
I just love that bald head, MashaALLAH. Read More...
By Maulana Waris Mazhari
(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)
Historically, there have been few efforts among Muslims to address and reform the ways in which the different Muslim sects, particularly Shias and Sunnis, consider and relate to each other. In part, this is because the tradition of ijtihad has been largely lost and Islamic thought has fallen prey to stagnation and rigid taqlid or blind conformity to past precedent. Had Muslim scholars cared to revisit much of their inherited intellectual tradition, we would have been spared some of the horrors of intra-Muslim, particularly Shia-Sunni, rivalries and conflicts that have, over the centuries, taken a terrible toll.
In its origins, the Shia-Sunni split was a product of a particular political context and a particular political conflict, which should have been addressed and solved. However, this did not happen, and these differences were magnified by taking on a religious colour. No serious efforts were made to reduce or to put an end to these differences. Instead, they were allowed to further widen over the centuries. Today, in many places, Shia-Sunni conflicts have become acute, taking a heavy toll of precious human lives. Lamentably, some extremist forces among both groups are fired by a fierce hatred for each other, and see each other as veritable infidels.
Certain misunderstandings on both sides have helped build a massive wall between Shias and Sunnis. So, for instance, many Shias wrongly believe that Sunnis are enemies of the Ahl-e Bayt, the family of the Prophet, and that they respect the murderers of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet. Likewise, many Sunnis erroneously believe that Shias regard the existing Quran as having been tampered with, that they abuse the companions of the Prophet and that they engage in sexual license in the name of muta or ‘temporary marriage’.
In actual fact, these views are baseless, exaggerated or else taken completely out of their contexts. Shia scholars have repeatedly stressed that they do not believe that the Quran was modified or tampered with. The number of Shias who openly abuse (tabarra) the companions of the Prophet is relatively very small. And muta or temporary marriage is regarded by the Shias as permissible only under certain conditions. It must not be forgotten that according to Sunni scholars permission for muta was given in the early period of Islam. Ignoring all this, many Sunni scholars wrongly use arguments that applied to some ancient extreme (ghali) Shia groups in the past that upheld some extreme and clearly un-Islamic views and attribute these views to the present-day Ithna Ashari or Jafari Shias, who form the majority of the Shia population. This is very unfortunate. Likewise, it is also lamentable that some Shias accuse Sunnis of hating the Ahl-e Bayt or Imam Hussain. This is completely wrong. The way the Sunnis express their love for these personages may be different from that of the Shias but certainly no one can accuse the Sunnis of hating them.
It is not easy to remove negative stereotypes that different social and religious groups have of each other. Generally, most people are unwilling to come out of the narrow grooves into which they are stuck and seek to understand others dispassionately. In this regard, one also has to take into account certain political factors responsible for further widening mistrust between Shias and Sunnis. The Islamic Revolution in Iran gave a major boost to anti-Shia sentiments in Sunni quarters as many Sunni Arab rulers feared that it might inspire similar revolutionary anti-regime and anti-imperialist movements in their own countries. Lamentably, they and influential organizations allied to them played a major role in fanning hatred and promoting propaganda against the Shias. They produced a massive amount of anti-Shia literature which they widely disseminated, and in this some of our Indian Sunni ulema were also involved.
Today, a fairly large number of socially conscious Shias and Sunnis are seriously interested in promoting Shia-Sunni dialogue and understanding. It must be admitted that Shia leaders are taking much more interest in this regard than their Sunni counterparts. The Iranian Government has even set up a special organization, called Al-Majma al-Alami Li’t Taqrib Bayn al-Mazahib al-Islamiya, for precisely this purpose, something that no government of any Sunni country has done.
*
The only sensible and proper way to approach the question of Shia-Sunni relations and to seek to improve them is through dialogue. Such dialogue must be predicated on both groups working with each other on issues on which both of them are agreed, and on searching for points for discussion and exchange with regard to issues on which they differ. Shia-Sunni dialogue, it must be recognized, is indispensable for the project of wider Muslim unity, solidarity and ecumenism. Through this sort of dialogue both groups can benefit and learn from each other. And yet, throughout the centuries, this work of dialogue has been almost wholly neglected. It is necessary, therefore, to take up Shia-Sunni dialogue not just as a political necessity but also as a religious imperative. Both Shias and Sunnis believe in the same Quran, which exhorts believers to hold fast to the rope of God and not to split into sects. It is precisely because the issue of Shia-Sunni dialogue has not been seriously taken up by the Shia and Sunni religious leadership that imperialist forces inimical to Muslims and Islam have taken, and continue to take, advantage of these sectarian differences to weaken both of them. It is intriguing in this regard to note that while today various Islamic groups are talking so much about inter-religious dialogue—something that, of course, is very welcome—they continue to completely ignore the pressing need for intra-Muslim sectarian dialogue, such as between Sunnis and Shias and between the different sect-like groups among the Sunnis.
It is urgent that socially conscious Shia and Sunni ulema seriously take up the issue of Shia-Sunni dialogue. In this they must be inspired by a genuine concern for the other. They must seek to understand each other. They must desist from heated polemics. They must also stop thinking that dialogue can only happen when the supposedly rival party gives up the views that the other party does not agree with. Obviously, no dialogue can at all happen if this is the case. It is also imperative that Shias and Sunnis refrain from promoting hate-driven propaganda against each other. Instead of seeking to discuss their differences in a serious and academic manner, often these are brought out into the streets by rabble-rousers who have a vested interest in stirring Shia-Sunni strife. This is precisely what has transformed Pakistan into a living hell of sectarian hatred and war. Such elements must be sought to be socially ostracized and marginalized.
This year, on the occasion of Eid, Sunnis and Shia jointly offered prayers in Lucknow . This was a very welcome development. It was a result of the initiative taken by two leading Islamic scholars of the city, the Shia leader Maulana Kalbe Sadiq and the Sunni scholar Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali. Steps towards dialogue and unity like this are a very encouraging portent and must be promoted.
While talking about Shia-Sunni ecumenism, one must also raise the question about the possibility of Sunnis accepting the Shia Jafari school of Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh as a legitimate one, a fifth school in addition to the existing four schools followed by most Sunnis. The Jamia Al-Azhar, one of the largest and most influential madrasas in the Sunni world, recognizes the Jafari school, in addition to the Ibadi and Zaidi schools, as legitimately Islamic. Half a century or so ago, Shaikh Mahmud Shaltut, rector of Al-Azhar, had even advocated the inclusion of the Jafari school in the madrasa’s curriculum. Unfortunately, no such efforts have been made in the madrasas of South Asia . The chances of this happening in Pakistan are very slim, but if some notable madrasa in India does this it can have a wide-reaching impact. A prominent feature of the Ithna Ashari Jafari school of fiqh is that it has kept the doors of ijtihad open, in contrast to most Sunni schools. This is why it has more flexibility and capacity for change than its Sunni counterparts, and this aspect can be made use of by other schools of fiqh. Likewise, if Shia scholars accept the logic, as the Sunnis do, that the basis of accepting or rejecting a Hadith report should be the truthfulness or otherwise of its narrators, and not that the narrator must necessarily be from the family of the Prophet, they can, at least to some extent, benefit from the more well-preserved corpus of Hadith traditions of the Sunnis. In this way, too, the yawning gulf that separates Sunnis and Shias can be addressed to a considerable extent.
‘Ordinary’ Shias and Sunnis must also seek to work together on common issued at the social level. They, as well as their religious leaders, can participate in each others’ religious and social gatherings and even admit them into their organizations. This can serve be a means for them to share their views and for their views to come closer. As of now, unfortunately, in India there is just one notable Muslim organization that has a mixed Shia-Sunni membership. This is the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, whose Vice-President is the noted Shia scholar Maulana Kalbe Sadiq. The Board needs to further increase the number of its Shia members. Other Muslim organizations in the country that claim to speak for all Muslims should do the same. At the social level, too, consistent efforts must be made to seek to reduce the Shia-Sunni divide. In this regard, I would like to cite the instance of Iraq , where mixed Shia-Sunni unions account for almost a third of all marriages. In India , in contrast, such marriages are very rare. According to some broad-minded Sunni scholars, such as Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, such marital alliances between Shias and Sunnis are indeed permissible.
In other words, Shia-Sunni dialogue needs to proceed on two broad fronts: at the level of socially conscious and broad-minded ulema of both groups, as well as the level of ‘ordinary’ Shias and Sunnis. This sort of effort at promoting intra-Muslim dialogue must also go along with moves to promote dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths. As I mentioned earlier, this is not simply a political or social necessity, but, more importantly, it is something that Islam directs its followers to do.
A graduate of the Dar ul-Uloom Deoband, Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the Tarjuman Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Delhi-based Deoband Madrasa’s Graduates’ Association. He has written extensively on issues related to contemporary debates about Islam, including on inter-faith relations, women’s issues, peace and terrorism, from a distinctly progressive perspective. Some of his articles can be accessed on the Internet. He may be contacted on mazhariwaris@gmail.com
Read More...(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)
Islam is not simply a collection of some beliefs and ritual practices. Islam, if understood properly, is a complete code of life, covering all aspects of personal as well as collective existence. The basic premise of Islamic Politics, then, is that Islam is not merely a personal affair between the individual believer and God. If this were the case, it would have been susceptible to being manipulated to suit people’s whims and fancies, as has happened with religion in the West, where excessive individualism has led to a great crisis of human and religious values.
Islam does not ask its believers to seek to forcibly impose a particular system all over the world, contrary to what many people believe. The laws of Islam relate to the followers of Islam, and Muslims cannot seek to impose them on others against their will. Islam respects religious pluralism and peaceful coexistence, and the best evidence of this is the polity that the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) established in Medina , where non-Muslims were granted their religious and civic rights along with Muslims. This is the true model and criterion for us to follow, and other models that depart from this practice cannot be considered to be traditions that we must emulate.
Unfortunately, the history of Islamic or Muslim culture has been written in such a way as to make it appear synonymous with Muslim political history. So deeply-ingrained is this approach that even biographers of the Prophet sought to present him mainly in the form of a warrior for the faith (ghazi), so much so that in the initial stages the biographies (sirat) of the Prophet were referred to as maghazis or records of wars. In the books of Hadith, too, this one aspect of the Prophet’s life is given particular focus, although nowhere does the Quran refer to the Prophet as a ghazi or mujahid.
The Prophet’s approach was based on the development of individuals’ personalities and character, awakening their hearts and souls, and for this he used only patience, determination, preaching and inviting others to the faith. That is why the Quran repeatedly reminds the Prophet that he is not the ruler of people, that he cannot coerce them, that their faith is a matter that they have to choose themselves, and that God alone can punish or reward them.
The Islamic movements that emerged in the modern period were deeply influenced by the fact of brutal colonial oppression which much of the Muslim world had experienced. They thus developed a reactionary approach, which made them susceptible to extremism. Because they were, in large measure, impelled by a desire for revenge against the West for the brutalities of colonialism, some of them considered even such actions as Islam forbids as permissible for them in order to attain their supposed ends, although such acts gave Islam a bad name.
In 1943, the Jamaat-e Islami was founded in India by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, who is regarded as one of the chief ideologues of modern-day Islamism. He was an enormously prolific writer, and his books had a seminal influence on Islamist ideologues elsewhere in the world. Islamist groups such as the Jamaat-e Islami presently face a tremendous intellectual crisis. Their approach to and understanding of Islam is one-sided, neglecting spiritualism and humanity and making Islam almost synonymous with politics. The Jamaat in Pakistan , Kashmir and Bangladesh keeps raising the slogan of jihad, and claims that it is an inevitable means for the Islamisation of society. I seriously believe that such sloganeering is simply a product of a defeatist mentality, which, in turn, is a result of Muslims having suffered continuous defeat at the hands of the West over the past two hundred years.
Islamists, such as Maududi and others, gave the understanding of the supremacy of Islam a political meaning, arguing that the struggle in the political realm was the principal task of Muslims. This added further fuel to the fire, worsening the already dismal situation of the community. This politicized notion of Islam’s supremacy over other faiths was further reinforced by scores of Muslim writers, poets and preachers. But since in this period of Muslim decline, this dream of political supremacy showed no sign of coming true, disappointment was inevitable. To this feeling of despair were added the new imperialist strategies and plans of seeking to further enslave Muslims, as evidenced in Iraq , Afghanistan , Palestine and various other Muslim countries. All this added up to produce a very volatile mixture.
It is an undeniable fact that numerous self-styled Islamist jihadist movements have not hesitated to engage in clearly un-Islamic acts despite speaking in the name of Islam. These actions of theirs have given Islam a bad name the world over, and this has further exacerbated Muslim marginalization. In fact, even in Muslim countries the space for such movements is rapidly contracting. For instance, in Saudi Arabia , Egypt , Morocco , Tunisia and Algeria several thousand Muslim activists have been imprisoned on charges of being involved with terror groups. It is true that many of these people are probably innocent and have been wrongly targeted by dictatorial regimes that do not tolerate any dissent. Yet, it cannot be denied that among these people are many who would be willing to engage in violence and armed conflict to seek to overthrow ruling regimes, although this is allowed for by Islam only if the rulers exemplify open or explicit opposition to Islam.
In many Arab countries today, several former radical Islamists have changed their ways and are now engaged in peaceful Islamic and social activism. Many of these people have even written books about their experiences and explaining why and how they changed their approach. An interesting instance in this regard is Rashid Ghanouchi, who was once considered to be a leading Tunisian Islamist. Some months ago, the Jamaat-e Islami Hind invited him to a programme in Delhi . I attended the programme and heard Ghanouchi speak. I was surprised to note that there was not a single aspect of the Jamaat-e Islami’s political ideology which he did not severely critique, although in a very scholarly manner. He argued that groups like the Taliban as well as other radical or militant self-styled Islamist outfits and movements were among the greatest threats to Islam in the present-day. Another staunch critic of these movements is the hugely influential Qatar-based Islamic scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
In the last two decades the term jihad has been craftily manipulated so as to promote a violent mind-set and culture. To combat this, efforts need to be made at three levels. Firstly, at the level of Muslim political thought, the notion of ‘united nationalism’ (mutahhida qaumiyat), embracing people of different religions living in the same nation-state, must be accepted on Islamic grounds and the entire world should be considered to be dar ul-ahad, or ‘abode of agreement’. The ulema must collectively make an announcement to this effect. This position has been accepted by such traditional ulema as Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri. Further, there must no longer be any hesitation in accepting religious pluralism and peaceful coexistence of people of different faiths. After all, in the Quran God says that people have the freedom to choose to adopt or reject Islam. It is not in God’s plan of things that everyone should become a Muslim, for, if He had wanted, He could easily have done so. This point is thus the basis of pluralism from the Islamic perspective.
In this regard, it is also important for the crucial distinction between jihad and qital, in the sense of defensive violence, to be made clear to people and for Islamic activities to be pursued through peaceful means. The fact that Islam does not allow for offensive war must also be impressed upon people. It gives no sanction for the sort of so-called ‘pre-emptive war’ that an aggressive imperialist power like America seeks to wrongly justify.
Muslim scholars must also come forward to be more actively involved in inter-faith and inter-community dialogue, based on certain minimum common beliefs, interests or issues, preferring dialogue to conflict as a means to resolve differences. There is also need for the ulema to expand and broaden their understanding of the question of relations between Muslims and others. In this regard, some prescriptions contained in the traditional books of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) need to be re-examined, being too extreme, as also understandings and interpretations based on a selective and erroneous reading of certain verses of the Quran and Prophetic Traditions that relate to people of other faiths. Unfortunately, the reconstruction of Islamic thought in the modern context in this and other regards has not gone very far. In the Indian subcontinent, after Muhammad Iqbal, no one other person has been able to effectively take up this urgent task. Likewise, the movement towards a suitable reconstruction of Islamic thought that was pioneered by Muhammad Abduh and his disciple Rashid Riza in the Arab world was unable to make much progress.
The second level at which urgent action is needed is for Western imperialist powers, most notably America , to cease from their oppressive and inhuman policies. An immediate task in this regard is for American control of Iraq and Afghanistan to be ended and for foreign troops to be withdrawn from these countries. The continuing killing of Palestinians by the Israelis must cease and a just settlement of the Palestine issue must be found. America must stop its blind support to Israel and exercise full pressure on it to stop its crimes against humanity. Without all this, I believe it will not be possible to stop the radicalization of Muslims, for despair leading to radicalization often becomes the only weapon of the weak.
The third front on which energies should be focused is on creating a truly democratic climate in Muslim countries. In these countries, ruling pro-Western cliques mindlessly use their powers to promote their personal and sectional interests and brutally deny their populace their basic rights. These rulers must be held accountable for their actions. They must not be allowed to misuse their countries’ wealth, as in oil-rich states, to serve their own and their Western masters’ vested interests.
In other words, we cannot change the present situation simply by talking of the need to ‘reform’ radical and self-styled jihadist movements. There has to be adequate and far-ranging change with regard to the policies of Western powers as well as of ruling regimes in Muslim countries as well.
Read More...© Copyright by Education of Muslim Children | Template by Free Tips 4U | Powered by Blogger.com