maulana Usmani, or Chacha Jan as I used to fondly call
him, was a very modest man, a Sufi. Originally from
Deoband, he was from the famous Usmani family which
had produced numerous well-known ulema, including
Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani and Maulana Atiq
ur-Rahman Usmani. He did his Master's degree from
Lucknow University, taught History and Geography in a
small semi-government school in Rampur. His lifestyle
was austere. He lived in a small, two-room rented
house. I remember that he constantly had tears in his
eyes. People would come to him to ask him to do dua
for them, which he always did. Even at the height of
summer, he would use a fan only if a guest visited his
house. If he bought a fruit, he would keep a small
part of it for the lady who would come to clean his
house every day. Once, there was a dispute between two
of his relatives over some family-owned property in
Deoband. He told them to stop quarrelling and said
that they could take his share of the property if that
would satisfy him. His wife got a little upset about
this, but he sought to comfort her by composing a
poem, one line of which said, 'Oh, my life companion!
Our house is not in this world!'.

Chacha Jan did not receive a traditional education in
a madrasa, but since he came from a family of noted
ulema he learnt about Islam at home itself as a child.
Later, he learnt Sanskrit on his own. He then began
studying the various Hindu scriptures, and was
surprised to learn, or so he believed, that some of
the original Hindu texts, when shorn of later
accretions, also talk, as the Quran does, of
monotheism, oppose idolatry and polytheism and caste
inequality. This he felt might be a reconfirmation of
the Quran's announcement that God has sent messengers
to every community, and that they have all taught the
same primal and eternal religion or deen of al-Islam,
the surrender to the one God. This means, obviously,
that God must have also sent prophets to India, and it
is quite possible that some figures whom the Hindus
revere might actually have been such prophets,
although later a large number of corruptions and
accretions crept in and people began worshipping these
prophets as deities.

This was Maulana Usmani's basic contention. He argued
that the Sanskrit term sanatan dharm or 'Eternal
Religion', if understood in this manner as submission
to the one God, was the same as the deen al-qaim,
which again means 'Eternal Religion', which is what
Islam is. It was on the basis of this core similarity
that Maulana Sahib wanted Hindus and Muslims to come
together. He also claimed that the Prophet Muhammad
had been prophesied about in some of the Hindu
scriptures. This meant, he argued, that the Hindus, in
accordance with the teachings of these scriptures,
should recognize the Prophet, in addition to other
prophets of God, including those who had been sent to
India. At the same, he wanted Muslims to recognize the
validity of these scriptures insofar as they were of
divine origin and not corrupted by human hands. In
other words, what he was trying to advocate was that
Hindus and Muslims must come closer together based on
precisely what he believed their religious scriptures
said about each other's prophets and on their common
stress on the worship of the one God. This was the
crux of almost all the writings that have been
attributed to him, most of which I have compiled.

After Chacha Jan's sad demise some years ago we have
been trying to carry on with the Maulana's unique work
of inter-faith dialogue. I am often invited to address
inter-faith and dawah meetings in different parts of
India, often even by Hindu organizations. When I am in
Rampur, I and some young colleagues of mine, many of
them students and self-employed youth, meet on Fridays
in the house of Chachi Jan, the wife of the late
Maulana, where we together study a selected portion of
the Quran. After that, I generally deliver a lecture
to the Juma congregation in a mosque nearby, where I
try to discuss issues of contemporary concern, say
violence, women's right, education, the importance of
dawah and inter-faith dialogue and so on. Then, we
divide ourselves into groups and go to nearby
villages, where we meet with Hindus and Muslims and
discuss with them about religion, focusing on the
concept of tauhid, or, as it is called in Hindi and
Sanskrit, ekishwarvad, which, we point out, is common
to both Islam and what we think were the original
Hindu texts. We also talk about the predictions about
the Prophet Muhammad in some Hindu texts that Maulana
Saheb said he had discovered, and also about the
possibility that some key Hindu personages were
actually prophets of God. In this way, we are trying,
in our own very modest way, to bring Hindus and
Muslims to understand their commonalities and thereby
to come closer to each other.

To our Hindu brethren we try and convey that Islam is
not a radically new or alien religion. Rather, it is
the same religion of monotheistic submission that was
taught by all the prophets, starting from the first of
these, Hazrat Adam, whom some have identified as Shiva
in the Hindu tradition. Hence, we tell them, to
recognize the teachings of the Prophet, the core of
which is monotheism, is to actually fulfill the
teachings of their own original scriptures rather than
constituting a departure from or betrayal of them.
Some Hindus will readily recognize other religions
that had their roots in India, such as Sikhism,
Buddhism and Jainism, although their teachings might
differ, on some counts, considerably with Hinduism,
but refuse to recognize religions that are thought to
have their origins outside India. So, we tell them
that true religion is universal. It is not meant for
any one country or race alone, and we say that some
Muslim traditions have it that the first prophet of
God according to the Islam, Hazrat Adam, was actually
sent down to Sri Lanka, which is part of the imagined
Greater India.

We tell them all this, and many people's minds have
been changed as a result, but still, I believe, that
in general people are impressed and influenced not so
much by speeches and sermons as by one's personal
example, and that is something that Chacha Jan used to
exemplify. So many Hindus who met him changed their
views about Islam and Muslims as a result of this
interaction. His approach was one of seeking to find
similarities, to point out our commonalities, rather
than play on and magnify our differences. I think this
is the right approach. I also believe that people who
go around condemning other religions or mocking them
in a bid to stress the claim of the superiority of
their religion actually do their own religion a
disservice because in this way others become alienated
from and hostile to them and their religion rather
than attracted to it. And I believe that Chacha Jan's
approach to dialogue with Hindus was quite in line
with what the Quran says when it advises us to address
others with good words, gently, with love.

In this regard, while talking about the need for
inter-faith dialogue between Muslims and Hindus, I
also want to stress that some ulema as well as radical
Islamists who insist that all non-Muslims are 'enemies
of Islam' and that we must not have any relations with
them or even that we should be stern towards them and
demean them are not just incorrect from the Quranic
point of view but are also insulting Islam. They take
one small verse in the Quran completely out of its
context to insist that Muslims must not befriend
people of other faiths. But this is wholly incorrect.
You must look at the particular context in which this
verse was revealed, who exactly the people referred to
here whom Muslims are told not to befriend were. You
must also examine all the verses in the Quran that
talk about people of other faiths. That would lead one
to the conclusion, which the Quran itself states
somewhere, that God does not forbid Muslims from
befriending those non-Muslims who have not persecuted
them on account of their faith. In other words, the
Quran insists we should relate to such people with
love and good intentions. That sort of relationship is
crucial for any meaningful inter-faith dialogue.

Islam is the religion taught by all the prophets, who
have been sent to all peoples in the world, as the
Quran itself says. It is, therefore, a truly universal
faith, not tied down to one particular ethnic or
cultural group. It is meant for all peoples, and so
when some Muslims erroneously conceive of it as
indelibly linked to a particular culture, dress,
cuisine or language I feel they are really negating
its universality. This naturally makes Islam appear
culturally alien to people who have a different sort
of culture. In turn, that makes our task of
inter-faith dialogue as well as telling others about
Islam particularly difficult.

In this regard I would like to cite a particular
Hadith report that has been attributed to the Prophet,
according to which he is reported as having said that
differences (ikhtilaf) were a blessing for his
community. Some ulema have wrongly interpreted this to
mean that the Prophet was here indicating intra-Muslim
sectarian differences. Not at all! Their petty
bickering on the basis of sectarian differences has
not proved to be a blessing at all, but, rather, a
curse. Perhaps one sort of difference that the Prophet
was referring to here was actually the diversity of
cultures, food styles, dress, languages and so on.
Unfortunately, some of our ulema think in quite the
opposite way. They want to stamp out this rich
cultural diversity, which is a real blessing actually,
and impose a single culture on everyone, at the same
time as they actively seek to promote sectarian
differences by incorrectly interpreting this Hadith
report.

Cultural diversity is a blessing ordained by God, and
without it the world would have been a very drab and
boring place indeed! So, in our inter-faith dialogue
work we must recognize the validity of those things in
others' cultures that do not transgress basic human
and Islamic norms. These things are actually quite
acceptable to Muslims, who can also adopt them without
fear of having diluted their faith thereby. Likewise
in the case of others adopting some aspects of the
culture associated with different Muslim groups.

If religion and culture are considered in this
expansive way, I am quite confident that we can
overcome numerous hurdles in the path to inter-faith
understanding. Further, this would also help is in our
task of telling others about our faith, which is
something that Chacha Jan devoted his life to.

___________________________________________________________________

For a detailed account of Maulana Usmani's views and
approach to inter-faith dialogue, see my essay titled
"An Islamic 'Hinduism'?: The Inter-Faith Dialogue
Project of Acharya Maulana Shams Naved 'Usmani",
available on
http://insaf.net/pipermail/insafny_insaf.net/2005-January/000846.html

Indian Muslims; Amity Road

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/04/indian-muslims-amity-road.html

BOOK REVIEW - A road to Amity by Dr. Rafiq Zakaria

Thanks to Rafiq Zakaria for writing this book and thanks to Sreeram Chaulia for encapsulating the essence in his review so well. These are the very words I have written and talked about in bits and pieces all my life. I hope this book gets wide circulation and discussed through out India.

I strongly believe that justice, [also balance or equilibrium] is at the core of a secure, peaceful and a prosperous nation. The Bill Gates Model, where one's success translates to the success of all can be seriously looked at. The traditional words like Charity and Alms must be dropped from daily usage as they bond the disadvantaged to the dependency; instead we need to start talking about investment in human development. Bringing every one up on to a level playing field and let them compete from that point forward. It is investing in the sum total of each human being into a productive and contributing citizen to benefit her/him and that which benefits to the nation as a whole.

GROSS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

It would be like GDP of a nation, a sum total of goods and services produced in a nation. We can call is GHD - Gross human development which would factor in the sum total of all contributions towards the security and peace of the society, they very ingredient that ensures and sustains the economic prosperity of a nation.

This would include every effort to mitigate conflicts and seamlessly convert them into Goodwill to our words and actions would focus on getting along rather than harp on conflicts; it would be an institutional change. Just as the Japanese find it difficult to sit and do nothing, we would become a society where we would relentlessly work on building goodwill and would not sit quite until we resolve societal conflicts – without blaming and without score keeping, a requirement of Good will building.

I do hope that book also factor in the positive efforts made by Muslims in India today for a better India. The mainstream media can stoke this positive aspect of Indians into enhancing the Gross human development.

Jai Hind

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. He is the founder of the World Muslim Congress, a group committed to building bridges and nurturing a world of co-existence. He also heads the foundation for pluralism, an organization committed to studying religious pluralism and pluralistic governance. His personal website is http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and his writings are on the above websites as well as several of the ancillary Blogs listed on the sites.
# # #

The road to amity

Indian Muslims: Where Have They Gone Wrong? by Rafiq Zakaria
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GD09Df01.html

Reviewed by Sreeram Chaulia

Few have steadfastly walked the thankless road to Hindu-Muslim harmony like Dr Rafiq Zakaria, one of India's most ardent liberal thinkers. The theme of Zakaria's 17th book is the nefarious role played by Muslim political leaders in impeding communal harmony before and after Indian independence.

M J Akbar, another rare specimen from the community of the enlightened, writes in the foreword that the flaw in Indian Muslim politics after 1857 was the minority complex based on the specious number game, the belief that Muslims, being only a quarter of the population, would always be subservient to Hindus. "Where have Indian Muslims gone wrong? Whenever they have forgotten their Indian roots."

Zakaria takes the bull by the horns by dilating on how the present generation of Indian Muslims is suffering the consequences of erroneous steps taken by its leadership of yore and now. In the 1940s, Muslim elites "gave Muhammad Ali Jinnah all the support he needed" for partition of the South Asian subcontinent. After 1947, "they resorted to the same manner of confrontation with the dominant Hindus, widened the divide and intensified the hatred" (p xxviii). Ordinary Muslims were indoctrinated with a "ghetto mentality" and divorced from the national mainstream owing to "obstinate adherence to outmoded traditions" and fear of the ulama (clerical class).

Despite differences in the character of Islam and Hinduism, there was no move for partition in medieval times. Muslim rulers who persecuted Hindu subjects made no effort to divide territories on communal lines. Common Muslims and Hindus had largely cordial relations, celebrating each other's festivals. Despite conflicts between ruling classes of the two communities, Indo-Saracenic art, music, literature and architecture flourished. Muslim poets, writers and philosophers "went into ecstasy over the secrets of human emancipation in the Bhagavad Gita" (p 38). Muslim musicians composed raagas in praise of the Hindu deities Krishna and Shiva. Urdu literature, from Amir Khusrau to Hasrat Mohani, bristled with respect for Hindu saints and spiritual precursors.

The real threat to India's unity came from Jinnah's "aggressive separatist stand". His pernicious "two-nation theory" poisoned communal ties as never before. His campaign to frighten Muslims that Hindus would subjugate them to "abject slavery" or "complete annihilation" inflamed misunderstanding and passions. Thousands of Indian Muslims combated the communal virus. Badruddin Tyabjee, Rehmatulla Sayani, Shibli Nomani, M A Ansari, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Azad, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Hussain Ahmad Madni, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai, Syed Abdullah Barelvi, Humayun Kabir et al risked the ire of their co-religionists to uphold oneness of all faiths. However, the British "kept Jinnah in the forefront in any negotiation and did not allow him to be isolated" (p 100). Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of British India, convinced Congress leaders that "the only way to get rid of Jinnah was a divided India. Any form of a united India would start a civil war" (p 115).

In the aftermath of partition, prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru rushed to the rescue of innocent Muslim victims. His "anti-communalism was not one-sided. He fought Muslim communalism no less valiantly" (p 125). He opposed separate electorates and reservation of seats for minorities. His daughter, Indira Gandhi, was ever concerned about the psychosis through which Indian Muslims were passing. In her opinion, "Unless Muslims are made to feel that they are as much an integral part of India as Hindus, their attachment to secularism would remain hypocritical" (p 199).

The creation of Pakistan fueled Hindu-Muslim bitterness instead of easing it. Indian Muslims were more besieged than before 1947. Pakistan is "a constant threat to their safety and security in India". Persecuted Bengali Muslims "had to be eventually rescued by Indian armed forces, consisting mostly of Hindus". Average Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh still "groan under the iron heels of feudal cliques backed by the army" (p 162).

Zakaria strongly asserts that any solution of the Kashmir dispute on the lines desired by Pakistan will reopen the floodgates of vehement communalism. "The best way of silencing the Pakistanis and preserving Kashmir's integration with India is to strengthen the link between Kashmiri Muslims and Indian Muslims" (p 405). Terrorism perpetrated in the name of jihad in Indian Kashmir is a major cause of Hindu-Muslim hostility. Zakaria cites Imam Ghazali, popular as the "Rejuvenator of Islam": "If Muslims did not destroy terrorism, terrorism would destroy them" (p 203). To gloat over acts of terrorism and hold jashn (celebrations) depicts "utter crassness and lunacy".

The economic condition of Indian Muslims is worse than that of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Muslims have as much to blame as the government for their own backwardness in education. They fail to capitalize on common facilities for educational uplift. Purdah (veiling women) and fear of coeducation deter female children's progress in the secular world. Zakaria urges Indian Muslims to cooperate with Hindus through intensive contact on a daily basis. The former have "their place only in India and they have to get emotionally involved in her affairs, trends, ethos, conventions and traditions" (p 450).

Hatred can be overcome only by love. Since a generalized scare exists among Hindus that Muslims will demographically overtake them, Zakaria calls upon Muslims to eschew polygamy and adopt family planning vigorously. Triple talaaq (arbitrary divorce) and the hajj subsidy have to be abolished. The ostrich-like behavior of such leaders as Syed Shahabuddin and Imam Bukhari harms Muslims by keeping communal rancor alive. Hindus in turn have to live with 150 million Muslims, who cannot be wished away. Threats from the champions of Hindutva to eliminate Muslims have to cease.

Highlighting the more liberal facets of the lives of historical figures can clean mental cobwebs. Shivaji, the Maratha warrior king, had one-third Muslim soldiers in his army. The supreme commander of his navy was a Muslim. The first thing Shivaji did after a conquest was to promulgate protection of mosques and Muslim tombs. "He was more liberal and tolerant than the best of European potentates" (p 315). Swami Vivekananda, the apostle of humanism, saw the real unity of India in Hindu-Muslim goodwill in the villages and averred, "A junction of the two great systems - Vedanta brain and Islam body - is the only hope" (p 327).

The politics of hate is eating into the vitals of India, last demonstrated in the communal horrors of Gujarat. Zakaria takes the electronic media to task for its deep-rooted neglect of progressive Muslim viewpoints. It gives undue publicity to mullahs and fanatics. "If a Muslim demonstrates backwardness, it is news. If he exhibits progressiveness, it is not news" (p 356). The most evident barriers against improvement of Hindu-Muslim relations are riots. Governments and political parties treat them as law-and-order problems, without tying them to economic problems of livelihood among all religious communities.

Indian Muslims live in depressed conditions as hewers of wood and drawers of water, lacking a cogent middle class. Zakaria asks them to harness inner strengths and be self-reliant. "Give up asking for doles ... never seek patronage" (p 427). The mindset of the community has to be transformed by "disarming terrorists and disowning bigotry" (p 464). Indian Muslim perception warrants sea changes. Religious prejudices and narrowness of spirit have to be won over by compassion of the likes of the greatest Sufi, Jalaluddin Rumi:

Then listen! I am lover of love
My love transcends all creeds

Suffused with Urdu, Persian and Hindi poetry, Zakaria's erudite publication will rate as yet another milestone in the peregrinations of the Indian Muslim caravan.

Indian Muslims: Where Have They Gone Wrong? by Rafiq Zakaria. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, October 2004. ISBN: 81-7276-352-2. Price: US$11; 565 pages.

Muslim Ulema to introspect

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/04/muslim-ulema-to-introspect.html

Alhamdu Lillah, praise the Lord, every Muslim and non-Muslim should read this article by Sultan Shahin. It is one of the finest articles I have read and it gets our five star rating. Meaning, read, forward and circulate.

Mike Ghouse
###

Muslim Ulema urgently need to introspect
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Indian Muslims stand against terrorism, but do the
ulema have the vision to save them from the
ever-expanding web of radical Islamism

By Sultan Shahin

Deoband: Nudged by persistent and growing
identification of Islam and Muslims with terrorism at
the national as well as global levels since September
9, 2001, Indian Muslim clerics of all hues finally
came together to pronounce an unequivocal fatwa
against terrorism of all kinds. In an event organised
by Dau-ul-Uloom, Deoband, 6,000, heads of madrassas
from across the country along with the heads of
organisations sponsoring their institutions, joined
hands despite their sectarian differences to say with
one voice that terrorism of all kinds was against the
peaceful principles of Islam and to exhort Muslims to
stay away from such dastardly activities as in Islam
even the killing of just one innocent person amounted
to the killing entire humanity.


The sleepy town of Deoband, 140 kms east of Delhi,
famous around the world primarily for hosting this
premier Muslim religious educational institution, the
Darul Uloom, came alive on February 25, with tens of
thousands of Muslims, clerics and ordinary souls,
streaming in from all over the country, to support the
historic anti-terrorism declaration that the Muslim
religious community was about to make in a rare
display of unity across the otherwise widening
sectarian divide. The Deobandis, Bareilwis, Wahhabis,
Ahl-e-Hadees, in short the Sunnis of all hues were all
there. The Shias had already participated in another
get-together organised by Jamia-ul-ulema for the same
purpose in Delhi over a year ago at a smaller level.


What exactly they said is important and needs to be
quoted at some length before one tries to judge its
significance. The Declaration announced: “This All
India Anti-Terrorism Conference attended by the
representatives of all Muslim schools of thought
organised by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (Islamic
Madrasas Association), Darul Uloom Deoband, condemns
all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest
possible terms.”


As a prelude to this declaration, the convention
stated: “Islam is the religion of mercy for all
humanity. It is the fountainhead of eternal peace,
tranquillity, security. Islam has given so much
importance to human beings that it regards the killing
of a single person the killing of entire humanity,
without differentiation based on creed and caste. Its
teaching of peace encompasses all humanity. Islam has
taught its followers to treat all mankind with
equality, mercy, tolerance, justice. Islam sternly
condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and
terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief,
rioting and murdering among severest sins and crimes.”



More significant than this and indicative of the mood
and inspiration of the conference was this
exhortation: “Moreover, this All India anti-Terrorism
Conference attended by the representatives of all
schools of thought appeal to all Muslims to continue,
as they always did in the past, their loyalty towards
the dear motherland and love and respect towards
humanity. It appeals to them to fully understand the
present alarming situation, the gravity and intensity
of the time, and feel the pulse of the present world
so that they might not be employed as tools of evils
by anti-Islamic or anti-national forces. It appeals to
them to live with dignity and pride being faithful to
the country, to keep full trust in their leadership…”


Stressing the same point, Maulana Marghoobur Rahman
said in his presidential address: “Love of one's land
is a part of our faith, and so, we, the members of the
madrasahs, disapprove of any attack on our motherland
and we will work against any terrorism in the
country.”


Admirable sentiments indeed! And need of the hour.
Statements and exhortations like this have been made
in the past, and even by the same people who were
present on the dais in the convention. But never
before had they come together as representatives and
heads of their organisations to say the same things
jointly and repeatedly in their speeches that
continued throughout the day in front of a gathering
of several hundred thousand Muslims who hold them in
high esteem. That this would have an impact on the
thinking of the entire community goes without saying.
Regardless of the ulema’s varying and indeterminate
levels of scholarship, the vast Muslim masses, many of
them illiterate and uneducated, do look up to them for
guidance in matters of religious interpretations. That
Islam is opposed to killings of innocents is no news
to any Muslim, howsoever ignorant, but that he could
get involved in terrorist events even by default, just
because he was not careful or alert enough, is
something he does need to be told and who better to
tell him this than the ulema he trusts in matters of
faith.


Based on intelligence reports, National Security
Adviser M K Narayanan has pointed out several times
that hundreds of terrorist sleeper cells lie dormant
in various parts of the country, presumably deeply
buried as ordinary people living in Muslim localities.
These or some of these could be activated at any time
of their choice by forces inimical to India’s national
integrity and jealous of and hostile to our secular
practices. It would require a truly alert Muslim
community, more than any other section of the country
to thwart their ambitions.


Listening to speeches after speeches in the day-long
conference, I could not fathom if the ulema fully
appreciate the danger Indian Muslims face from the
cult of global Jihad that goes in the name of Islam,
in fact calls itself true Islam or real Islam and
considers those who are not with it as expendable. It
cannot be easy for a Muslim to go to a mosque and blow
himself up along with scores of other innocent
religious-minded and practicing Muslims who had
gathered in a mosque for prayers.


If this is happening with sickening regularity in the
land that was a part of our own country not too long
ago, it would be foolish for us to consider ourselves
immune from the fast-spreading contagion. Such events
were unimaginable even in Pakistan until the 1980s. In
fact it is only in the last decade or so that it has
become routine. I recall visiting Islamabad in early
19990s and listening to people there talking about the
killing of an Imam of a small local mosque with shock
and disbelief. I visited the offices of Sipah-e-Sahaba
in Karachi and spent an evening in an atmosphere of
pleasant bonhomie with likeable people, without even
gathering a hint that soon they were going to become
known as remorseless killers. Clearly it doesn’t take
long for things to change when vested interests start
misusing ideology to turn genial people into monsters.



Whether or not the ulema at Deoband and other Indian
seminaries realise this, Jihadism is an ideology in
its own right. It has nothing to do with Islam, as the
ulema pointed out, quoting chapter and verse from the
Holy Quran and Sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon
him). But it approaches Muslims in the garb of true
Islam. It misinterprets the verses of Holy Quran and
concocts Hadees (Saying of the Prophet) to prove its
point and entice the unwary. A fabricated Hadees may
appear ridiculous to the knowledgeable but present
that to a gullible, trusting Muslim who loves the
Prophet more than his life and it may affect him
differently.


One Kashmiri Jihadi organisation, for instance, quotes
a so-called Hadees, according to which the Prophet
called the Jihad against India as more worthwhile
(afzal) than any other Jihad. Now anyone who knows
anything about Islam, the Prophet, the demands of the
times he lived in, or who has read the most highly
regarded Bukhari or Muslim compilations of Hadees, in
which the Prophet is said to have mentioned India only
once in an entirely different context, would
immediately dismiss this as ridiculous, but apparently
there are some who are not doing so.


There is evidence that some of our youth are beginning
to get radicalised under the onslaught of this global
Jihadist cult. Let us hope that the ulema are aware of
this and their exhortation would have a salutary
effect. There clearly is need for more such
conferences in different parts of the country. But the
ulema will do well to confine themselves to the
subject of terrorism and its dangers to the Muslim
community and to the need for alerting the Muslim
populace to enable them to face the Jihadi onslaught
which clearly is going on at a subterranean level.
Grievance-mongering, government-bashing, even
Sangh-whacking, a favourite pastime of many of our
leaders and even ulema, can wait for another occasion.


Saving Muslims from radical Islamism


Major political parties and the media have done well
to welcome and applaud Daul Uloom Deoband’s latest
effort to protect Muslims from radical Islam’s
endeavour to wean them away from their traditional
moderate stance. Though individual scholars from
Deoband as well as other groups that were present
there have been saying much the same thing in almost
the same words for quite some time, this is the first
time that institutions and organisations like Darul
Uloom Deoband, Jamiat-ul-Ulema, Jamaat-e-Islami, Ajmer
Sharif, Ahl-e-Hadees, etc. have come together to
denounce terrorism in very clear terms and call it
against the postulates of Islam.


Without detracting from the wisdom and significance of
the ulema’s (Islamic scholars’) latest endeavour,
however, I would like to make a few quick points.


While the media, particularly print, and the
mainstream political parties have done well to
highlight the main message, the ulema themselves did
not maintain their focus on the historic and
ground-breaking work they were doing. Any one who
attended the conference can be excused for thinking
that this was no more than a run of the mill
conference that Muslims periodically hold to air their
grievances against the government of the day and
demand fair and equitable treatment. Several ulema
managed to fire themselves up with their rhetoric
against the discrimination Muslims face from
intelligence agencies and security services – hardly a
suitable tenor for a session that was billed as a
seminar and an occasion for introspection and
brainstorming.


As a result, at least some of the message got lost and
others got distorted. For instance, very few
newspapers have reported that the seminaries have now
decided to maintain their finances in good order and
transparency. They will now be able to tell how much
money they are getting, from where and how this is
being spent. As private organisations they are not
obliged to do so. But they have decided to respond to
frequent allegations of financial irregularity and
funding from abroad. The ulema get plenty of other
opportunities to rail against the government and
communal forces of Hindutva. But for several ulema,
denouncing terrorism as unislamic was just a necessary
chore. They revelled in the opportunity to denounce
and challenge those who trouble Muslims and hurt their
religious sentiments.


Introspection completely missing!


Introspection was completely missing. While the ulema
complained bitterly, for instance, about Talibanism
being ascribed to Deobandi teachings and stressed that
it was not so, no thought was given to the question as
to why was Talibanism considered Deobandi or what
could Deoband do in terms of changing its curriculum
to distinguish itself from the Pakistani Deobandi
schools.


To give a concrete example, the Taliban or Al-Qaeda
version of Islam is clearly distorting the theory and
practice of Jihad in Islam. Jihad has a much wider
significance in Islam, but in the sense of Qital
(fighting) that too in defence, it was permitted to
Muslims 14 years after the advent of Islam and God
explained and gave reasons for this landmark
permission in Surah 22 verse 39 in these words: “If
God did not check one set of people by means of
another there would surely have been pulled down
temples, churches, synagogues and mosques in which the
name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God
will certainly aid those who aid His (cause)…”


In his exegesis, A Yusuf Ali, one of the best known
and revered translators and interpreters of the Holy
Quran says: This was the first occasion on which
fighting in self-defence-was permitted. (22.39) 2817.
To allow a righteous people to fight against a
ferocious and mischief-loving people was fully
justified. But the justification was far greater here,
when the little Muslim community was not only fighting
for its own existence against the Makkan Quraish, but
for the very existence of the Faith in the One True
God. … It affected not the faith of one peculiar
people. The principle involved was that of all
worship, Jewish or Christian as well as Muslim, and of
all foundations built for pious uses. (22.40)”


It is thus the religious duty of the Muslims to fight
to protect the Faith and worship houses of all
religions. But while we Indian Muslims are mourning
the demolition of one mosque 15 years ago, do we shed
any tears, even make a single statement bemoaning the
routine destruction of temples in Pakistan and
Bangladesh. And this while India is the only major
non-Muslim majority country where not only there is no
discrimination in our right to build and run tens of
thousands of mosques and madrassas but also the
Muslims are allowed to run their personal life in
accordance with their understanding of their religious
laws. Does the fact concern us that Saudi Arabia does
not allow the tens of thousands of Christians and
Hindus living there the human right to worship in
their own churches and temples, even though the Quran
asks us to fight on their behalf for that particular
right? Have we ever done our religious duty to protest
these injustices? No, in fact the one Muslim lady,
Taslima Nasreen, who protested in Bangladesh and
highlighted the plight of Hindus, has become a hate
figure for us. She should have been our hero. She is
doing what the religious leaders should have been
doing. Instead we love to persecute her. Our political
and religious leaders try to beat her physically and
we either applaud or keep quiet.


How can we complain against our intelligence agencies
discriminating against us, as the ulema in Deoband did
so vociferously, if we support the massive
discrimination routinely practiced against Hindus and
Christians and Jews in Muslim lands? In the eyes of
Islam stopping people from praying in the worship
places of their choice is the worst possible crime.
How come when we are in a minority we want all the
human and religious rights, but the moment we are a
majority of even 51 percent in some country, we
declare the country to be Islamic where other
religions have little right. What in Allah’s name is
Islamic about this attitude?


There are many such questions on which the ulema would
do well to deliberate and come up with answers that
distinguish them from the Taliban and al-Qaida. If
they don’t, nothing can stop the world from
associating Deoband and other religious seminaries
from the terrorist organisations that are spreading
murder, mayhem and chaos in the world.


Ulema need to rethink some fundamental questions


Obviously, Ulema need to rethink some fundamental
questions guiding Muslim-Hindu relationship. But the
question is: Do they have the necessary vision to save
Muslims from complete marginalisation?


i don't mind repeating myself in saying that Deoband
has certainly made a noble effort to discredit Taliban
and al-Qaeda theories and practices that link Islam
with terrorist acts. That even Jamaat-e-Islami was a
party to the Deoband Declaration agasint Terrorism is
particularly heartening. Alongside Syed Qutub of
Egypt, the J-e-I founder-ideologue Abul Ala Maudoodi
is considered one of the two gurus of present-day
Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Similarly
significant is the presence and approval of
Ahl-e-Hadees and other Salafi sects. Barailvi schools
that represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims in
the sub-continent are in any case more inclusive and
broadminded. So the supporting message of the Sajjada
Nasheen of Ajmer Sharif was no surprise at all. It was
a great sight, watching the ulema (Islamic scholars)
of different sects sitting together on the same dais
and not denouncing each other as Kafir.


However, this is not enough and by itself it will not
provide the Muslims with much relief. The ulema in
India have to rethink some very fundamental religious
issues that govern Muslims relationship with the
majority Hindu community. Take for instance the
question of whether Muslims should treat Hindus as
Ahl-e-Kitab (People of the Book, i.e. followers of one
of the 1,24,000 prophets who came prior to Prophet
Mohammad, peace be upon him) or Kafir (deniers of the
existence of God). The first Arab Muslim general to
deal with Indian Hindus was Mohammad bin Qasim, who is
something of a revered figure for many Muslims. When
he conquered Sindh the question of Muslim-Hindu
relationship arose for the first time. A committee of
ulema then decided that Hindus should be treated as
Ahle-e-Kitab, as they largely believe in the oneness
of God, treat their idols as a way to reaching God
rather than gods by themselves and their scriptures
have unmistakable passages which are almost identical
to the teachings of the Quran. Obviously Hindu avatars
have to be treated as God’s messengers who brought the
message of God just as other Islamic prophets have,
though it could not have been preserved fully due to
the antiquity of their period and the lack of
facilities in those ancient times.


Muslims are asked to have close social relations with
all Ahl-e-Kitab. But that did not happen in the case
of Hindus despite the religious verdict. Probably an
Arab sense of racial superiority – completely
unislamic by all accounts – came in the way. (By the
way it is this Arab racism and its confrontation with
Persian sense of superiority over Arab Bedouins that
is also responsible for the bitter Shia-Sunni divide.)
So they developed a system in which while they would
make friends with, sit together and dine with Hindus,
they would not allow inter-marriages, although Islam
allows Muslims to have marital relationship with
communities that come under the category of
Ahl-e-Kitab, with the life-partners maintaining their
separate religious identity, belief and practice. So
the ulema have basically devised for Hindus a new
category of semi-Ahl-e-Kitab – something that has no
sanction in the Quran or Hadees. In this they would
allow Muslims to maintain close social relations with
Hindus but not allow them to go for marital
relationship.


Like the class of ulema itself which has no sanction
in Islam, this category of semi-Ahl-e-Kitab is an
innovation that has done much damage to the Muslims.
The excuse is that Hindus engage in idolatry despite
their scriptures calling for non-duality (advaita) or
unity of God. But if that is such a major or even
relevant issue, how and why do they treat Christians
as full Ahl-e-Kitab, though Christians treat Jesus
Christ (peace be upon him) as the son of God, which
amounts to ascribing physical attributes to God, and
actually worship idols of Jesus and Mother Mary.


Not that one has any problem with treating Christians
as full Ahl-e-Kitab. As a matter of fact almost all
the people in the world are indeed Ahl-e-Kitab. The
Holy Quran tell us that many prophets have been sent
before Prophet Mohammad to all corners of the world
and no prophet was sent without revelations (which are
later collected as in the case of Quran as a Book).
Arabia was probably the only part of the world where
there were people who could be called Kafir as they
had not yet been blessed with a Prophet till then and
that is why the last Prophet was sent there. So in a
religious sense the Muslims should stop calling any
community Kafir and start using the word Kafir as Urdu
poets do to describe their beloveds.


There are many similar fundamental questions that the
ulema need to resolve if they want to lead the
community to a peaceful and prosperous life in the
country and the world. The holding of this
anti-terrorism convention and the presence of such a
diverse group shows that the Muslim religious
leadership has indeed got the message that the Muslims
are quite worried at the drift of events that are
alienating them from other communities in India as
elsewhere. Deep and sincere introspection and
broadmindedness is called for.


One of the most important and urgent requirement would
be to extricate Islam from Arab follies, prejudices
and racial supremacism. We Indian Muslims must realise
that we are the inheritors of a glorious 5,000-year
old civilisation. There is no reason why we should go
by the interpretation of Arab Bedouins and desert
tribes who had no history of any intellectual or
artistic pursuit beyond writing some romantic poetry.
I am not trying to replace Arab racial supremacism
with an Indian one. We have no problem accepting the
message of God coming to us through any voice box.
Prophet Mohammad was an exemplary person the like of
which the world has never seen. He was a spiritual
master who rose to the position of a Prophet and at
the same time a consummate statesman who remains
unmatched in history. This is acknowledged by many
objective observers of world history from all
communities. So we accept the Muslim holy book without
any reservation or prejudice. But why should we also
accept as Islamic the way Arabs ran their politics
after massacring the entire family of the Prophet is
beyond my comprehension. How can we allow ourselves to
be guided by the interpretations of a people who
accepted Yazid, the killer of the Prophet’s family as
a Khalifa and allowed him to found dynastic politics
in Islam whose USP is equality of all souls and no
superiority of one person over another on any ground
except that of piety. Barring some exceptionally
gifted individuals Arabs continue to be mired in
pre-Islamic Jahiliya (age of ignorance) despite 1400
years of interaction with Islam. This is not at all to
belittle any community or race. But we Muslims tend to
forget our glorious heritage. If we need to develop
our understanding of core Islamic values like, say,
unity of God, where do we go? Of course, to our
ancient Islamic scriptures and writings that we
Muslims tend to dismiss simply as Hindu religious
literature.


The Quran does not elaborate and explain many
essential points presumably for the simple reason that
it has all been done before and those books are
available. If you want to use your intellect, as per
the repeated advice of the Quran, to understand
wahdaniat, oneness of God, for instance, there would
be no better pace to go than what are now known merely
as Hindu scriptures, though they are as much our
scriptures as theirs. Our history did not begin with
Mohammad bin Qasim as the world history did not begin
with the advent of Prophet Mohammad, though many
Muslims tend to behave as if that were the case. We
were a very advanced people much before that. We have
been blessed with many prophets before Prophet
Mohammad and Islam asks us to give them the same
respect as we accord to our beloved Prophet.


While Deoband 2008 gives us hope, one cannot but
wonder if the ulema indeed have the necessary vision
to lead the community at such a sensitive juncture. We
will have to engage in some tough debates and take
some hard decisions, if we are to save our community
from total marginalisation in the country and the
world, at least partly caused by the ulema’s own
ill-conceived decisions flouting the spirit of Islam.

Posted by SultanShahin at 4:33 AM 0 comments
Labels: Deoband, Funfamentalism, Indian Muslims,
Introspection, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism, Ulema

http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.com/

Please also see: myspace.com/sultanshahin

Mike Ghouse: There is one place that I disagree, but the writer has caught himself with it. He says "There is no reason why we should go by the interpretation of Arab Bedouins and desert tribes who had no history of any intellectual or artistic pursuit beyond writing some romantic poetry." This statement has failed to recognize that many a milestone prophets are Arabs; Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Their contribution to the world is unparallel. Much of the Science, Math, Astronomy, Law,physics and Medicinal work is either intiated or preserved. Nearly 2/3rds of the world follows the religions that orginated by Arabs. Except this one item, the writer has summed up the need for Muslims to introspect very well.