Feb 3rd 2012

Many attributes of the Prophet

NEVER has so much been written by so many on the life of one human being, of any time, than on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Eminent people from other faiths, too, have showered him with praise.

Thomas Carlyle was not the only one to pay him tribute in his lecture on ‘Hero as a Prophet’, choosing him over all those mentioned in the Old Testament, from Adam through Abraham, to Moses and Jesus.

Napoleon Bonaparte in Bonaparte et Islam is quoted as saying: “Moses revealed the existence of God to his nation. Jesus to the Roman world, Muhammad [PBUH] to the old continent…. Arabia was idolatrous when, six centuries after Jesus, Muhammad [PBUH] introduced the worship of the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Moses and Jesus.

“The Aryans … had disturbed the tranquillity of the East by agitating the question of the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Muhammad [PBUH] declared that there was none but one God who had no father, no son…. I hope the time is not far when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.”

And this from George Bernard Shaw: “If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe, within the next hundred years, it could be Islam. I have always held the religion of Muhammad [PBUH] in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him, the wonderful man, and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity.

“I believe that if a man like him were to assume the [leadership] of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much-needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad [PBUH] that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

Muslims everywhere, too, shall pay the Prophet special tribute in this month of Rabi-ul-Awwal to celebrate his birthday. Many will rejoice, as there will be illuminations, particularly in the mosques. Religious scholars will recount anecdotes from his life, highlighting his character and achievements, and recalling his sayings on different aspects of human life before gatherings of devotees. Naat recitations and milads (sessions singing praise to the Prophet) will be held everywhere.

Scholars will dwell upon his attribute of Rahmatalil Aalemeen (‘Mercy for all the worlds’ —including those of the birds and beasts, of insects and worms, etc.), because a Muslim is adjoined to not hurt any living being except in the way of God. Scholars will explain what the Prophet said to his followers about how to treat women, how to interact with people of other faiths and how to carry oneself in one’s everyday life.

Yet, unfortunately, many will forget the profound and inspired discourses as they leave their respective congregations. A few of those who may be swaying in ecstasy at the mention of the Holy Prophet’s name would go back to indulge in sectarian hate and killing, as we have been witnessing in Pakistan.

As Rahmatalil Aalemeen, the Prophet gave protection to Christians through a covenant signed in 628 CE, when a delegation from St Catherine’s Monastery visited him seeking his protection. (The monastery, located at the foot of Mount Sinai, is the world’s oldest, and a treasure house of rare manuscripts, icons and Christian history.) The covenant’s words are
as follows:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

“Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

“No compulsion is to be on them … Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

“No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to Muslims’ houses.

“Should anyone take any of these [belongings], he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter….

“No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. Muslims are to fight for them.

“If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

“Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor [barred] the sacredness of their covenants.“No one of the nation is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (of Judgment),”

It is important to remember that this covenant was made binding on all Muslims for all times, past, present and future, till the Day of Judgment. How this covenant has come to be violated in some Muslim countries, including Pakistan, should shame anyone who claims to love or follow the Prophet of Islam.

Here, they have ransacked and burnt churches; they have killed not only Christians, but also Muslims — for instance, for sympathising with an oppressed Christian as in the case of Aasia Bibi. It’s time we took stock of such violations of the Islamic code of respectful coexistence amongst faiths.

Understanding the Quran

10th Feb 2012

HOW to understand the Quran is an important question. Generally we pick and choose a verse to prove our point. Thus, many Muslims have different positions in understanding the verses of the Quran.

There is nothing wrong with different understandings but this should not lead to anarchy. There has to be a methodology so that the Quran, despite different ways of understanding it, should be understood under certain guidelines. There should be uniformity in the principles of understanding.

I would like to throw light on how under a certain well-defined methodology one can try to understand the Quran so as to avoid arbitrariness. Taking one verse when there are so many other verses on the subject cannot yield a proper result, but this is precisely what is done by many theologians.

Let us take, for example, the question of polygamy. Our ulema generally quote verse 4:3 to justify polygamy unconditionally.
But there is another verse on this subject, i.e. 4:129; if both the verses are read together it would yield a different result. The second mentioned verse is so emphatic on the question of justice that taking more wives than one becomes secondary; justice becomes more important and yet our jurists and theologians hardly refer to 4:129.

They keep citing verse 4:3 only. Though 4:3 also puts emphasis on justice, it also says that if you fear you cannot do justice then marry only one woman at a time. If both the verses are read together it becomes the duty of the qazi to make a rigorous inquiry as to why a person is taking another wife and whether the man really needs another wife.

Also, in view of such a strong emphasis on justice definite rules will have to be laid down to define what would amount to doing justice by the wife. This has never been done by our conventional theologians.

Another important question is of wife-beating, referring to verse 4:34, which is cited as Quranic permission to beat one’s wife.
But all other verses about women’s rights and women’s treatment contradict this. What is needed in this case too is to read all the verses on the treatment of women, and to read all verses using the word daraba (for beating) in the Quran; and the result would be very different.

This would show that the Quran could never allow a wife to be beaten by her husband. First of all it should be noted that all the verses on women in the Quran emphasise their rights vis-à-vis their husbands, and all verses relating to men emphasise their duties vis-à-vis their wives. If it is so then how can the Quran permit the beating of one’s wife? All verses on treatment of wife, or even after divorce, say that wives should be treated with ihsan and maruf (i.e. good and morally approved behaviour).

Then, the Quran also says that Allah has created love and compassion (mawaddat and rahmah) between husband and wife. If then husband is allowed to beat his wife, love and compassion have no meaning left between the two whatsoever.

One can argue that beating is allowed in case of nushuz (rebellion, uprising) but then if nushuz is rebellion how serious is that rebellion to warrant a beating? The fact is that the Quran does not use any word with nushuz to show its seriousness in the matter. One of the theologians I had a discussion with said it amounted to extramarital relations on the part of the wife. But if it is so, it warrants perhaps a more serious punishment and that punishment cannot be meted out by the husband but by a court of law or a qazi.

There are several other verses in the Quran which use the word daraba in several other meanings. Imam Raghib, a 12th-century lexicographer of the Quran, points out that in pre-Quranic Arabic daraba ala meant a male camel going to a female camel to mate.

If we take this meaning the verse would suggest that if she desists from her ‘rebellion’, the husband could go near her and this seems to be more appropriate, as the previous line of the verse advises the man to isolate his errant wife before resorting to any extreme action. It would mean that after reconciliation between the husband and the wife after she had been isolated, the husband should go near her.

Thus, the verse would yield a very different meaning if we adopt a proper methodology of understanding the Quran. It makes all the difference. So far the theologians, using the pick-and-choose method, have concluded that the Quran permits wife-beating. This is in total contrast to another verse in Quran, 33:35.

This verse equates man and woman in every respect and says both will be rewarded equally for their good deeds; hence the question of one exercising a blanket authority over the other does not arise. Also, one has to keep in mind that the Quran avoids using the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’; it uses the word zawj (spouse) for both, indicating that both are treated absolutely equally by God.

These are illustrative examples and not exhaustive. If we use this kind of methodology to understand the Quran, many of our problems can be easily resolved; it would be easier to arrive at more comprehensive meanings of the Quranic verses, and many objections hurled at the Quran by non-Muslims can be easily dismissed.

The writer is a scholar of Islam, and also heads the Centre for Study of Secularism & Society, Mumbai

__________________
Real richness is that you are so expensive that no one can buy your character.

IT is said that Hazrat Aisha was six years old when her nikahwas performed with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Makkah, and nine years old when she moved in to live with her husband in Madina after Hijra.

This piece of misinformation has led to the wrong view that child marriage has the sanction of Islam. It must be noted that establishing the authenticity of hadiths, the narrators` circumstances and the conditions at that time have to be correlated with historical facts. There is only one hadith by Hisham which suggests the age of Hazrat Aisha as being nine when she came to live with her husband.

Many authentic hadiths also show that Hisham`s narration is incongruous with several historical facts about the Prophet`s life, on which there is consensus. With reference to scholars such as Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmed and Habibur Rehman Kandhulvi, I would like to present some arguments in favour of the fact that Hazrat Aisha was at least 18 years old when her nikah was performed and at least 21 when she moved into the Prophet`s house to live with him.

According to Umar Ahmed Usmani, in Surah Al-Nisa, it is said that the guardian of the orphans should keep testing them, until they reach the age of marriage, before returning their property (4:6). From this scholars have concluded that the Quran sets a minimum age of marriage which is at least puberty. Since the approval of the girl has a legal standing, she cannot be a minor.

Hisham bin Urwah is the main narrator of this hadith. His life is divided into two periods: in 131A.H. the Madani period ended, and the Iraqi period started, when Hisham was 71 yearsold. Hafiz Zehbi has spoken about Hisham`s loss of memory in his later period.

His students in Madina, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifah, do not mention this hadith. Imam Malik and the people of Madina criticised him for his Iraqi hadiths.

All the narrators of this hadith are Iraqis who had heard it from Hisham.

Allama Kandhulvi says that the words spoken in connection with HazratAisha`s age were tissa ashara, meaning 19, when Hisham only heard (or remembered), tissa, meaning nine. Maulana Usmani thinks this change was purposely and maliciously made later.

Historian Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah has given a list of the people who accepted Islam in the first year of the proclamation of Islam, in which Hazrat Aisha`s name is mentioned as Abu Bakr`s `little daughter Aisha`. If we accept Hisham`s calculations, she was not even born at that time.

Some time after the death of the Prophet`s first wife, Hazrat Khadija, Khawla suggested to the Prophet that he get married again, to a bikran, referring to Hazrat Aisha (Musnad Ahmed).

In Arabic bikrun is used for an unmarried girl who has crossed the age of puberty and is of marriageable age. The word cannot be used for a six-year-old girl.

Some scholars think that Hazrat Aisha was married off so early because in Arabia girls mature at an early age. But this was not a common custom of the Arabs at that time. According to Allama Kandhulvi, there is no such case on record either before or after Islam. Neither has this ever been promoted as a Sunnah of the Prophet. The Prophet married off his daughters Fatima at 21 and Ruquiyya at 23. Besides, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Aisha`s father, married off his eldest daughter Asma at the age of 26.

Hazrat Aisha narrates that she was present on the battlefield at the Battle of Badar (Muslim). This leads one to conclude that Hazrat Aisha moved into the Prophet`s house in 1 A.H. But a nine-year-old could not have been taken on a rough and risky military mission.

In 2 A.H, the Prophet refused to take boys of less than 15 years of age to the battle of Uhud. Would he have allowed a 10year-old girl to accompany him? But Anas reported that he saw Aisha and Umme Sulaim carrying goatskins full of water and serving it to the soldiers (Bukhari). Umme Sulaim and Umme Ammara, the other women present at Uhud, were both strong, mature women whose duties were the lifting of the dead and injured, treating their wounds, carrying water in heavy goatskins, supplying ammunition and even taking up the sword.

Hazrat Aisha used the kunniat, the title derived from the name of a child, of Umme Abdullah after her nephew and adopted son. If she was six when her nikah was performed, she would have been only eight years his senior, hardly making him eligible for adoption. Also, a little girl could not have given up on ever having her own child and used an adopted child`s name for her kunniat.

Hazrat Aisha`s nephew Urwah once remarked that he was not surprised about her amazing knowledge of Islamic law, poetry and history because she was the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of Abu Bakr. If she was eight when her father migrated, when did she learn poetry and history from him? There is consensus that Hazrat Aisha was 10 years younger than her elder sister Asma, whose age at the time of the hijrah, or migration to Madina, was about 28. It can be concluded that Hazrat Aisha was about 18 years old at migration. On her moving to the Prophet`s house, she was a young woman at 21.

Hisham is the single narrator of the hadith whose authenticity is challenged, for it does not correlate with the many historical facts of the time.

__________________
Think 100 times before you take a decision, But once that decision is taken, stand by it as one man.

PHILANTHROPY, in simple words, signifies acts done forthe welfare of mankind. Every religion has philanthropic components to it. Islam is no exception; in fact, Islamic injunctions make acts of charity obligatory.

However, for many in the West, the concept of philanthropy is not a feature that is likely to be associated with Islam. Instead of kindness, compassion, mercy, generosity and love of mankind, ordinarily westerners tend to characterise Islam by such features as violence, terrorism, intolerance, authoritarianism, oppression of women, etc. There are two reasons for this grave misconception: their ignorance of the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH); and the irresponsible attitude of certain Muslims. In fact, Islamic texts contain numerous injunctions to perform good deeds and to serve fellow humans.

The Quran says: `But righteous is the one who... gives away wealth, out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free` (2:177). `So give to the near of kin his due, and to the needy and the wayfarer. This is best for those who desire Allah`s pleasure` (30:38).

Similarly, there are various sayings of the Prophet describing the significance of philanthropy: `You shall not enter Paradise until you have faith; and you cannot attain faith until you love one another. Have compassion on those who are on earth, and He who is in heaven will have compassion on you.God will show no compassion to him who has no compassion towards all human beings.

`Doing justice between two persons is alms; and assisting a man upon his beast, and his baggage, is alms; and pure words, for which are rewards; and answering a questioner with mildness is alms; and every step which is made towardsprayer is alms; and removing that which is inconvenience to man, such as stones and thorns, is alms.

Philanthropy, in Islam, is of two kinds: obligatory and voluntary. Obligatory philanthropy consists of zakat and zakatul-fitr or fitrana; whereas, voluntary philanthropy includes the institutions of sadaga and waqf.

Zakat is the share or portion of wealth that is obligatory upon a Muslim to give to fixed categories of beneficiaries, if the value of his assets is more than a specified limit. The beneficiaries of zakat are mentioned in the Quran: `(Zakat) charity is only for the poor, and the needy, and those employed to administer it, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth), and (to free) the captives, and those in debt, and in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer` (9:60). In an Islamic state, the government is responsible for the collection and administration of zakat. Zakat-ul-fitr or fitrana is the charity which every Muslim, having a certain amount of wealth, pays at the end of the month of Ramazan. Zakat-ul-fitr is mandatory on every Muslim not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of all the persons he is in charge of.

Sadaga not only means charity in the form of money or food, but includes every act done for the benefit of fellow men. The Prophet said: `Every act of goodness is sadaga`; and `there is a sadaqa due on every Muslim. If he cannot give because he has no money, let him work so he can support himself and give charity; if he is unable to work, then let him help someone in need of his help; if he cannot do that, let him adjoin good; if he cannot do that, then be should not do evil or harm others: it will be written for him as a sadaqa.

Waqf is the permanent dedication, by a Muslim, of any property for any purpose recognised by Islamic law as religious, pious or charitable. Waqf causes the transfer of ownership, of the thing dedicated, to God. But as God is above using or enjoying any property, its profits are reverted, devoted, or applied to the benefit of mankind.

Any property can be the subject of waqf. The validity of a waqf is determined by the possibility of everlasting benefit being derived from it by any form of dealing of which it is capable, or by converting it into something else. It is only where the subject matter is totally unfit for being turned into profitable use that its dedication fails.

The Islamic institution of waqf has a wider scope and purpose than that of a trust in the English law. The institution became so popular and important in Islamic countries that, in most of them, a special ministry was established to deal with the administration of waqf properties.

Islam lays great emphasis on supporting the destitute. The Quran and Sunnah declare in clear words that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to look after the deprived sections of society. Muslims are not only instructed to do good to fellow humans, but are also told to treat animals well and to protect the environment.

Though other religions too preach and encourage philanthropy, Islam takes a step further by making it compulsory in the form of zakat. Islam has made it the responsibility of the Islamic state to ensure that people perform this obligation.

Thus, a non-payer of zakat not only incurs the displeasure of God, but can also be proceeded against by the state. In other words, philanthropy has been made a legal duty as well.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the director of School of Law and Policy, UMT, Lahore.

syed_asad@post.harvard.edu

__________________
Think 100 times before you take a decision, But once that decision is taken, stand by it as one man.

On interfaith dialogue

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, Mar 02, 2012

THE world is highly diverse. There is not a countrywhich is without diversity. Though in the past too diversity existed but colonisation, scientific progress and communications have increased diversity in the world; globalisation has further added to its intensity.

Today people seek jobs and education in far-off countries across continents. Also, it is Allah`s will to create diversity among His creation. The Quran says: `And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds` (5:48).

Thus, diversity is Allah`s will and it is a trial for us if we can live in peace and harmony with one another other despite our diversity. Also, Allah wants us not to assert our superiority but to vie with one another in good deeds only. But the fact is that if there is diversity there are likely to be misunderstandings and misconceptions about one another. This can and often does lead to conflict and breach of peace. Such conflicts apply to both the faiths themselves and the interfaith communities.

Interfaith conflict is also widespread amongst Muslims like between Shia and Sunni or Bohra or non-Bohra Muslims or between Sunni Barelvis and Deobandis. The only way to remove these misconceptions is to have a dialogue with one another.

Thus the three `Ds` become quite important: democracy, diversity and dialogue. Democracy and diversity are complementary; although many people think homogeneity is a strength, it is really not in the modern age. Homogeneity canwhereasZiversity becomes Á lifeline for democracy. Experience shows that greater diversity results in a stronger democracy.

But diversity also poses a challenge and this challenge has to be met through proper understanding by one community of believers and the other through dialogue. The latter, it should be noted, is not a modern or contemporary concept, and that includes interfaith dialogue.In India, in the mediaeval ages Sufis and yogis often used to have a dialogue.

Also, Sufis, Christian mystics and Jewish saints, had dialogues. Some of them spent years understanding other`s religious traditions. Dara Shikoh, for example, had a thorough knowledge of the Hindu traditions. He translated the Upanishads from Sanskrit into Persian. (I have seen its manuscript in Darul Musannifin at Azamgarh, India). He also wrote a book titled Majma`ul Bahrayn (`Meeting of Two Oceans`). It is a great book of dialogue between Hinduism and Islam.

However, there are some rules to be observed if dialogue has to succeed and produce results. The very first requirement is that none participating in the dialogue should have an attitude of superiority. It goes against the very spirit of dialogue. Secondly, dialogue should be on certain concrete issues, like women`s rights or war or non-violence, etc. Today, there is a great misunderstanding on such issues. Most non-Muslims, especially westerners, think that Islam gives no rights to women and subjugates them, owing to certain practices among Muslims from the hijab to polygamy to honour killings, and so on.

Similarly, there is widespread misunderstanding about the concept of jihad because of certain fatwas or statements issued by Osama bin Laden and his deputies, justifying the 9/11 attacks as jihad. And there is a great misconception among Muslims and Muslim ulema on issues like polygamy and jihad.

Thus the need for dialogue amongst them too. There is much more that needs dialogue with non-Muslims.

A meaningful dialogue should include religious functionaries, scholars who have in-depth knowledge of the issues, journalists (who spread misconceptions) and lay people who are often victims of misconceptions. Secondly, one should have the requisite humility to learn rather than to only argue on the basis of conviction and not knowledge. Participants must also have the right to raise questions to remove their doubts.

Thirdly, one must be firmly rooted in the traditions of one`s own faith and should be able to explain the reasons for certain practices or offer the rationale for a certain teaching. Any doubt or ignorance may harm the spirit of dialogue. Also, one should be able to remove all doubts raised during discussion through ones own thorough knowledge, arguable conviction and clarity of thought.

Fourthly, one should have tremendous patience and the capacity to listen to and understand the other side`s opinion without trying to silence the opponent through debating skills or use of polemics. Such tactics can destroy the very idea of having a dialogue. There is a fundamental difference between a debate and a dialogue.

While being firmly rooted in one`s own faith`s traditions, one also has to accept the other`s without being critical. A dialogue is to promote understanding and not to reject the other`s faith or find fault with it. A dialogue should never be directed at converting the other side but at understanding it. Both or multiple partners in a dialogue should throw light on the issues concerned in the light of one`s own faith`s traditions and handle the questions with the tact and delicacy they deserve.

A dialogue so conducted can work wonders in promoting understanding about one`s own faith while understanding others` views. I have been a part of a dialogue process for more than 40 years and can say with confidence that dialogue plays a very important role in a diverse society. Knowledge, conviction, clarity and appreciation for the other`s point of view are very useful tools for a dialogue to be valid. •

The writer is an Islamic scholar who also heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.

On interfaith dialogue | ePaper | DAWN.COM

__________________
No signature...

On commodifying humanity

By Ahmad Raza
Friday, Mar 09, 2012

THERE were times when seals and insignias were used by the Indus valley and Babylonian people to demonstrate the pomp and prosperity of their civilisations. This scenario has now changed, as objectmaking and commodity-making have moved beyond civilisations and cultures.

The commodified global culture and the lifestyle embraced by it is no more sacred and revered by consumerist human beings. There are three historical forces that have transformed the notion of commodity beyond all bounds of imagination today. These are free market economy, electronic capital and information junk.

Take the case of free market economy first. There were times when charity was part of almost all known human societies in the world. It was an act of magnanimity and generosity and performed for its intrinsic human value. Today the case is reversed. Charity is now marketed by huge organisations engaged by the social corporate sector. The acts of charity add value to the balance sheets of the social corporate regime.

Awards, scholarships, loans and all sorts of monetary contributions are marketed by marketing agents of the mighty social corporate conglomerates. They also perpetuate a global commodified worldview and a power régime, which is unjust and morally corrupt to the core. No local economies and/or worldviews can withstand the barrage of this global domination of the social corporate sector. Thanks to the inherent nature of the free market economy there are mechanisms to commodify every act, whether tangible orintangible, including charity and philanthropy.

Electronic capital is another glaring force of the commodified global culture today. There were times when gold coins standardised economic and religious exchanges.

People were unaware of words like inflation, price-hike and stagflation, GDP, GNP and ERM. Electronic capital has changed all this. Now capital moves impersonally in huge cycles of electronic exchangesbetween agents who even do not know each other`s identities and origins. The capital continuously moves to high ebbs of profit and accumulation of monetary benefits.

It has facilitated the marketing of almost everything under the sky; from human bodies to human souls, from sex to music, from religious beliefs and convictions to political agendas.

Those on the lower side of the ebb who cannot do much about it must continue to suffer. If one cannot make intelligent decisions and cannot market one`s neurons-capital effectively, one is subjected to utter frustration and suffering.

There is no way and there is no modern human society that can escape the commodified electronic capital and the reign of commodified global economic domination of neurons-capital. If you can play effectively with the global cycles of electronic capital, by whatever means, you are successful. The age of neuro-capitalist society has become dominant and those who still muse over some kind of socialist or moral revival are mistaken and need to take a refresher course in social history.

The third significant aspect of commodified global culture is the Troy of information junk. We witness on the Internet and on social networking websites a mammoth display of information junk. There were times information was considered a sacred trust to be shared amongst human and humane societies. People would die guarding this sacred trust of information. Now we face a different case.

If for one month one monitors the Internet information junk sites on the World Wide Web, one can discern a social pattern in the usage of Internet and social networking websites. The pattern includes hate-preaching of all sorts, ethnic, religious, political, sexually gratifying stuff, followed equally by religious and political hate consumption materials. Knowledge and its dissemination no more constitute a sacred trust.

A globally commodified storm of information rages of use and abuse. An overwhelming number of people no longer connect with each other personally and spiritually. We are now linked by social information networks of use and abuse. In the process, human beings have lost their most precious asset; their identity based on quest of knowledge. Humanity may thus become an object of ridicule as we exist in a perpetual flux of informationgrounded hate literature of all sorts. There were grand stories and storytellers during the classical age. They believed in honour, self-respect and alms-giving out of sheer responsibility towards the fellow needy. Today the contemporary commodified global information junkyard has made one just an information consumer and generator. We do not thrive on the pleasure of great storytelling of moral values anymore. Instead we thrive as insects of a market of information junk.

We consume beliefs, we consume justice, we consume freedom, we consume democracy, we consume terror, we consume sex and finally we consume violence. There is no escaping this harsh reality of commodified global culture.

Either we are part of it or else we must perish in pain and solitude. The information junkyard has taken away from us a decent sense of being human. We connect with each other as information consuming beings driven by either self-interest or a profit-loss logic. We are irreversibly tattooed with symbols of this information junk.

The global anti-Christ of commodified pleasure, profit making and consumption has led to the alienation of man from the centre of his being. He has become oblivious of his destiny on earth. He no more likes to engage in a discourse of knowledge, wisdom and mortality. Like Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, everyone is after `a piece of flesh from Antonio`s heart`. For this precise reason, one may even have to sell one`s commodified soul in order to satiate the body`s hunger and thirst.• The writer is a social scientist who teaches at the School of Business and Economics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore.

ahmadelia@gmail.com

On commodifying humanity | ePaper | DAWN.COM

__________________
No signature...

Dreams and spirituality

By Nilofar Ahmed
Friday, Mar 16, 2012

DREAMS are a fascinating experience of daily life. Psych-ologists, in trying to understand the symbolism and meaning of dreams, have come up with various theories. The first question we must try to answer is: what exactly is a dream? Sigmund Freud`s psychoanalytical theory of dreams in his book, The Interpretation of Dreams, was based on the premise that repressed aggressive and sexual instincts find an outlet into the conscious mind through symbols, and hence find fulfilment. He also established a link between dreams and insanity. His theory popularised dream interpretation. Carl G.

Jung, broke away from Freud and the Psychoanalytic Society, started a more humanistic approach to psychology, saw dreams as part of a natural process of healing and explored the meaning of dreams through mythology, symbols etc., that connect to our imagination and soul.

However, when one looks at the Quran and hadith, one finds that dreams are a serious part of Muslim belief. During sleep the soul is supposed to leave the body temporarily and roam around in different spheres. Its experiences are seen and felt by the body in the shape of dreams, which sometimes convey information from the unknown. The more elevated the soul, the higher its sphere of spiritual experience.

In Surah Al-Ana`m, the Quran says, `He is the One who takes up your souls at night, and knows what you earned during the day, then raises you from it (sleep), so as to complete the time fixed (for you to live)` (6:60). Surah Al-Zumr says, `God captures the souls at the time of death as well as those whose time has not yet arrived, in sleep. Then He keeps back those whose death hasbeen decreed and sends back for an appointed time, the others` (39:42).

In Islam, the soul leaves the body in sleep but remains connected to it so that, at the slightest stimulation, it jumps back into it. When God decrees a person`s death, the soul is held back permanently, causing the physical body to die, while the soul lives on eternally.

Dreams are mentioned several times in the Quran.

Prophet Ibrahim dreamt that he was asked to sacrifice whathe loved most. Knowing that this was God`s command, he spoke to his beloved son Ismail, a prophet-to-be, who consented to be sacrificed. Prophet Ibrahim was successful in his trial and the boy was replaced with a ram (37:100-108).

Prophet Yusuf saw a dream as a child: 11 stars and the sun and the moon prostrating before him (12:4). The meaning of the dream was made evident after decades when his stepbrothers and parents joined him in Egypt. The king of Egypt also related his dream in which seven lean cows devoured seven fat cows (12:43-44). The king was impressed by Prophet Yusuf`s gift of dream interpretation and made him the minister in charge of the treasury. His planning, based on his interpretation of the king`s dream and his own wisdom, saved Egypt from famine.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) started seeing true dreams before receiving revelation (Bukhari). The Prophet said that after him nothing would be left of prophecy, except for a true dream. He also said that dreams are one in 46 parts of prophethood (Bukhari) and, `Whoever sees me in a dream has truly seen me, for the devil cannot impersonate me` (Bukhari).

One of the greatest desires of a true Muslim is to see the Prophet. The Prophet saw the conquest of Makkah in a dream (48:27) in 6 AH, two years before it happened.

The Prophet said there are three kinds of dreams. Firstly, meaningless dreams from one`s nafs or ego, secondly from Satan and thirdly, prophecies of good news from God (Bukhari).

Prophet Muhammad would listen to his followers` dreams after fajr prayers (Bukhari) and would interpret them. The Prophet taught that dreams should be recounted only in front of a person who loves you or a person who is wise and has some knowledge of their interpretation (Bukhari).

The Companions of the Prophet used to confide their dreams to the Prophet or to Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (Bukhari). The walis, or saints, were also given the gift of the interpretation of dreams as well as spiritual guidance through them.

Abdul Aziz bin Umar reported that he asked his deceased father in his dream which of his deeds did he find to be most sublime (or useful). The father replied, `Istighfar (asking for forgiveness)` (Zaugi Shah).

Abdul Wahab Shirani saw Imam Ghazali in his dream after his death and asked him how his Lord had treated him. Ghazali replied that He had forgiven him because of his patience in his act of writing. If a fly came and started sucking the ink from his pen he would wait until the fly had flown away of its own accord (Zauqi Shah).

Contrary to the common concept that one goes to sleep at the time of death, Prophet Muhammad said that human beings are asleep in this world and at the time of death they will wake up (Ibn Al-Arabi). The life of this world might well be a dream. The life to come might be the reality that is hidden from us and will become apparent on awakening in the hereafter.

The writer is a scholar of the Quran and writes on contemporary issues. nilofar.ahmed58@gmail.com

Dreams and spirituality | ePaper | DAWN.COM

__________________
No signature...

Minding social ethics

Amin Valliani

23rd March, 2012

EVERY human being is connected with Allah spiritually. However, in this material world, we also get ourselves connected with other entities, such as parents, family, kin, community, society, country etc.

As time goes by, new connections are added at every new stage of life. The ethics of connectivity with others has deep spiritual roots in religion. Its understanding makes our lives happy and more comfortable. We live, move and have our being among these relationships and sometimes our existence depends partially or fully upon them.

Our day-to-day condition, happy or otherwise, is also subjected to the interaction with these relationships. Every entity or relationship with which we are connected entails certain rights and responsibilities. We are to fulfil these to maintain cordiality in relationships. The teachings of Islam encompass the whole life; they guide us first to fortify our spiritual bond with Allah. This is fundamental and at the core of Islam’s overall message.

Every individual is supposed to strengthen the spiritual link with Him by continuous remembrance of His existence. One has to keep one’s mind and thoughts towards Allah to earn His blessings. Similarly, Islam encourages us to maintain happy relationships with other fellow beings. It urges civility, humility, tolerance and straight dealing with fellow beings.

These values subordinate the self and emphasise the others, and are essential for cordial and peaceful coexistence in society. Islam is a religion of peace which can only be realised when an individual has happy relations with others. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) likens Muslim brotherhood to a building composed of bricks. Every brick is joined and connected with other bricks, thereby fortifying the building.

The Prophet (PBUH) started his mission of preaching Islam by inviting his relatives to it first. Though his relatives did not respond positively, his invitation indicates the weight he gave to relatives. When he established himself in Madina, he tried to conclude peace agreements with many tribes, such as those of the Jews of Madina, the Christians of Najran, and also the Makkans at Hudaibiya.

He dispatched emissaries to the rulers of far-off lands such as Rome, Persia and Abyssinia inviting them to peace and good relations with the emerging Islamic state. We come across a number of verses in the Quran, directing us to fulfil the obligations to those we are connected with. The Quran says “…And do not forget liberality between yourselves. Truly Allah is all-Seer of what you do” (2:237).

Verse 4:36 also enjoins to worship Allah and join none with Him, do good towards parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, neighbours, strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer and those slaves whom your right hands posses. Verily Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful, it concludes.

There are a number of factors that can imbalance relations in society and Islam forestalls them. Greed for material wealth is one such impediment that causes fissure among close relatives. A greedy person usurps the other’s property unjustly; therefore, Islam directs us “…And eat up not one another’s property unjustly” (2:188). Another factor that likely affects good relations is differences of opinion.

Sometimes we have differences with people around us, but these should not be made a matter of ego and waiting for the other party to take an initiative to normalise a relationship. We must understand that coming to terms quickly after differences brings us peace and serenity.

Islam allows diversity of opinions; there existed diversity of opinions among the Prophet’s companions. Friction among close relatives is part of human nature but one needs to be watchful that these do not reach a point of no return. Islam does not give importance to differences of ethnicity, caste, status and language etc. As all such factors cause cracks in happy relations in society; they are insignificant in the scheme of Islamic teachings.

A balanced approach in maintaining worldly relations is the right course. Unnecessary intrusion in the affairs of others also affects relations and sometimes backfires. Nobody likes meddlesome behaviour; therefore, one must be careful to not overreach. Over-engagement and unnecessary intrusion in the affairs of others affairs are portents of a darker scenario.

Presently, we face a situation that can best be described as being stuck between the devil and the deep sea. We give importance to material wealth, a palatial life and social status. Our modern culture has promoted isolated living. We live sealed behind closed doors with least interaction with neighbours, relatives and other members of society. Everyone has become individualistic, focused on self-interest alone most of the time.

It is generally observed that residents of, say, an apartment block do not care for others when they park their vehicles and block common passages. Some throw trash from their balconies and others do not pay their monthly maintenance charges regularly. Similarly, a teacher who is supposed to build the future can be found involved in self-service.

A student who will manage future society is unaware of his responsibilities. A doctor who is to assure his patient’s health can be found making money alone. Thus few think of their social responsibility towards others, and this negligence can lead to fissures and unbalanced situations in society.

For a human being as a social animal it is important to feel a close connection and mutual empathy; however, this seems to be on the decline due to the excessive materialism and self-centred approach of modern urban living. In order to achieve a worthy lifestyle, we have to follow the teachings of Islam, i.e. treating well those with whom we are connected. Everyone should feel responsive and respectful towards the rights of others.

The writer is an educationist.
amin.valiani@itrebp.org

__________________
We can trust the man of troubles but not on the man of pleasures.

Of life after death

Nilofar Ahmed

30th March, 2012

THE concept of accountability and those of sawab-i-jariah, isal-i-sawab, the Day of Judgment, and Heaven and Hell play an important part in Islamic theology. There is an interesting link between all of these concepts and that of the period immediately following life after death, i.e. barzakh (a purgatory of sorts).

The literal meaning of barzakh is ‘barrier’. The term barzakh is applied to three aspects of life after death: the time during which the body rests in the grave, the interim period between death and resurrection, and the place in which the soul, now the main instrument of existence, will abide during this time. This period forms a barrier between this life and resurrection, when the dead will be raised again (23:99-100); judgments will be passed and intercession will take place.

When the angel is commanded to draw out the soul of a person, the door to asking for forgiveness is now closed (4:18). If the person in the throes of death is a good believer, then the angel is instructed to convey the greeting of God to him (33:44, 36:58), and the soul leaves the body with great facility. The soul also meets close relatives who come to greet him, hears and replies to the greeting of the visitor to the grave and informs the old inmates about the latest developments in the world.

After burial, or its equivalent, the soul will be returned to the body temporarily, to face those questions, the answers to which will determine the future, permanent abode of the soul. The Prophet (PBUH) said that whoever is successful in the first, most difficult stage of the grave, will find the later stages to be easy (Tirmizi). Two angels appear and ask questions like, “Who is your Lord? What is your faith? What is your opinion about the man (the Prophet) who was raised up amongst you? And, how did you come to know about all this?”

When all the correct answers are given, it is proclaimed from the heavens, “Lay out the carpet of Paradise for him and dress him in the robe of Paradise and open a door for him in the direction of Paradise”. A door is opened through which enter the fragrant breezes of Paradise and its pleasant sights become visible (Abu Dawud).

The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Your deeds are presented to the prophets and to your parents on Friday. They are pleased by the good in them and the brightness of their faces increases. So fear God and do not give pain to your dead” (Tirmizi).

A person asked the Prophet (PBUH) as to what was due to his father after he had died. The Prophet replied: praying for him, sending istigfar (asking for forgiveness), honouring his promises and keeping in touch with his relatives (Abu Dawud).

Some of the most highly elevated souls will be those of the martyrs, of whom there are two categories: those who have succumbed to certain ailments and calamities, and those who have died fighting actively in the cause of God. For example, those who died due to a plague, intestinal ailments, drowning, being trapped in a collapsed building, or in self-defence, family, possessions or guarding the faith, or fighting for his rights and a woman who died in childbirth, are all martyrs (an-Nasai). They will be rewarded in the Hereafter. The martyrs who died in the cause of God, have a unique spiritual status in barzakh. The Quran says, “… they are alive and with their Lord is their provision.” (3:169). There is the belief that after a person dies, his destiny cannot be changed because the door for any further deeds, good or bad, is now closed and his record book is sealed. But one cannot ignore the concepts, mentioned in several hadiths, of sawab-i-jariah and isal-i-sawab. The former is an act done during one’s lifetime, which merits continuous reward, such as digging a well, planting a tree or building a school or a mosque, or imparting knowledge. It can also be the good deeds, taught by a person to someone, if they continue to perform them and spread their benefits.

Isal-i-sawab is doing any good act with the intention of sending its benefit as a gift to a dead person. Reciting istigfar is the best gift. It can also be the prayers said for a dead person by family, friends or the spiritually elevated. In all these ways, one’s record can be bettered and one can reap these benefits till the end of time. The believers will be forgiven a great deal of their sins because of the prayers of the living.

Ibn Sireen said that the soul resides in the house of truth therefore, whatever it relates in a dream, is true. Muhammed Zauqi Shah in his book, Barzakh, says that the grave-dweller will repent that he did not give more importance to his deeds than to his relatives, friends and worldly wealth. If the sole pleasure of the soul in this world was remembrance of God, then barzakh will be blissful. Zauqi Shah says that it does not make sense to sacrifice the immortal soul for the pleasures of the mortal body.

Barzakh is also the time during which some benefit can still be reaped from what one did in the world and also from the gift some people would like to send to the dead. It is also like a waiting room in which the persons concerned will get a foretaste of what is in store for them in eternal life.

The writer is a Quran scholar who writes on contemporary themes.

__________________
We can trust the man of troubles but not on the man of pleasures.

The concept of justice

Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, April 06, 2012

LAST month in Vienna there was a seminar on multiculturalism and religious pluralism. Among other issues a discussion was held on the concept of justice. What is justice, it was asked, and participants gave their opinions.

Among the participants were professors of philosophy, sociology, political science, as well as theologians and rights activists. It was an interesting discussion but there was no consensus as usual as to what justice is. I, too, gave my opinion and said that Plato had recorded for us the discussion Socrates had with his young disciples on justice and when no one could give a satisfactory definition, he (Socrates) concluded that justice is what the powerful think justice is and we have the famous saying ‘might is right’.

There has been no change till today in this definition of justice by Socrates as justice plays itself out on the world stage. Even in the 21st century it is the mighty who decide what justice is. America is the most powerful nation in the world today and if America decides justice lies in invading Iraq or Afghanistan, the whole world endorses it as a just action. Even the UN Security Council endorses it almost unanimously.

Some whimpers of protest are naturally ignored. Our modern and civilised world has not gone a centimetre ahead of the classical definition and yet justice seems to be a most important value in the world today. But do we then have to live with Socrates’ definition even today when we claim we have progressed so much? Weaker sections can only dream of getting justice; or will they ever get justice?

In Islam, justice is a most fundamental value; it connotes one of Allah’s names also. Allah’s name is Aadil (Just). The Quran repeatedly emphasises justice and even goes to the extent of saying justice is closest to piety (taqwa) and so “do justice”, it commands, as it is closest (aqrab) to piety. But many of our theologians think piety lies in offering prayers and fasting alone whether it results in just conduct or not. They say all Islamic laws are most just but then differ, like others, on the definition of justice.

Take for example, the question of justice and multiple wives. The Quran permits polygamy but verse 4:3 emphatically says, “If you fear you cannot do justice, then (marry) only one”. It is a different thing that for our jurists the number (four wives) is more important than justice which the Quran actually emphasises. Generally when a man takes more than one wife the only inquiry made is whether he has less than four wives and not whether he would be able to do justice between them.

Also, if at all inquiry on this line is made, the question arises what is just treatment amongst wives? Generally it is thought giving equal maintenance and allotting equal time to all wives constitutes ‘justice’. But there is no unanimity on this concept. The Mu’tazila theologians (who are considered rationalists) maintain that equal maintenance and equal time cannot constitute justice and going by verse 4:129 equal love is also necessary which is not humanly possible.

In doing justice, the context also plays a role. It could be social, political, economic and also depends on the kind of social structure one has. For example, in a tribal society equal retaliation is considered meeting justice. The Quran calls it qisas (retaliation in equal measure) and since Arab society was tribal in structure it declared al-hayat fi’al-qisas) i.e. life consists of retaliation (in equal measure). Many theologians ignore the context and declare it as an eternal principle of justice. If we ignore the context, justice may become injustice. Today, when human rights and dignity are of great importance, such tribal retaliation would be unjust.

We should not be under the impression that the Quran pronounces retaliation as an eternal principle of justice. Not at all. Many Islamic scholars assert that it was in the context of that tribal society, and as an accepted (ma’ruf) principle that the Quran had approved of it; otherwise it considered pardoning as a higher principle and instructed believers not to insist on qisas. Most Islamic countries have since abolished the law of retaliation and adopted other forms of punishment more in keeping with the principles of human dignity today. Thus it will be seen that context plays a very important role in dispensing justice.

It is for this reason that while principles and values remain unchanged, the law must constantly evolve so as to be as close to these eternal principles and values as possible. Many tribal societies of yore have changed into modern democratic societies today and so laws framed for tribal societies cannot remain static and if one insists, as many theologians often do, they will result in injustice violating the very fundamental principles of the Quran. And this is what is causing widespread gender injustice in many Muslim societies today.

Principles and values are much more fundamental than the laws framed in the past when the concept of justice was very different from what it is today. In the past weaker sections of society were treated very differently to meet the ends of justice but today it would be considered undignified and against the principle of human rights and human dignity. Today if we want to do gender justice many old laws will have to be re-examined as they have become unjust by today’s standards of justice.

Thus the concept of justice evolves with time, though the most powerful may think even today that what they believe is justice is, in fact, justice.

The writer is an Islamic scholar who also heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.
http://dawn.com/2012/04/06/the-concept-of-justice/

__________________
No signature...