Archive for the ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ Category

Why the West craves materialism & the East sticking to religion?

March 25, 2019
Image result for Imran khan's pic in tail coat in uk?

Imran Khan  world class Cricketer- won the world cup for Pakistan 

By Imran Khan (Now, The Prime Minister of Pakistan—2018-2023)  

Publication Date:  Mon, 2002-01-14 03:00, Arab-News.

My generation grew up at a time when colonial hang up was at its peak. Our older generation had been slaves and had a huge inferiority complex of the British. The school I went to was similar to all elite schools in Pakistan. Despite gaining independent, they were, and still are, producing replicas of public schoolboys rather than Pakistanis.

I read Shakespeare, which was fine, but no Allama Iqbal — the national poet of Pakistan. The class on Islamic studies was not taken seriously, and when I left school I was considered among the elite of the country because I could speak English and wore Western clothes.

Despite periodically shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ in school functions, I considered my own culture backward and religion outdated. Among our group if anyone talked about religion, prayed or kept a beard he was immediately branded a Mullah.

Because of the power of the Western media, our heroes were Western movie stars or pop stars. When I went to Oxford already burdened with this hang-up, things didn’t get any easier. At Oxford, not just Islam, but all religions were considered anachronism.

Science had replaced religion and if something couldn’t be logically proved it did not exist. All supernatural stuff was confined to the movies. Philosophers like Darwin, who with his half-baked theory of evolution had supposedly disproved the creation of men and hence religion, were read and revered.

Moreover, European history reflected its awful experience with religion. The horrors committed by the Christian clergy during the Inquisition era had left a powerful impact on the Western mind.

To understand why the West is so keen on secularism, one should go to places like Cordoba in Spain and see the torture apparatus used during the Spanish Inquisition. Also, the persecution of scientists as heretics by the clergy had convinced the Europeans that all religions are regressive.

However, the biggest factor that drove people like me away from religion was the selective Islam practiced by most of its preachers. In short, there was a huge difference between what they practiced and what they preached. Also, rather than explaining the philosophy behind the religion, there was an overemphasis on rituals. {the reason had been and is the lack of, religious as well as secular, education and knowledge — by Shakir Mumtaz}

I feel that humans are different from animals. While the latter can be drilled, humans need to be intellectually convinced. That is why the Qur’an constantly appeals to reason. The worst, of course, was the exploitation of Islam for political gains by various individuals or groups.

Hence, it was a miracle I did not become an atheist. The only reason why I did not was the powerful religious influence my mother wielded on me since my childhood. It was not so much out of conviction but love for her that I stayed a Muslim.

However, my Islam was selective. I accepted only parts of the religion that suited me. Prayers were restricted to Eid days and occasionally on Fridays when my father insisted on taking me to the mosque with him.

All in all, I was smoothly moving to become a Pukka Brown Sahib. After all, I had the right credentials in terms of school, university and, above all, acceptability in the English aristocracy, something that our brown sahibs would give their lives for. So, what led me to do a ‘lota’ on the Brown Sahib culture and instead become a ‘desi’?

Well, it did not just happen overnight.

Firstly, the inferiority complex that my generation had inherited gradually went as I developed into a world-class athlete. Secondly, I was in the unique position of living between two cultures. I began to see the advantages and disadvantages of both societies.

In Western societies, institutions were strong while they were collapsing in our country. However, there was an area where we were and still are superior, and that is our family life. I began to realize that this was Western society’s biggest loss. In trying to free itself from the oppression of the clergy, they had removed both God and religion from their lives.

While science, no matter how much it progresses, can answer a lot of questions — two questions it will never be able to answer: One, what is the purpose of our existence and two, what happens to us when we die?

It is this vacuum that I felt created the materialistic and the hedonistic culture. If this is the only life then one must make hay while the sun shines — and in order to do so, one needs money. Such a culture is bound to cause psychological problems in a human being, as there was going to be an imbalance between the body and the soul.

Consequently, in the US, which has shown the greatest materialistic progress while giving its citizens numerous rights, almost 60 percent of the population consult psychiatrists. Yet, amazingly in modern psychology, there is no study of the human soul. Sweden and Switzerland, who provide the most welfare to their citizens, also have the highest suicide rates. Hence, man is not necessarily content with material well-being and needs something more.

Since all morality has its roots in religion, once religion was removed, immorality has progressively grown since the 70s. Its direct impact has been on family life. In the UK, the divorce rate is 60 percent, while it is estimated that, out of that there are, over 35 percent single mothers. The crime rate is rising in almost all Western societies, but the most disturbing fact is the alarming increase in racism. While science always tries to prove the inequality of man (recent survey showing the American Black to be genetically less intelligent than whites) it is the only religion that preaches the equality of man.

Between 1991 and 1997, it was estimated that total immigration into Europe was around 520,000, and there were racially motivated attacks all over, especially in Britain, France, and Germany. In Pakistan during the Afghan war, we had over four million refugees, and despite the people being so much poorer, there was no racial tension.

There was a sequence of events in the 80s that moved me toward God as the Qur’an says: “There are signs for people of understanding.” One of them was cricket. As I was a student of the game, the more I understood the game, the more I began to realize that what I considered to be chance was, in fact, the will of Allah. A pattern which became clearer with time. But it was not until Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” that my understanding of Islam began to develop.

People like me who were living in the Western world bore the brunt of anti-Islam prejudice that followed the Muslim reaction to the book. We were left with two choices: fight or flight. Since I felt strongly that the attacks on Islam were unfair, I decided to fight. It was then I realized that I was not equipped to do so as my knowledge of Islam was inadequate. Hence, I started my research and for me a period of my greatest enlightenment. I read scholars like Ali Shariati, Muhammad Asad, Iqbal, Gai Eaton, plus of course, a study of Qur’an.

I will try to explain as concisely as is possible, what “discovering the truth” meant for me. When the believers are addressed in the Qur’an, it always says, “Those who believe and do good deeds.” In other words, a Muslim has a dual function, one toward God and the other toward fellow human beings.

The greatest impact of believing in God for me meant that I lost all fear of human beings. The Qur’an liberates man from man when it says that life and death and respect and humiliation are God’s jurisdiction, so we do not have to bow before other human beings.

Moreover, since this is a transitory world where we prepare for the eternal one, I broke out of the self-imposed prisons, such as growing old (such a curse in the Western world, as a result of which, plastic surgeons are having a field day), materialism, ego, what people say and so on. It is important to note that one does not eliminate earthly desires. But instead of being controlled by them, one controls them.

By following the second part of believing in Islam, I have become a better human being. Rather than being self-centered and living for the self, I feel that because the Almighty gave so much to me, in turn, I must use that blessing to help the less privileged. This I did by following the fundamentals of Islam rather than becoming a Kalashnikov-wielding fanatic.

I have become a tolerant and a giving human being who feels compassion for the underprivileged. Instead of attributing success to myself, I know it is because of God’s will, hence I learned humility instead of arrogance.

Also, instead of the snobbish Brown Sahib attitude toward our masses, I believe in egalitarianism and strongly feel against the injustice done to the weak in our society. According to the Qur’an, “Oppression is worse than killing.” In fact, only now do I understand the true meaning of Islam, if you submit to the will of Allah, you have inner peace.

Through my faith, I have discovered the strength within me that I never knew existed and that has released my potential in life. I feel that in Pakistan we have selective Islam. Just believing in God and going through the rituals is not enough. One also has to be a good human being. I feel there are certain Western countries with far more Islamic traits than us in Pakistan, especially in the way they protect the rights of their citizens, or for that matter their justice system. In fact, some of the finest individuals I know live there.

What I dislike about them is their double standards in the way they protect the rights of their citizens but consider citizens of other countries as being somehow inferior to them as human being, e.g. dumping toxic waste in the Third World, advertising cigarettes that are not allowed in the West and selling drugs that are banned in the West.

One of the problems facing Pakistan is the polarization of two reactionary groups. On the one side is the Westernized group that looks upon Islam through Western eyes and has inadequate knowledge about the subject. It reacts strongly to anyone trying to impose Islam in society and wants only a selective part of the religion. On the other extreme is the group that reacts to this Westernized elite and in trying to become a defender of the faith, takes up such intolerant and self-righteous attitudes that are repugnant to the spirit of Islam.

What needs to be done is to somehow start a dialogue between the two extremes. In order for this to happen, the group on whom the greatest proportion of our educational resources are spent in this country must study Islam properly.

Whether they become practicing Muslims or believe in God is entirely a personal choice. As the Qur’an tells us there is “no compulsion in religion.” However, they must arm themselves with knowledge as a weapon to fight extremism. Just by turning up their noses at extremism the problem is not going to be solved.

The Qur’an calls Muslims “the middle nation”, not of extremes. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was told to simply give the message and not worry whether people converted or not, therefore, there is no question in Islam of forcing your opinions on anyone else.

Moreover, we are told to respect other religions, their places of worship and their prophets. It should be noted that no Muslim missionaries or armies ever went to Malaysia or Indonesia. The people converted to Islam due to the high principles and impeccable character of the Muslim traders. At the moment, the worst advertisements for Islam are the countries with their selective Islam, especially where religion is used to deprive people of their rights. In fact, a society that obeys the fundamentals of Islam has to be a liberal one.

If Pakistan’s Westernized class starts to study Islam, not only will it be able to help society fight sectarianism and extremism, but it will also make them realize what a progressive religion Islam is. They will also be able to help the Western world by articulating Islamic concepts. Recently, Prince Charles accepted that the Western world can learn from Islam. But how can this happen if the group that is in the best position to project Islam gets its attitudes from the West and considers Islam backward? Islam is a universal religion and that is why our Prophet (peace be upon him) was called a Mercy for all mankind.

shakir2.wordpress.com

 

Lying and deception in Islam. 

February 27, 2019

Image result for Pinterest. Image of a tree bRANCHES showing several faces?

Lying is one of the greatest sins in Islam. Text and the corpus juris are quite explicit about this. Evils of lying are more dreadful than the evils of adultery. In one of the Ahadith lying is equated with committing adultery with one’s own mother. 

“Only they forge the lie who do not believe in Allah’s communications, and these are the liars.” (Q,16:105) 

“Surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful.” (Q, 39:3) 

A liar also invokes the curse of Allah (SWT) 

“… and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.” (Q,  3:61) 

“… the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars.” (Q, 24:8) 

Hadith: “When a believer speaks a lie, he becomes prone to committing every other sin; and when this happens, he commits kufr (disbelief) which then makes him liable to enter Hell.” 

Toriyyah (dissimulation) 

It means to say something, which could be interpreted in more than one way. One of the meanings should be the truth while the other ambiguous 

Example:  If a tyrant comes to one’s place seeking him out but he wants to remain in the safety of his home; a person from his family may answer the door and say, ‘He is not here’; with the intention that ‘He’ is not at the door’. 

Toriyyah (dissimulation) It is a dissimulation which is permissible and legitimate; when spoken in defense of oneself from cruelty or persecution, would not fall within the definition of a lie. Same would justify the three dissimulations uttered by Prophet Abraham (PBUH). 

1) Declaring that he is not feeling well/or is indisposed. 

2) Not acknowledging the Amputation of the arm of the big idol in Ka’aba and pointing instead to the big idol. 

3) Declaring his wife as his sister to protect against the evil intention of the king. 

                                                                  Also 

A statement in the nature of an assumption and a supposition which is contrary to facts is not a lie. It is a metaphoric attribution/assumption which does not belie an established fact. Example: [prophet saying] “If the Rahman (GOD) has a son I would be the first one to serve him” (Q, 43:81) 

 

Hila (Hiyal) [pl] is the avoidance of observing the Islamic law in (extremely) difficult situations while still obeying the letter of the law. 

Note: in Sunni schools it is still controversial while in Shia’a school by 15th century it was fully acceptable; by the force of fatawa issued by Ibn Hajar Al Asqalanibanning its criticism. Hanafites accepted it, Malikites still consider it illegal. There is however a growing debate about the purpose of Sharia’a; its increased interpretational flexibility; in view of the problems/issues faced, due to “Modernity” and “concrete-thinking”, hence revival/increased-employment of Hila as a legitimate tool. Sharia’a based Islamic finance industry is making greater use of it in developing “Riba-(interest)-free” products.  

Imam Bukhari (following the transmission-based juris) differed with Hanafites on the use of legal device “Hila” with vehemence. He condemned the use of Hiyal on the basis of hadith “All deeds are judged by their intentions” in tandem with Imam Hanbal and Iban Al Mubarak, who also vehemently rejected the use of Hiyal 

He also disagreed with Hanafite’s well-known laxity in defining; by employing the device of “hila”—an intoxicant—wine, as grape juice.  

Allah’s planning: (use of Hila) “when we revealed to your mother what was to be revealed” (Q20:38) [ Pharaoh having been told that; someone born in Bani Israel would ruin/kill you, ordered the killing of all male children]. Allah told the mother of Moses to put Moses in a basket and cast him into the river and not to entertain any apprehension about his safety. He will be picked up by the one who is his and My enemy. Your sister working for pharaoh’s family would guide him to you (Moses’s mother) as a sulking nurse, whereby she (Moses’s mother) will not be grieved. [Q, 20:38-39]. 

 Tentative Conclusion of Hiyal Doctrine 

Ḥiyal (sg. ḥīla) are “legal devices” or tools used in achieving certain objectives, lawful or not, through lawful means. Although it is generally agreed that ḥiyal are not a subterfuge for the “evasion of the law,” their exact nature and place within Islamic jurisprudence, however, remains an open question. To date, there have been only a few studies devoted to this doctrine and these have focused almost exclusively upon the Ḥanafītes, who developed ḥiyal into a special branch of the law, called makhārij, i.e. “exits” 

Examined here is the doctrine of the Ḥanafīte together with that of the Mālikīte/Medinaite jurists; who were early witnesses for and against ḥiyalas conceived by the Ḥanafītes. On the basis of their understanding of the law in terms of utility, Ḥanafītes employed makhārij (exits) to provide remedies for those who sought them. As a particular transmission of Ḥanafīte doctrine, the genre of makhārij sought to confirm the standard doctrine by discovering “exits” suggested therein. Ḥanafīte’s concern for the subject was shared by the Mālikītesalbeit from a different point of viewMālikītes discussed ḥiyal as jurisprudential materials; that convey the validity of their doctrine, prescribing appropriate solutions. Thus, it is concluded that both the Ḥanafītes and Mālikītes regarded ḥiyal as solutions drawn from the materials of jurisprudence in accordance with the spirit of the law as interpreted by the jurists of their respective schools. 

Taqiyyah(dissembling) It is termed as an outright lie in the Sunni school of thought. In Shia’a School, however, it is considered (based on the word [ittiqa]prudence, precaution or fear”. {A precautionary denial of the faith or its practices in the face of persecution. Kitman (covering)—by silence or omission}. Among the “Twelver-Shia’as it is politically legitimized to maintain unity among the Muslims in general and fraternity among the shia’a clerics in particular. 

Taqqiyah was developed by Imam Jafar Al Sadiq to protect against the oppression of Abbasid Caliph—Al Mansur—who was a Sunni Muslim.  Also, that esoterically, the Ilm–knowledge” given to Shia’a Imam has to be hidden from the uninitiated and adversaries until the descending of their “Twelfth-Imam”[Taqqiyah—This term is often used against Islam and Muslims indiscriminately by the Islamophobes and Anti-Islam polemicists]. 

Its authority is said to have been derived from the Qura’anic verse 3:28 although, there is not the slightest indication of permission for lying or deceivingexcept for exoteric stop-gap accommodation of the nonbelievers–in the face of extreme adversity. 

“Believers should not take disbelievers {where the interest of the deniers of the truth clashes with that of the believers} as guardians instead of the believers; and whosoever does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah (SWT), unless it is a precaution against their tyranny. {where there is a reason to fear from them something; which ought to be guarded against, for they are more powerful than the Muslims} And Allah warns you about Himself. And to Allah is the final return” (Q, 3:28) 

Scientific dimension of Divine injunction with respect to Lying, deception, and planning,  

Surah Al-Alaq # 96 verse, 15 & 16 exhibits; how scientifically structured are Islamic injunctions; as shown here, with respect to lying, deceiving and planning. 

No! If he does not desist, We will surely smite his forehead – (96:15) 

A lying sinning forehead (96:16) 

“And shun the false speech” (Q, 22:30) 

 Lying and deception are generated in the frontal lobe/cortex of the forehead, also known as the “The voice of reason” 

 (we will certainly smite his forehead),  ناصيته NAASIYAH is the forehead. 

Image result for pic of the brain frontal cortex
 Obvious questions would beWhy did the Quran describe the front of the head as being lying and sinful?  Why didn’t the Quran say that the person was lying and sinful?  What is the relationship between the front of the head and lying and sinfulness?  

 If we look into the skull at the front of the head, we will find that the prefrontal area of the cerebrum (left side of the figure) is what does the physiology tells us about the function of this area?  

 A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology explains about this area that; “the motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements” occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex…” The book also explains, “In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression 

So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivating, and initiating good and sinful behavior and is responsible for the telling of lies and the speaking of truth.  Thus, it is befittingly described in the Holy Qura’an; that it is the front of the head lying and sinful when someone lies or commits a sin. “...A lying, sinful naseyyah (front of the head)!” 

 

SAVE—-ROHINGYA, UGHER, PALESTINIAN AND KASHMIRI MUSLIM FROM STATE-SPONSORED GENOCIDE. RECLAIM—AFRICA— A MUSLIM CONTINENT.      

                           (Use and share this slogan as often as possible) 

 

Shakir2.wordpress.com 

Philippines’ Contrived Conversion to Christianity. 

January 28, 2019

Muslim protesters release a symbolic dov : News Photo

In 1521, the Portuguese navigator and explorer Ferdinand Magellan carrying the Spanish flag came across the Philippines while searching for the Spice Island. (most likely Indian sub-continent) Ferdinand Magellan and his men landed in Cebu Island in the central Philippines instead.

With his arrival in Cebu on March 17, 1521, his first attempt was to colonize and Christianize the islands and its inhabitants. The story goes that Magellan met with Rajah Humabon, the ruler of the Cebu island, who had an ill grandson. Magellan (or one of his men) was able to cure or help the young boy recover, and in gratitude, RajahHumabon allowed himself, his chief consort Humamay, and 800 of his subjects to be baptized en masse. (No Independent confirmation of this fabricated story, however, is available).

After Magellan died, the Spanish government replaced him by sending Miguel Lopez de Legazpi. He arrived in Cebu from New Spain (now Mexico). Spain introduced Christianity and colonized the Philippines. The first permanent Spanish settlement was established in Cebu in 1565, making it the new Spanish Colony Capital, with Legazpi as the first Governor.

After Magellan, Miguel Lopez de Legazpi conquered the Muslim Kingdom of Maynila in 1570. The Spanish missionaries were able to spread Christianity in Luzon and the Visayas by using all kinds of tricks and coercion, but the diverse array of ethnolinguistic groups in the highland areas of Luzon and Visayas avoided Spanish annexation owing to their remote and difficult mountainous region. Sultanates in Mindanao retained the Islamic faith as its official religion; which had been present in the southern Philippines since sometime between the 10th and 12th century, it slowly spread north throughout the archipelago, particularly in coastal areas.  

The resistance; to the western invasion, colonization and forced conversion to Christianity makes, an important part of the national history of the Philippines. Although many western historians have frivolously claimed that the Philippines peacefully accepted Spanish rule; the reality is that many insurgencies and rebellions continued on many scales and places throughout the Spanish Colonial period. 

The Spanish contrivances rendered unsuccessful in converting Muslim Sultanates to Christianity, and in fact warred with Muslim Filipinos throughout their 300-year colonial rule from 1521 – 1898. Nor did they successfully conquer certain highland areas, such the Luzon highlands, where a diverse array of ethnolinguistic groups used their remote, difficult mountainous terrain to successfully avoid colonization and conversion.

Spanish clergies were highly contemptuous and destructive towards local and Islamic religious practices. They systematically destroyed indigenous holy places and symbols. They also tried to stamp out all examples of native scripts and literature for fear that Filipinos were using exotic symbols to foment rebellion.

Islam had been present in the southern Philippines since sometime between the 10th and 12th century. It slowly spread north throughout the archipelago, particularly in coastal areas. Had it not been for Spanish intervention, the Philippines definitely would have been a Muslims dominated country like Malaysia, Indonesia and others in the area.

 

SAVE—-ROHINGYA, UGHER, PALESTINIAN AND KASHMIRI MUSLIM FROM STATE-SPONSORED GENOCIDE. RECLAIM—AFRICA— A MUSLIM CONTINENT.     

 

Shakir2.wordpress.com

 

West, a trembling hive of Hypocrisy

August 28, 2018

Western,  especially the US’s, virtues are tailored to justify hegemonic policies, wars and covert activities.Where,

Attacking Blacks is Racism.

Attacking a country is Terrorism                                                                                                (Except when attacked by a western country or Israel)

Attacking Homosexuality is Homophobia

Attacking women is Gender discrimination

Attacking Jews is Semitism

Questioning holocaust is still forbidden in some countries.

But, attacking Islam, Qura’an, Muslims and the Prophet, is all a fair game, as it mysteriously, in a snap, changes to, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION.

Recently a ray of hope, however, has surfaced on the barren wilderness of the west; 

ECtHR decision to uphold the decision of A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, to an Austrian woman in her late 40s where she was fined $547 plus legal costs, declaring that “The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.” The court also said the woman’s comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.                        https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf

The Dutch government has sought to distance itself from Wilders’ contest, with Prime Minister Mark Rutte calling it provocative, but saying that there were protections of freedom of speech in the Netherlands.

“The aim is to provoke rather than to force a debate about Islam,” Rutte said this week. “Wilders is a politician who provokes and he is free to do”

that.”https://www.dw.com/en/anti-islam-dutch-politician-geert-wilders-cancels-muhammad-cartoon-contest/a-45298935

Read related article:-

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/islamophobia-through-yougove-poll-pew-research-center-study/

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/hipocrisy/

shakir2.wordpress.com

Tazkiyyah-a-Nafs, (Self-Control).

December 24, 2017

“And keep yourself patient [by being] with those who call upon their Lord in the morning and the evening, seeking His countenance. And let not your eyes pass beyond them, desiring adornments of the worldly life, and do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance and who follows his desire and whose affair is ever [in] neglect” (Q,18:28)

Improvisation

Keep your-self (Nafs) restrained/subdued by being in the company of those, who keep busy remembering their Lord, day and night (morn, eve) seeking His pleasure/approval/mercy. Do not let your-self (Nafs) evade their company by being attracted to the adornments of fleeting life (temporary worldly life). Do not be in the company of someone whose heart, We have rendered, barren of Our remembrance. The one who is the slave of his desires and, his disposition is utter neglect. 

 

(This may have also provided a justification (deduced) for   “Majalis” & “Halaqa”— group chanting, Mahafil—e–Sama’a etc—for ordinary people and the people of Sufi orders)

Demonizing, Repressing a Religious Minority!

December 19, 2017

 

 

 

DEMONIZING AND REPRESSING A RELIGIOUS MINORITY BECAUSE IT HAS DIFFERENT MORAL VALUES THAN THE MAJORITY CAN HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
A classically American approach that protects the many religious streams running together to form the American cultural heritage rather than damming one in favor of another. As historian Denise Spellberg observes of Thomas Jefferson’s view of Islam, “In the formation of the American ideal and principles of what we consider to be exceptional American values, Muslims were, at the beginning, the litmus test for whether the reach of American constitutional principles would include every believer, every kind, or not.” Jefferson didn’t care for Islam (or any organized religion, for that matter). But he understood that America would be stronger if citizens favoring one stream of its heritage vigorously argued its merits without seeking to place legal limits on those arguing for the merits of a different stream.
Shakir2.wordpress.com

Denise A. Spellberg (born c. 1958) is an American scholar of Islamic history. She is an associate professor of history and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Spellberg holds a BA from Smith College (1980) and a Ph.D. (1989) from Columbia University.

Books

Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders, New York: Knopf, October 1, 2013; ISBN 978-0307268228

Declare–Rakhine–an Independent Rohingya Muslims State.

September 11, 2017

 

Rohingyas are living in Myanmar since 8th Century. A most persecuted Muslim minority since 2013 UN.The Rohingya faced Military crackdown in 1978,1991,1992, 2012, 2015 and NOW in 2016–2017. UN officials and HRW have described Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya as ethnic cleansing, while there have been warnings of an unfolding genocide.

 

Accession into Pakistan.

During the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s, Rohingya Muslims in western Burma organized a separatist movement to merge the region into East Pakistan. Before the Independence of Burma in January 1948, Muslim leaders from Arakan addressed themselves to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked his assistance in incorporating the Mayu region to Pakistan considering their religious affinity and geographical proximity with East Pakistan. The North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (modern Sittwe) two months later. The proposal never materialized since it was reportedly turned down by Jinnah, saying that he was not in a position to interfere into Burmese matters. After Jinnah’s refusal to accept northern Arakan into the Dominion of Pakistan, some Rohingya elders who supported a Jihad movement founded the Mujahid party in northern Arakan in 1947. The aim of the Mujahid party was to create an autonomous Muslim state in Arakan.

There are 1.3 million in and around Myanmar and about 1.5 million spread in other countries.

Yanghee Lee, the UN special investigator on Myanmar, believes the country wants to expel its entire Rohingya population.

 If UN can declare—East Taimour—& —South Sudan— for Christians, why not –Rakhine— for Rohingya Muslims?

Which Morality—Modern or Virtuous–is Right?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (by Shakir Mumtaz January 2017)

(Morality based on common sense! Can common sense be trusted? Ethical Egoism says that “One person’s common sense may be another person’s naïve platitude” It is also called “revisionist theory” for it declares that “our common sense moral views may be mistaken, therefore, need to be changed”)

Morality predicates every facet of human life. It has always been, fervently, debated by the scholars and thinkers of almost all the societies, as to what constitutes morality, what should be its source and how its parameters should be determined and so on. I have therefore embarked on this interesting but multifarious topic to explore; by consulting various perspectives and sources, and present a cogent picture for the readers; to make up their own mind, after weighing for and against reasons and arguments.

Modern morality (or moral philosophy) has a rich and fascinating history. A great many thinkers have approached the subject from a wide variety of perspectives and have produced theories that both attract and repel the thoughtful people. Almost all the classical theories developed by philosophers of undoubted genius are, however, vulnerable to crippling objections. Hence, one is left wondering what to believe?

Derek Parfit, “Reasons and Persons” 1984 put it very aptly as “Non-religious ethics (Morality) is the youngest and least advanced” Thomas Hobbs, foremost British philosopher of 17th Century tried (unsuccessfully) to provide an alternative to Divine Philosophy*1 by arguing as follow. “Suppose we take away all the props for morality. We assume, first, that there is no God to issue commands and reward virtues; and second, that there are no moral facts built into the nature of things. Moreover, we deny that there is any sort of universal altruism built into human nature—we see people as essentially motivated to pursue their own interests. If we cannot appeal to God, moral facts or natural altruism, is there anything left on which morality might be found? After all this, he suggests an alternate, in the form of “Social contract” and commonly accepted mechanism (Govt.), to enforce the terms of the contract. Then he conjectures an untenable “state of nature”, insinuating absolute chaos, to support his hypothesis. “State of nature”*2 is governed by “the Laws of Nature” and Laws of Nature not only describes “how things are” but also “how things ought to be” as well. Things are always as they “ought to be” solemnly serving their natural purposes (Theory of the law of nature). He replaced God with altruism and moral facts and His command and control by an indispensable Government. Mundane and temporal end-result suggested was— “the gain of the benefits of social living”. This outrageous endeavor could simply be classed as a “Blatant Hobbesian Intellectual Egoism”{Dishonesty/Arrogance). After close scrutiny of this hypothesis, Thomas Hobbs is also found to be guilty of defying “the minimum conception of morality”. (By the way, Islamic theology makes use of “minimum conception” with respect to the performance of basic obligatory rituals, ensuring the salvation of the believers in the hereafter).

It might be of interest for the readers to know, that morality is not an issue as such in most parts; especially in predominantly monotheistic and polytheistic societies, of the world at all. Centuries-old religious ethos shaped their cultural traditions and social practices in consonance and the life goes on smoothly. The issue of morality, for the most part, arises when an equitable and just resolution is sought in the face of conflicting interests. It is generally thought that formulation of morality started from the Greeks. This treatise, therefore, would start from there; foregoing the issue of the actual origin of morality, which according to some sources goes back to Prophet Adam. Greek philosophers such as Pluto, Aristotle and Socrates and some other eminent scholars resorted to reason in formulating the moral laws of their time; while counting on the character to establish the virtuous traits of a man. Questions were framed as “What is the good of man?”, “What traits of character make one a good man?” This was happening 400 years before the time of Jesus Christ. With the spread of Christianity however, a new idea of “Law Giver” and “Obedience to His commands” was introduced. St Augustine, the most influential and prominent thinker of 4th Century, however, “distrusted the reason” and taught that virtuous life rests in the unwavering subordination to the commandments. From here on when the Christian Scholars, philosophers discussed the issue of virtues; it was within the context of “Divine Law”, and theological virtues including “Obedience” occupying the central place. On the contrary, Greeks gave “reason” the center stage. They viewed the “reason” the source of practical wisdom. Virtuous life for them was inseparable from the life of reason.

After renaissance, however, morality took another turn and Philosophers stopped turning to the Greek way of reasoning or Christian way of obedience to “Divine Law” but to its secular equivalent called “Moral Law”. “Divine Fiat” was replaced by “Human reason” and by following its directive would decide which actions are right? The question was changed from “what traits of character make a good person” to “what is the right thing to do?” “Virtue” was replaced by secular ‘rightness of actions” & “obligations” thereby promoting the element of individualism and self-interest (selfishness). Human reason gave rise to the conception of Hubristic “ought” as a standard for most advantageous actions; petrifying the Human-reason with inconsistency; hence similar reasoning was acceptable in one situation, but not in the other. Later moral theories from the seventeenth century onward; such as “Ethical egoism”, “Utilitarianism”, “Social Contract Theory”, all were developed and promoted in the same vein of individualism and self-centeredness.

Utilitarianism, in particular, proved to be the harbinger of Religion divested morality. A theory presented by David Hume (1711-1776) formalized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), vehemently advocated by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his son James Mill. After the 18th and 19th century’s series of upheavals, America was a newly developing country and traditional morality was up in the air. Bentham’s conception of Religion divested morality; in conscious opposition to Christianity; especially for those escaping the Church of England’s persecution, proved to be a boon. He argued “Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world” Bentham was also given the assignment of reforming the laws and constitution of England along utilitarian lines. Needless to say that despite huge influence utilitarianism had severe flaws. One of its more developed forms, Act-Utilitarianism, recognized it to be a “radical doctrine” “that implied that many of our moral feelings may be mistaken” Ethical Egoism, as a “revisionist theory”, also asserted the same theme.

An Australian philosopher J.J.C Smart (1961) published a monograph, challenging the common sense (morality) as it cannot be trusted. His assertion challenges us to rethink matters that we have taken for granted. To accentuate the point further, here is the opinion of a Swedish Sociologist Gunner Myrdal which he gave after his classic study—American dilemma in 1944 ”There must be still other countless errors of the same sort that no living man can yet detect, because of the fog within which our type of Western cultures envelops us…”

Bentham and Mill were leading a revolution as radical as Marx and Darwin of 19th Century. To understand the radicalness of their theory an excerpt is quoted as “Gone are all references to God or to abstract moral rules written in the heavens. Morality is no longer to be understood as faithfulness to some divinely given code or to some set of inflexible rules” The concept of individualistic worldly happiness—known as “Hedonism”– was promoted. Mills introduction of the notion “Individual is sovereign” pushed it even further.

Kantian morality although, hovers around religious lines but; he seems to have circumvented God and religion; probably to prove that besides; all- encompassing God’s commands notion; there are rational and logical grounds on which Divine Morality could be asserted with the same potency. Kant however, abjured the serpent-windings of the Utilitarian theory because, he said, the theory is incompatible with human dignity. (God confers “dignity” to human—Qua’an 17:70). His formulation of “hypothetical Imperatives” VS “Categorical Imperatives” exposes the vainness of Modern Morality. It can, therefore, safely be deduced that most of these Religion-Divested Moral theories provide only plausible answers to the difficult questions, but lack the potency and conviction of Divine Morality– providing definitive solutions built in the rigor of observance of its rules and rituals. (All classic theorists, needless to say, hold not only opposing but critical views about Divine Morality).

Recent thinking on morality is ready to take yet another turn. Philosophers are debunking the ”Moral Law” theory as bankrupt and advocating radical idea to go back to virtue based Aristotelian Morality to salvage the subject. This idea was first floated by a British Philosopher G.E.M Anscombe in 1958; suggesting that modern moral philosophy is misguided because it rests on an incoherent notion of “law” without a “Law Giver” She further elaborated that the very concepts of obligation, duty, and rightness, on which the modern philosophers have concentrated their attention, are inextricably linked to this nonsensical idea. Therefore, she argued, we should return to Aristotelian approach, and virtue should once again take the center stage.

Philosophers in this camp share the opinion, that virtue-based morality is 
superior to the other kind of (Religion divested) morality because of the 
following reasons. 

1) Moral Motivation. Virtuous Morality is appealing because it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation while the other kind of morality falters on this account. It can be explained in terms of an example quoted, in Journal of philosophy in 1976, where the value of merit of morality was juxtaposed duty. In this case, a patient was visited by some friend; that made patient delighted but: when he found out that the visitor was just doing his duty and did not really come for him, the visit turned cold and bereft of moral value. The desire to do the right thing for the right reason and doing it out of an abstract sense of duty is not the same. 2) Ideals of Impartiality. Virtuous morality can accommodate partialities very well since it recognizes that some virtues are partial and some are not. It also recognizes that love of family and friends is an inescapable feature of the morally good life. Ideals of Impartiality in modern moral philosophy, however, do not add up. John Stewart Mill put the point very succinctly when writing about Utilitarianism that “Utilitarianism requires (the moral Agent) to be as strictly impartial as a benevolent and disinterested spectator”. A mother loves her children and cares for them in a way that she does not care for other children. “She is partial to them through and through”. Same is the case with friends and family members.

3) Divine Morality provides a pleasing practical “fit” between; – a) Impartiality of reason. b) Adherence to set rules for life, serving everyone’s interest. c) Fulfillment of our natural inclination and moral duty to care about others. Making morally behaving a natural dispensation. 4) An Anthropocentric view of Aristotle (and of many philosophers of ancient); which modern philosophers and scientists vehemently refute, has been categorically asserted in Qura’an. This assertion, in the same vein, also refutes the accusation of the human being as “vein-species”. https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-anthropocentric-character-of-the-universe-special-status-of-man-and-yet-his-denial-of-god/ Conclusion A trajectory of traits of both the schools of Philosophy has been presented above, making it easy for the readers, to weigh and decide for themselves.

  • 1Divine Philosophy—means virtue/religion based philosophy.
  • 2Always serving their purpose regardless of our favorable or unfavorable understanding of their operations.
  • 3 Moral philosophy and Modern Morality are interchangeably used.

Why Islam, cannot be Liberalized?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why Islam, cannot be Liberalized?

From the earliest time of Islam; even during the period of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH); attempts had started being made, by various groups such as Jews, Christians, and Pagans, to change/reshape Islam. God, therefore, guided Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to guard against t he temptations of such offers. Saying: “They wish that you would soften [in your position], so they would soften [in return, their position toward you], and do not obey every worthless habitual swearer, [And] scorner, going about with malicious gossip – A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful, Cruel, and an illegitimate pretender” (Surah Al Qalam 68, V 9-13) God also guided the prophet (PBUH) saying: “O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (Qura’an 66:98)

“Many of the People of the Scripture (including liberals and reformists) wish they could turn you back to disbelief after you have believed, out of envy on their own account [even] after the truth has become clear to them. So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent” (Qura’an 2:109). On the other hand, God took upon Himself to protect the main source of injunctions—The Holy Qura’an— declaring–”Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qura’n and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Qura’an, 15:9). And warned (interpolator, reformists) saying: God revealed the book (Qura’an) with the truth, and those who disagree about the book (its essence or injunctions) are far out in the schism. (Qura’an 2:176) Consequently, every single word, every single consonant, every single vowel has remained intact till this day and will remain so until the end of the world. Currently, there are lots of so-called– reformists, Muslim and Non-Muslim alike, keen to reform Islam to suit their Westaphalic whims and liberal values. They perhaps liken its intended reformation to the reformation movement in Christianity. Such reformers normally are bereft of the knowledge of Islam and even if they have some, it is scanty and facile. They, however, sure have the fervor and zealotry of an extremist— defined by a great American Political theorist–Michael Walzer.

An interesting characteristic of these so-called reformers is that they want to swim along the—propaganda inflicted– liberal-mindset, by distorting Islam to conform to its modern liberal values. In Qura’an, it is stated that when it is said to them (reformers)“Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but (Musleh) reformers”, “Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not” (2:11-12)

This genre of reformist may also be traced in the cross-pollination of Martin Luther King and Rousseau.

God issued an absolute command not to accept the offer of the Jews and Christians (with their corrupted/abrogated ideas–which, by implication, also applies to so-called reformers, liberals, and modernists) in the following words. “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say:–Guidance of Allah is the only guidance. Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah” (Qura’an, 2:120). Here is yet another verse in Qura’an which forbids Muslims from wavering or taking an impermissible liberty in any field of life.”Those who believe, enter Islam completely, do not tow the lines of the Satan, who is your clear enemy” (Q 2:208) Supplemented by– “Life of this world is attractive (enticing) to nonbelievers; who ridicule those who believe—but—those who fear God(following all commands without deviation, distortion)will be successful (above disbelievers) in the hereafter” (Q 2:212)

After these absolute ordinances, no God fearing, sensible Muslim would dare accept their attenuating ideas. Recent chronology of the efforts to liberalize Islam Since the middle of the 19th century; due to the Protestant theological proliferation; a host of self-styled modernist, reformist, revivalist et al have sprouted in almost all Muslim-majority countries and in the western countries; with some concentration of Muslims. They pretend to have understood “The Real Islam” for the first time; adopting either an extremist or a liberal position, although both are untenable and in contravention of Islamic teachings of moderation. Sometimes they employ alien terms, to sound elitist and convincing, such as “religion is a matter of heart”, emotions or, a borrowed term from William James “religious experience” These pretenders, sometimes go as far as divesting Islam of its ritualistic performances; either absolutely or to a relegated level; consigning them to social exigencies or personal preferences, described as—a personal matter between man and God—-giving this deviation a flavor of Hobbesian individualism.

It is heart-wrenching to know that, Islam is being misconstrued and misrepresented in the West for a very long time, even by a leading publication such as Economist (London). “In persuading the Muslim majority countries to look upon themselves as the Eastern most part of the West, Economist argues, that Islam also implies one to one relationship between believer and the God he believes in, a direct contact without an intermediary and in this relationship, in which a single God speaks directly to the core of a single man, is the basis of individualism. The Protestant ethic is grounded on precisely the same concept” (Economist-Published on May 17-23, 1975 pg 80 Special Survey).

Tertiary guidance system in Islam The very concept of direct guidance (without an intermediary) in Islam is limited only to the first degree of guidance. (It is for every creature regardless of faith or level of comprehension) It is, however, not available, in the case of the second degree; where the intermediation of a prophet and scripture in inevitable, for it is specific to the believers to be imbued with the religious knowledge. Here is a Qura’anic verse which categorically excludes the nonbelievers (including doubters/agnostics) from the guidance of second degree; specific to Islam and a Muslims, for earlier Divine religions stand abrogated. “Whosoever believes in God, He guides his heart” (Q 64:11) also (Q47:11) & (Q 29:69) Third degree is reserved for the chosen ones such as:-“To whom God has blessed, namely, the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs and the righteous” (Q 4:69) further accentuated by “not the way of those who have earned your (God’s) wrath, nor of those who have gone astray” (Q 1:6 ){nonbelievers or apostates} (Note: – In the case of a gradual progress of some from 2nd to 3rd grade, an intermediation of 2nd level may, however, be involved. Very select few, such as the prophets and the men of God, would become entitled to special guidance absolutely directly—Example being the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH). For those, interested in further details on the subject of guidance, here is the link:- https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/psychological-dimension-of-quraan/

In Qura’an an emphasis is placed on the word “Musleh” which the reformers use to disguise their activities by, using colorful phrases—as mentioned above— and the ideas of social amelioration. Allah sternly warned such people by declaring: “And Allah knows the one who makes mischief distinct from him who promotes good” & “Do you think you will be left alone, as it is? God knows what you do (Q 2:220) & (9:16) Diehard reformist; who persist in their reformation agenda; mostly to appease their western impulse of modernity or to emulate western liberal values; while still claiming to their nostrum Islamic Identity, are in fact discreetly challenging the will of God as was done by the people of the old. “Evil is that for which they have sold out their selves: that they should deny what Allah has revealed, so they came out wrath upon wrath” Q 2:90 (Jews held a grudge against God as to why an Arab, (Muhammad-PBUH), instead of a Jew was awarded prophethood—for they wanted God to have acceded to their wish/desire).

This kind of strain of thought is often exhibited in complaints, atheist hurl at God’s retributive system.

Islam, in the Qura’an, Has been specifically designated as a moderate religion. In verse 143 of Surah Baqara, it is said: “We made you a moderate Ummah” (nation/community). Here is the exegetical account of this verse. God has bestowed upon the Islamic Ummah an unparalleled distinction of being moderate, balance, central and just. Exegetists also used a synonym “Mu’tadil” to fully explain the veracity of the word “Wast” (middle, central), which means moderate, temperate just, equal. For, it is of utmost importance for the health and vibrancy of any community/body to maintain its equilibrium and temperateness, else a deterioration or illness would ensue. This concept/doctrine of Moderation has been further elaborated in another verse (Q 57: 25) by pointing towards its objective, saying: “We sent Book and the Balance, so that men might uphold justice & We sent the iron in which there is great strength—it is of many uses for men” Book here signifies the source of guidance and Balance denotes justice, equilibrium, moderation and temperateness in man’s behavior with firmness and strength of the iron. The characteristics of the “TRUTH” & “JUSTICE” are further stressed in the verse (Q 7:181) “ We have created an Ummah (Of Muslims) which guides by the truth and by doing justice with it”(dispenses the justice guided by the truth).

EXCEPTIONALISM OF ISLAM Let us be clear about Islam that; it is distinctive in its relationship to politics and public life. Islam is different from any other Divine or even Major religions. It, therefore, entails profound ramifications for the world, we all live in. We may like it or not. We may accept it or not. Despite extreme Anti-Islam, Anti-Muslim sentiments, it is an enduring reality. The world has to understand it, respect it and live with its EXCEPTIONALISM.

Another fact to be borne in mind is that; Islam’s political dimension is also distinct from the West’s politico-religious experience of Protestant Reformation; followed by Enlightenment, culminated at modern-liberalism. That was in response to the Catholic Church’s Clerical stranglehold over the Christian doctrine and practices. Islamic doctrine and Practices, fortunately, face no such stranglehold, mainly due to its exceptionalism. Islam could not and would not be pushed into the private realm as was Christianity. This fact should be imprinted upon the minds of so–called Liberals and Reformists. Islamists from 1928 to date, despite their arduous gradualistic/continual approach, are reeling from their failures. Reformists, Liberals, therefore have no choice but to come to terms with Islam’s Exceptionalism. In mainstream Islam, clerics (unlike Catholic Clerics or Shia’a Clerics in Iran) do not wield power as such but rather provide a crucial check on the ruling class against excesses.Western cultural-essentialism however, prevents these liberals, reformists, from appreciating the role Islam is playing in the Muslim world and beyond.

These so-called reformists not only advocate a “progressive” (actually confuted) interpretation of the Islamic Laws but also its basic irrelevance to the public life—on the pattern of separation of religion from the politics in the west—the foundation of a pluralistic post-enlightenment, modern liberal society. Given the Islamic historical imperatives, it is not only difficult but almost impossible. Here is an interesting and enlightening quote, from late Harvard Scholar (a reformist) Shahab Ahmed: “of the capaciousness, complexity, and often outright contradiction contained within the historical phenomenon* of what we call Islam”. He further says: “But each faith tradition is also defined by boundaries expectations, and the accumulated weight of history. What religious scholars and lay believers alike have committed themselves to for centuries” –in the case of Islam, since its very founding— its (reformation) is irrelevant, for the simple reason that if something has never been done before, then it is least likely that it will start being done all of a sudden, fourteen centuries later.

It is continuously propagandized by the antagonists of Islam that it is a retrograde, medieval, backward, fundamentalist and anti-modernity religion of antiquity. Whereas Islam is the most modern, most sophisticated religion of any major religions. This presents us with a paradox: It is precisely the Islam and Islamic Law’s modern bent that makes Islam all the more relevant and resonant in today’s politics. Within Islam’s vast legal traditions, there are a number of ideas and precedents that lend themselves to modern notions of social justice, rule of law, egalitarianism, guaranteed women’s rights to own property, make their own living, compulsory redistribution of the wealth (Zakat—a mandatory year-end deduction/payment from the wealth held by a Muslim) and social security (Baitul-Mal—a state-managed public trust-fund) for older or handicapped people.

Freedom of Choice and rule of law Lacking, church-like (or Vatican like) dominant an institution, a Pope like head-clergy, availability of several schools of thought and the instrument of Ijtihad: there is ample scope of choice and adaptability. In Islam, due to its overarching corpus juris (Shari’a), both the caliph (head of state) and the subjects are treated equally. A caliph cannot claim unlimited or absolute (king-like) authority because the sovereignty belongs to God. All these instrumentalities ensure the freedom of choice and rule of law. (under the Islamic{ shaia’a}law, as the law of the land). In nutshell, there is no logical reason for Muslims to choose either Modernity or Liberal ReformationL over already most modern Islam. One could be fully modern and yet a fully-fledged good Muslim. Muslims, therefore, had never been in need of choosing between, their own traditions and those of others. Shura (Consultation) and Ijma’a (Consensus); the precursors of modern Democracy; are in fact, updated and repackaged products, borrowed from the Islamic heritage.

Failures of liberalization experiments At the time of religious and cultural encroachment through colonial rule, the assertion of Islam became distinctly political rather than just, or primarily, theological. Given its uniqueness, those (colonial) forces could not strip Islam of its better status, vibrancy and exceptionality: reducing it to just another religion. (Like Christianity) To the extreme surprise of many, Islam happened to be the most modern of Abrahamic religions. Islamic Corpus Juris (Sharia’a) proved to be more secular than the Christian conceptions of Law and Politics. It is a kind of the point of departure, since it is, kind of, the secularity of Sharia’a, which makes it more relevant and resonant in present political landscape. Islam already embraces the concepts of pluralism, politics, consultative and consensual processes (precursors of democracy) whereas, Christianity came into conflict and lost.

Egypt, Turkey, and Tunisia have a long history of reformation/liberalization of Islam as well as the Forced secularization (Westernization) experiments and their eventual failures. This trend, in the modern times, started in the 19th Century by Heavyweights such as Sayyed Qutub, Mohd Abduh, Jamal-Ud-din Afghani, Rashid Rida and Hassan Al Banna etc. This effort, despite miserable failures, is still underway owing to the current Islamists/reformers such as Ikhwan ul Muslemeen (Egypt), Erdogan (AKP), and Rached Ghannouchi (Ennahda). Ghannouchi of Tunisia tried to change Islamism and perhaps even Islam, assuming that the two are interrelated. He thought that the ideological divides somehow could be transcended by neutralizing them. The greatest failure of such Islamists/reformers is owed to their politicizing Islam; Polarization is inevitable when Islam seizes to be, as it once was, (unadulterated) the source of unity, solidarity, and consensus. The underlying reason for any such attempt’s failure is that Muslims by definition; as per the revised assessment of an Islamist Abdul Moneim Abul Futou; are Salafi, in the sense that they emulate the most pious earlier Aslaf (Prophet-PBUH, Companions, and two succeeding generations) and support the Sharia’a. Surprisingly, in most of the Muslim-majority countries and across the board, Muslims, despite all these reformation efforts, are becoming more devoutly observant.

He also confessed that the titles of liberal or Islamist/reformist are just for political exigency.
CONCLUSION Liberalism (a precursor of Atheism) and Islam cannot go together as the former fails to provide much except general disdain of religion and letting the men loose; to choose their own way of life (doing away even with the distinction between virtuousness and sinfulness); whereas later provides an affirmative vision for leading a benevolent and virtuous life in this world, as well as a blissful life in the next. (For a Muslim, it is the very foundation of his creed and purpose of being).

This is the main reason why liberals, reformists fall back on virulent anti-Islam attacks.

Islam for various cultural, historical and theological reasons is distinctive in how it relates to politics. Often recurring themes in the west such as “Islam is the Problem” and “Islam needs a reformation” are the result of liberals/reformists unwillingness and inability to understand, as to how and why Islam, in its original form, matters to so many all around the world? It is simply a modus Vivendi and raison d’etre for a Muslim.

Nation state & Islam Wael Hallaq, an Islamic Law scholar, charges Islamists being obsessed with the Modern-State. US foreign policy stalwarts such as Henry Kissinger and Dennis Ross charge them for being incompatible with the Westphalian order. It simply exposes the inherent weakness of the skewed thinking of Islamists/reformist. Nation state and Islam, despite their tenuousness, co-exist anyway!

Caliphate The concept of Caliphate, after the demise of Ottoman Empire in 1924, never died but rendered near-impossible. The emergence of Islamic State, despite its unwarranted violent behavior, colossal failures and possible annihilation, has nevertheless, resuscitated and strengthened the potential for a Pan-Islamic Caliphate on the Salafi Model (opposite to Islamic-State’s extremist model). For the West, The only long term solution (keeping up with its centuries-old traditions of inclusiveness and tolerance) is to let the Islam find its place in the western societies on the model of consensual democracy in the Western Europe. Islam for Muslims is as –non-negotiable—as the human rights are in the American Constitution and in those of many other countries. The operation of (Shari’a) courts should be allowed on the pattern of Canon Law Courts and Jewish Law Courts. West has to work around the ideological and foundational divides; which, most likely, will remain constant.

Statistical facts, validating the inexorability of Islam According to “The Almanac Book of Facts”, the population increased 137% within the past decade and the Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%. 100,000 people per year converting to Islam, only in America. For every 1 male convert to Islam 4 females convert to Islam.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/ https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

Source Material: Various Books, Qura’an, Tafseer and Shadi Hamid’s Islamic Exceptionalism.

*Much of the early Islamic history (not the religion) available today is based on the Ahadith and is challenged for lack of basis in primary source material and contradictions based on secondary material available. (History should not be confused with the actual Islam—primary source for which is, the Holy Qura’an and only authentic Ahadith as the secondary source). Italic text

Interpersonal relationship between Muslim and Non-Muslim

August 31, 2017

“Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it is to protect one against them in this way. But God warns you to beware of Him: for with God is all journeys’ end.” (Q, 3:28) 

 

Muslim seem oblivious to or Ignorant of this important aspect of Islamic teachings. Befriending Non-Muslim has become cursorial; Muslim are dealing and even living with them (in a relationship) like with their fellow Muslim. {Muslim women marrying Non-Muslim men is strictly forbidden and Haram) Read: – https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/muslim-women-marrying-non-muslim-men/

 

Although, it can be easily understood from the Qura’anic text that dealing with the Non-Muslims, despite the requisite cordiality, compassion and empathy, ought to be within defined limitations. Non-Muslim should be helped and dealt with on purely humanitarian/empathetic grounds, but without, any emotional attachment. Such attachment is permissible only with fellow Muslim. The obviating reason is that they do not subscribe to Islamic faith/religion and are rather against it. Disbelievers (in Islam) are described in Qura’an as the enemies of Allah (SWT)(Q, 8: 59,60) {Despite the fact that, they may express nothing of the sort, or may even offer a favorable opinion—which would tantamount to a lip service in the face of their disbelief}.

Note:- From the Psychological point of view, such contents of words may be fallacious, due to their (Non-Muslim) long ingrained and sustained experiences otherwise, for their body language would be sending a (true but) contrary messages.  

A formal friendship at the level of mutual dealing is, no doubt, permissible; but, that too is not favored if Unnecessary.

In Qura’an it has been declared repeatedly that– they would like to see you adopting their faith and way of life. (Psychological truth)  From everyday experiences; it is clearly evident that most often; Muslims who befriend with Non-Muslims; imitate and emulate them, compromising their distinct identity and religion. So called liberal/secularist/modernist Muslim even talk in their language, temerariously criticizing Islam, Qura’an and the Prophet (PBUH). It has therefore been sternly warned that such people cut off any bond with Allah (SWT), for they become one of them (disbelievers)          (Q, 3:28).

Allah (SWT) in Qura’an, used the word “Zalimun” instead of “Kafiroon”; Likely widening the scope, to include such people.  Allah therefore clearly forbids a true Muslim from keeping the company of not only the Non-Muslims but also of those, acting like them. It has been said in (Q, 6:70) that “unbelievers; are the people, who have been detained in the punishment of their evil deeds”. Which is further articulated in verse (Q, 47:15) by declaring that “their entrails will be shattered apart” (due to drinking boiling water as the punishment for their denial and disbelief). This verse also informs that their disbelief is harmful to those who like to sit in their company hence would be caught up in the same punishment as the disbelievers. (Ma’araful Qura’an Pg. 393, vol 3). As the wrong environment affects its surrounding so does the bad company by pushing human beings into the abyss of sinfulness. “This is how Allah (SWT) brings disgrace, damnation upon those who do not believe, for their hearts are not open for the truth but dash for the evil”. (Q, 6:125).

 

 

Several verses, with varying shades of meanings, against the FRIENDSHIP WITH NON-MUSLIMS are presented in the Holy Qura’an. Some of which are:-

IMPORTANT NOTICE

 One should not pick and choose a verse to present his/her own (skewed) point of view instead a collective outcome, of all the verses on the topic, should be the one guiding and binding. (Q, 2: 85 & 4: 150)

 

Allah’s enemy is your enemy.

“O those who believe do not take my enemy and your enemy as friends having love for them and whosoever from among you do that have gone astray” (Q, 60:1)

 A friend with them is one of them.

“O those who believe do not take Jews or Christian as friends, for they are friends among themselves. And whosoever has friendship with them is one of them” (Q, 5:51)

 Believers shouldn’t befriend with unbelievers, even if kinfolk.

“You shall not find those who believe in Allah and in the hereafter having friendship with those who have enmity with Allah and His Messenger, even though they may be their fathers or sons or brothers or members of their tribes” (Q, 58:22)

 

Feeling honored/proud by having Non-believers as friend

Those, who take disbelievers as their allies instead of the believers, Do they seek with them honor {through power}? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah (SWT) entirely. (Q, 4:139)

 

Sitting in the company of Non-believers

And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah (SWT) (recited), they are denied (by them) and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed you would then be like them. Indeed Allah (SWT) will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together, (Q, 4:140)

 

The only friends

Your friends can only be Allah (SWT), His Prophet (PBUH) and those who believe” (Q, 5:55)

 

Social interaction with Non-Muslims, for clear understanding and exercising due restraint, has been described, under four (4) categories.

Mawalat. (Affairs of the Heart) –For Allah knows what is in your hearts–(3:29) (Relations involving Love or Emotional attachment).

This is specifically What all these verses vehemently prevent a Muslim from.

 

Psychological reasoning

 Need to belong

According to the hierarchy of needs, humans need to feel love (sexual/non-sexual) and acceptance from others. In fact, the need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to overcome physiological, safety needs, as well as religious restraints, such as children’s attachment to abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships or a Muslim woman marrying a Non-Muslim man. Such examples illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is entrenched hence harmful (one may, therefore, appreciate the rationale and vehemence with which Islam prohibits such a bond between the two with clashing/contradicting religious beliefs.

 

 Attachment Theory

Social acts that reinforce feelings of attachment also stimulate the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and endorphin, which alleviate stress and create feelings of contentment. Such contentment, however, may prove to be fleeting due to ingrained religious disparity and even if it is fictitiously presumed to be there, in the beginning, may evade soon.

 

Prophetic injunctions

Apart from the above cited psychological reasons, there is a logically reasoned Injunction issued by the Prophet (PBUH) which lays the ground rules for an association (particularly the marriage as any other type of association is out of the question in Islam).

 

In Islam, there is a concept of “Kuf” which means —equal, alike or matching. Under this Principal, there are two sub clauses which need to be considered when accepting/rejecting the marriage proposals. (or contemplating an association for that matter).

 

These are “Lineal Homogeneity” & “Familial Homogeneity” Prophet has instructed that girls should be married in their”Kuf” which means—equality(compatibility)—rather than equalness. The likeness of spouses in their religion is incumbent and necessary for the validity of the marriage. The marriage of a Muslim girl with a disbeliever is not valid; even if the girl agrees to it. (So is not the interpersonal relationship). (religio-legal verdict—hukme-tashriee).

 The rationale here is that it is not simply the matter of “right of woman”; which may be dropped at her pleasure, Instead, it is the “right of God” –a Divine- injunction, under the clause of Familial Homogeneity. 

 A question or doubt may be raised about the whole religio-legal-verdict stated above. The validity of it has very eloquently and in unequivocal terms been stated in Qur’an as– “Prophet has more right to men and women of his (Ummah) community than their own selves” and also that “And it becomes not a believing man or woman, when Allah and His prophet have decided an affair (for them) that they should claim any “say” in that matter”      Surah Al Ahzab 33, V 6 & 36

 Finally, Allah forbade such relationship in categorical terms in Surah “Mumtahinah”–(She who is examined) #60, V – 10–in the following words “Neither these (Muslim women) are lawful for them, Nor are those (unbelievers) lawful for these (believing) women” All such relationships which existed at the time of revelation of this verse were ipso-facto severed.

 Muwasat. (Concern)

Non-Muslims ought to be dealt with favor, generosity, compassion, sympathy, and concern. It also includes charitable help and support, condolence, consolation or any other well-intentioned attitude of wishing them well.  Confirmed in the following verse:

“Allah does not forbid you from treating those, who have not fought with you because of your faith, nor have they driven you out of your homes, with benevolence and equity” (Q, 60:8)

 Mudarat. (Cordiality)

This category of dealings involves customary cordiality, adequacy in courtesy, pleasant and mannerly politeness.

Muamalat. (Dealings)

This category involves things such as employment, wages, industry, technology, business dealings, benevolence, and human-interests.  

Note: Most of the permissible interactions, however, would become impermissible if it becomes harmful to the interest of the general body of Muslims such as arms sales to a group fighting against Muslims.(war situation exemptions to older folks, Non belligerent folks, children, religious folks(priests/monks etc), places of worship, livestock and crops/orchards etc nevertheless, would apply).

Exception

An exception; under the category of MAWALAT; where there is a severe threat to one’ life or overarching-interest, is allowed. “Unless you guard yourselves against an apprehension from them” in such a case an (outwardly) expression of affection and love is permissible (Q, 3:28). This position is also supported by the Hadith, “Allah (SWT) has forgiven my people from, mistakes, forgetfulness, and acts done under compulsion/duress” (*1)

 Concealment of feelings of affection and love for Non-believers                           (Do not incline towards unjust, lest Hell fire catches you) (Q, 11:113)

At times it happens that people emotionally attached to Non-Muslims verbally deny it in the presence of fellow Muslims. Such people have been warned by Allah in the following words, “whether you conceal what is in your heart or disclose it, Allah knows it” (Q, 3:29)

 A superficial look at the inhibitive verses might generate an intolerant view of Islam which is dispelled in various verses of the Holy Qura’an, Ahadith, Sunnah and the dealings of the revered Companions.

 How Prophet (PBUH), Sahabah & Khulafa’a dealt with Non-Muslims?

Examples

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), at the time of famine in Mecca, personally went out to help his enemies who drove him out of Mecca earlier.

Then after the conquest of Mecca, he gave general amnesty to all those who fought against him.

Caliph Umer Farooq allowed stipends and allowance to needy Non-Muslims living under his rule.

 An Obvious question, however, may arise here, why Allah (SWT) has warned against the friendship with Non-Muslims so sternly?

The answer is given through a Qura’anic verse and a Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim).  “My Prayer, my sacrifice, my life, my death all are for Allah, the Lord of the worlds” (Q. 6:162) Prophet (PBUH) has been reported to have said “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah (SWT) and whoever hates for the sake of Allah (SWT), has perfected his faith”(*2) It means that Iman/Faith remains incomplete unless a Muslim’s love, friendship, hate and enmity all are subordinated to Allah Almighty. That is why at the end of verse 3:28, for the ones who defy this injunction, it is said that “you are one of them”.

The premise on which the edifice of—“No-intimate relationship with Non-Believers”— is based is the primal purport of the temporal life of a Muslim.

The primal-purport of a Muslim’s life is to remember and serve Allah (SWT). Everything else including all affairs of life, politics, business, Government and social relationships ought to be subservient to this primal purport.

Conclusion

(Allah (SWT) therefore has strongly forbidden an intimate friendship/relationship with any Nonbelievers under any circumstances).

*1–An-Nawawi’s Hadith No.39 (On the authority of Ibn Abbas). A  Hasan (fair)  Hadith related by Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi and others.

*2–Sunan Abu Dawud 4681, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.

 

AUTHOR’S PRAYER.

It is hoped that this treatise would help men and women of understanding in tackling the endemic of the entrenched interpersonal relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims with Divine guidance; provided through Qura’an and Hadith, while applying human logic and reasoning as well rather than succumbing to the reflexes of sentimentality.

Note:        An abridged form of this topic.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/can-muslims-be-friends-with-non-muslims-especially-jews-and-christians/

For further reading: https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/muslim-women-marrying-non-muslim-men/

Comment/feedback/share/like/follow

shakir2.wordpress.com

 


%d bloggers like this: