The importance of Sunnah

By Sidrah Unis
Friday, 11 Feb, 2011

BE it worship or social security, be it financial transactions or environmental degradation, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) along with the Holy Quran provides guidance on all matters. Both the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet are regarded as primary sources of Islamic law.

On founding the Islamic commonwealth in Madina, in 622 AD, the Prophet not only acted as a spiritual leader but also as a political leader of the community. Also, as supreme judicial authority in the state, cases were brought before him for adjudication. These were decided in the light of the Quran. Yet, where the Quran was silent on an issue, or where further interpretation was required, the Prophet gave a decision which was based on ratiocination.

The exercise of this authority by the Holy Prophet has been recognised in the Quran: “…And whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain (therefrom)…” (59: 7) Whereas the authority of the Sunnah is derived from the Quran, the former serves to strengthen and clarify the structure of Islamic law. The two sources are interwoven in such a way that they cannot be separated from each other.

The following are a few examples which shall serve to illustrate that the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet covers various areas or aspects of life. Islam
has put a lot of stress on the acquisition of knowledge: The Holy Prophet said: “Allah opens the path of Paradise to one who takes a step on the path of the acquisition of knowledge.” Also, the Islamic faith enjoins that knowledge once attained should be put to fruitful use and should be acquired to benefit others.

The Holy Prophet once said: “He who learns for the sake of haughtiness dies ignorant. He who learns only to talk, rather than to act, dies a hypocrite. He who learns for the sake of debating dies irreligious. He who learns only to accumulate wealth, dies an atheist. He who learns for the sake of action, dies a mystic.”

Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah once said, “Search for knowledge is compulsory for every Muslim man and woman.” Islam not only makes the acquisition of knowledge compulsory, it also makes it so for both men and women so that both are equal in this respect.

Islam propagates the virtues of justice and fairness. The following statement made by the Holy Prophet while he was deciding the case of a noblewoman who had committed theft clearly illustrates the importance of justice in Islam: “Verily those who were before you were destroyed because when a nobleman from among you committed theft, they passed no sentence upon him. By Allah, had Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, I would have cut off her hand.”

The Holy Prophet once said, “Judges are of three types, one of whom will go to Paradise and the other lot to Hell. The one who will go to Paradise is a man who knows what is right and gives judgment accordingly; but a man who knows what is right and acts tyrannically in his judgment will go to Hell; and a man who gives judgment for people when he is ignorant will go to Hell.”

The concept of social security has been firmly embedded in the social fabric of the Islamic faith.

The Holy Prophet said: “If a Muslim clothes another Muslim in his nudity, God will clothe him with the green freshness of Paradise; and if a Muslim feeds a Muslim who is hungry, God will give him to eat of the fruits of Paradise; and if a Muslim gives a drink to a thirsty Muslim, God will let him drink from the fountain of Paradise.”

Islam promotes religious tolerance and very clearly lays down that the rights of non-Muslims should be protected.

The Holy Prophet said: “Beware on the Day of Judgment; I shall myself be the complainant against the one who wrongs a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him.”

Islam prohibits the taking of riba (interest). According to Anas Ibn Malik, the Holy Prophet said: “When one of you grants a loan and the borrower offers him a dish, he should not accept it; and if the borrower offers a ride on an animal, he should not ride, unless the two of them have been previously accustomed to exchanging such favours mutually.”

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri relates on his authority that the Holy Prophet once said that gold must be exchanged for gold, like for like, from hand to hand. Any increase, fadl, in one commodity over the other is riba. Silver must be exchanged for silver, like for like, from hand to hand, and any increase
is riba.

Islam forbids murder, be it of one or many. The Prophet of Islam during Hajjat-al-Wida addressed the people and said: “Do not [become infidels] revert to disbelief after me by striking the necks [cutting the throats] of one another [killing each other].”

Mercy for all the worlds’

By Nilofar Ahmed
Friday, 18 Feb, 2011

ALMIGHTY God in His infinite wisdom has given Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) some titles in the Quran, many of which are God’s own attributes and reflect the stage of human perfection the Prophet (PBUH) had reached.

One of these titles, ‘Raheem’, meaning ‘ever-merciful’ is found in Surah Al-Taubah (9:128), while in Surah Al-Anmbiya (21:107), it is stated, “Wa ma arsalnaka illa rehmatal lil aalameen”, meaning, “We have not sent you [Muhammad], except as ‘Mercy for all the worlds’”. All the perfections and attributes of the Prophet find a consolidation in this verse.

‘Raheem’, a permanent attribute of God, can be described as that tenderness and sensitivity which pushes a person to be kind and is the all-encompassing goodness. According to Imam Ghazali, mercy requires an object of mercy and an empathy and a sensitive suffering (riqqat in Urdu), for the needy, on the part of the merciful. The Prophet chose for himself a life of poverty, while he distributed freely the wealth that he
received. The Arabic for ‘worlds’ used above is ‘aalameen’, that is, the whole universe, which includes all creation, and for all times to come.

Of the Prophet’s mercy and benevolence, there are innumerable accounts that have come down to us in narration, for example, how a dry well suddenly started overflowing with water because of his blessing, and many times a little food went a long way and was enough to feed the innumerable people present. There are accounts of how the Prophet was kind even to those who persecuted him. There was the well-known case of the old Jewish woman who used to throw garbage on him every time he passed by her window. One day, when there was no garbage, he went up to inquire about her welfare. She was immensely touched and became his devout follower.

Many times during his prophetic career, his companions would volunteer to eliminate an enemy who had harmed him in some way, but he would stop them saying that he was sent as a mercy for the worlds, and did not want revenge for personal reasons.

The Prophet set the rules for gradually eliminating the slavery of man to man. The freeing of a slave was established as a good deed as well as the expiation for many sins. The main source of making slaves was war. In verse 22:39 permission is granted to those who were oppressed because they had declared their faith in God, to fight the oppressors. In Surah Muhammad it is said, “…when you have completely subdued them, then capture them firmly. Then release them as a favour or after taking a ransom, until the battle lays down its weapons” (47:4). Since this verse instructs the believers to give up the prisoners, it has been deduced that it spells out the gradual end of slavery.

When read in conjunction with verse 2:190, the above verse makes clear that the believers are being given permission to fight a defensive war in the way of God in order to establish the truth, after 13 years of forbearance and patience. The Prophet imposed restrictions and conditions on those fighting jihad: to refrain from committing aggression and violence, especially against women, children and the old and infirm, to refrain from killing milch cattle and from destroying fruit trees, orchards and farms, etc.

The Prophet was not only kind to his followers but was equally concerned about the fate of the non-believers of Makkah, who had turned into his enemies. He used to make use of every opportunity to convey the message by visiting every friend and relative, every congregation and every travelling caravan to teach what was revealed to him. Whenever he saw his sincere effort going to waste, he would become depressed and would stay up at night, weeping and praying for his people to see the right path. At such times he would receive a revelation to comfort him. In Surah Al-Kahaf it is said, “So are you going to kill yourself with grief over them, if they do not come to believe in this Word?” (18:6).

The Prophet emancipated women and gave them rights over men, rights to property, rights to their personal income, rights to education, a say in the choice of their life partner and a legal identity. Marmaduke Pickthall, in his lectures in Madras in the early 20th century said, “The Prophet of Islam was the greatest feminist the world has ever known.” He was also against extremism in practising the faith and taught the virtue of moderation and following the middle path.

In the Charter of Madina and the Sermon of Haj, the Prophet laid down rules which have come to form the basis of human rights, as they are practised today. Once, in a dispute between a Muslim and a Jew, the Prophet ruled in favour of the Jew. By his example, the Prophet taught the values of honesty, justice, patience, modesty, liberty, simplicity, good manners, generosity, kindness and love. He urged his followers to be kind to animals too.

At the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet (PBUH) said to his followers, “Do not kill the injured, do not pursue one who is fleeing, do not kill a prisoner and one who goes behind his door and closes it.” He forgave his enemies of 23 years who dreaded the worst form of revenge, and did not punish anyone for personal reasons nor make a single prisoner or slave. The Prophet was sent as a mercy, not just to his own nation and for his own time, but as a universal prophet, for all creation and for all times to come.

__________________
No signature...

Non-Muslims` rights

By Syed Imad-ud-Din Asad
Friday, 25 Feb, 2011


TO many westerners, Islamic law often seems problematic and puzzling. One of the main reasons for this is the variety of contradictory approaches in different Muslim countries regarding the nature of government, fundamental rights, rule of law, rights of non-Muslims, the concept of the welfare state, etc.

Various Muslim regimes, in order to maintain their hold on power, often enact laws and take measures that are inconsistent not only with the western notions of equity and justice, but, more importantly, with provisions given in the basic Islamic texts. Similarly, certain Muslim scholars, trying to gain quick popularity among ignorant Muslim masses in order to further their selfish political ambitions, often make statements that are contrary to Islamic values, as may be ascertained from the Quran and the Sunnah, the two primary sources of Islamic law.

All these factors create a negative image of Islam as people generally make an estimate of an ideology by looking at the behaviour of its adherents.

The status of non-Muslims in Islamic law is a frequently discussed topic. It is a general perception in the West that non-Muslims are second-rate citizens in an Islamic state. However, if we look at the Quran and the Sunnah, we find a different story. In the early and medieval Islamic state, except for the right to political equality, non-Muslims had the same rights as Muslims. Their life, respect and property were as sacred as those of their Muslim counterparts.

Non-Muslims living in an Islamic state were called ‘Dhimmis’. The word ‘dhimmah’ means ‘pledge’ or ‘guarantee’. ‘Dhimmi’, contrary to the prevalent misconception, is not a derogatory term; it signifies that these people were under the protection guaranteed by Allah and His Prophet (PBUH).

There are numerous sayings of the Prophet emphasising that non-Muslim citizens must be treated well and their rights must be protected by the state as well as Muslim members of the community. He once said, “Whoever hurts a Dhimmi, hurts me. And whoever hurts me, he annoys Allah.” (Bukhari) Similarly, “Beware! On the Day of Judgment, I shall myself be the complainant against one who wrongs a Dhimmi….” (Al-Mawardi)

Al-Qarafi, the Islamic scholar, while commenting on the responsibility of the Islamic state to Dhimmis said, “It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the people of the Dhimmah to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely and even tolerate their harm…. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who
tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violate their rights.”

At this point, it would be apt to discuss the controversial issue of jizyah. Zakat is a tax collected from Muslim citizens; jizyah was the tax collected from adult, male, non-Muslim citizens. The payment of jizyah entitled non-Muslims to state support and protection, and exemption from military service. If a non-Muslim voluntarily fought for the Islamic state, he was exempt from it. Most importantly, if non-Muslims were unable to pay jizyah, the state still looked after them and protected them just like Muslim citizens.

Thus, jizyah was only a tax and not meant to humiliate non-Muslims. If Muslim citizens paid zakat to the state, there was no harm in collecting jizyah from non-Muslim citizens. Do modern western states not impose taxes on their citizens? They do.

Similarly, lack of political equality between Muslims and non-Muslims is viewed as a huge deficiency in Islamic law by westerners. The fact is that a state based on a particular ideology, like Islam, should be governed by people who adhere to it. In other words, owing to its ideological nature, a non-Muslim cannot become the head of an Islamic state.

Simply speaking, religion and ideology are not that different from each other. Therefore, the requirement of allegiance to Islam is the same as the requirement that an American, in order to hold a public office, undertake an oath to a fundamentally bourgeois constitution. Just as the Sharia signifies certain values, the constitution of the US signifies certain values.

Unlike other beliefs and systems, Islam cannot be accused of conducting forced conversions, witch hunts, inquisitions and holocausts. In fact, Muslim territories often served as a refuge for non-Muslims facing oppression and persecution in other places. Spain, under Muslim rule, was the only place in Europe where Jews could live with safety and dignity. After the fall of Muslim Spain, Jews were expelled from there and they found a sanctuary in another Muslim realm, i.e., the Ottoman Empire.

Muslim India was another example. Despite centuries of Muslim rule, the majority of its population remained non-Muslim. It is a well-known fact that Muslim rulers even made generous donations to temples and other religious places of Hindus and others. It is also interesting to note that, according to Al-Maqrizi, all the famous churches of Cairo were built during Muslim rule. Considering all these historical facts, the destruction of two statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan, in 2001 by the Taliban government was totally un-Islamic. They did not act in accordance with Islam; it was a deplorable attempt to further their own political interests by manipulating the religious emotions of their ignorant Muslim population.

It is important not to confuse such despicable actions with Islamic values. For instance, if a Jew kills a man, it would be outrageous to say that Judaism makes murderers. Similarly, it would be utterly incorrect to say that the Spanish Inquisition was conducted because the Gospel instructed so.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the director of the Centre for Law and Policy, University of Management and Technology, Lahore.
syed.asad@umt.edu.pk

__________________
No signature...

Minorities in Islam

By Murtaza Razvi
Friday, 04 March, 2011

THE gruesome murder of the minorities’ minister Shahbaz Bhatti must sit as a blot on the conscience of all Muslims of this country.

While it shows that in this Islamic republic of ours Muslims like Benazir Bhutto and Salman Taseer can be killed for speaking up for the marginalised, non-Muslims live in double jeopardy. If a set of medieval laws doesn’t tie the noose around their necks, the extremists will.

Scholars say that there is nothing in the Quran or the Sunnah, two primary sources of Islamic law, that can be said to incite Muslims to killing non-Muslims on whatever charges, but violence against non-Muslims has become a fact of life here. The question begs an answer: why is it only in this country where so many people, Muslims and non-Muslims, are allegedly given to blaspheme against Islam? Surely there is something rotten in the way our religious establishment has interpreted faith and the state has enacted laws based on such controversial interpretations that has led to this kind of mayhem.

The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was sent down as a ‘Mercy to all creation’ (21:107), and the opening verse of every chapter of the Quran calls Allah, ‘the Most Merciful’. An act of mercy presupposes that an offence has been committed or seen to have been committed, hence Islam’s emphasis on mercy as forming an integral part of Allah’s Divine Nature and the personality with which He endowed the last of His prophets.

The early Muslims imbibed this spirit of the great faith and Muslim lands became the obvious refuge for minorities, especially Jews, who faced persecution at the hands of medieval Christians in Europe and Byzantium. Muslim empires, mighty as they were and carrying the banner of Islam to every land they conquered, never launched ‘crusades’ to purge their territories of non-Muslims, be it in Byzantium, Palestine, North Africa, Spain or closer home, India.

It must be noted that Islam preached tolerance of diversity of faith in the most unequivocal terms back in the 7th century CE. This was a time when no man-made charter of human rights or freedom to practise one’s religion existed. A tyranny of the majority faith prevailed across the board, with non-conformists being burnt at the stake for heresy.

A verse revealed to the Prophet came in the early days of hardship of Muslims at Makkah, at a time when the Prophet had started grieving for not being able to win converts to Allah’s Faith: “If it had been your Lord’s Will, they would all have believed — all who are on Earth; will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” (10:99). The line of argument, rather injunction, is clear.

Yet, more significantly, another verse was revealed to reinforce Allah’s Will as He wanted it enforced among the believers and non-believers alike in the Madina society when Islam had triumphed, and certain Jewish tribes were given protection. It unconditionally grants the adherents of minority faiths the freedom to choose the faith they please: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error” (2:256).

It was such injunctions of Islam that led the Prophet to also declare: “Whoever harms a non-Muslim will not enter Paradise.” The popular tradition formed the basis of the laws that protected minorities living under various Muslim empires throughout history.

Consider also the following verse which categorically spells out Divine reckoning for those who go against His Will and
terrorise His people. In Surah al Hajj, revealed in Madina, Allah cites His Action: “Had not Allah checked one set of people by means of another, they would have surely pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure” (22:40).

This verse should in particular serve as a wake-up call for all those who, by their sheer silence, end up condoning attacks by the extremists against the adherents of other faiths; churches and the places of worship of the Ahmadi community, for instance.

It is ironical that cases of blasphemy should have started surfacing in Pakistan as soon as the law to prevent it was put on the statutes in the 1980s, and fortified in the early 1990s to include the death penalty. The Quran and the Sunnah make any Muslim majority, anywhere and for all times, the custo-dians of the minorities’ right to a life of dignity and equal opportunity. What we see in Pakistan is their wholesale
persecution and discrimination on the basis of controversial laws enacted by Gen Ziaul Haq, which subsequent democratic governments have failed to repeal because they are tinted with so-called religious sanctions, half-truths at best.

Consequently, it’s not only the minorities but Islam itself that is not in safe hands in Pakistan. If Mullah Omar’s so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is the model the extremists are hankering after, the state on its part has done little to curb such tendencies. Granted that there is a lunatic fringe in every society, but it is the state that keeps it from harming the interests of the peaceful majority, which must keep its belief systems and practise its faith without fear.

The practitioners of violence in the name of religion have brought Islam into disrepute. Yet the people, their representative government and the judiciary lack the will to rise up to the challenge and bring those to justice who go around dispensing justice based on their own myopic reading of Islam. The Quran aptly says of such people and their apathy: “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they change their own condition” (13:11).

__________________
No signature...

The interfaith dialogue

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 11 March, 2011

IN our pluralist, globalised world, inter-religion, inter-culture and inter-civilisation dialogue has become very crucial.

There are serious misconceptions about communities other than our own; not only this, there are serious misconceptions about other sects in the same religious community.

Thus even intra-faith dialogue becomes necessary. The whole world has become multicultural and it is all the more necessary in a democratic system to get to know and understand one another. In a democracy, all citizens, whatever their culture, religion or ethnicity, enjoy equal rights and misconceptions about the ‘other’ come in the way of respecting that other’s equal rights. In a democratic, pluralist society, the three ‘Ds’ become necessary, i.e. democracy, diversity and dialogue.

Diversity strengthens democracy and dialogue strengthens diversity. Many tend to think that uniformity is necessary for democracy. It is a mistaken notion. In fact, uniformity can lead to dictatorship, and diversity can become a powerful force to ward off dictatorship. So diversity and dialogue become important. Also, it is important in a democracy to accept the ‘other’ as the ‘other’ is; no one has the right to prescribe how the other should be, which many often do, especially for minorities, be they cultural or religious.

It is often demanded of religious and cultural minorities that they should become part of the ‘mainstream’ culture and not maintain their distinctive features. All minorities come under such pressure. And it is religious or cultural majorities who define for the rest what the ‘mainstream’ culture is. Often, cultural or religious majorities also become a political majority to enforce their writ on society, which is against the spirit of democracy.

One should not confuse a cultural or religious majority with a political majority. The two are different. It is sheer arrogance on the part of a religious and a cultural majority to equate its social norms with having a political majority and thus the right to impose such norms on all. This is happening even in western democracies where minorities are coming under severe pressure to conform to majority cultural norms.

It is through inter-religion and inter-culture dialogue that one can understand the distinctive features of the other’s religion or culture. The basic thing about such a dialogue is the capacity to listen to the other. Listening is much more important in dialogue than speaking. There should be a proper balance between speaking and listening otherwise we can never understand the other. Better if we minimise speaking and let the other speak. There is one more tendency in dialogue which tends to deprive the dialogue of its essence, i.e. to bring out the best features of one’s own tradition and point out the worst from that of the other. One should be very honest and objective in a dialogue. One should bring out critically the weaknesses of one’s own tradition and readily appreciate what is best in the other’s tradition.

The best way to appreciate the other is to be a participant-observer, which many Sufi saints were in the subcontinent by adopting the local culture and language. Thus they became closer to the masses and influenced them more than if they were to write in their native Persian or Arabic.

Furthermore, one should not only quote from the scriptures but also evaluate critically one’s historical practices. What is written in the scriptures is often quite different from historical practices. We often take the best from our scriptures and the worst from the other’s historical practices and then tend to ‘prove’ our superiority. It is downright dishonesty to make such comparisons. Scriptures should be compared with scriptures and historical practices should be compared with historical practices.

What the scriptures prescribe is ideal, but historical practices depend on various factors, like interpretation, pre-existing cultural traditions, selfish interests of practitioners and so on. For example, what is stated in the Quran about women’s rights was never practised in Islamic societies as these societies were patriarchal in structure and their cultural traditions could not accept gender equality and hence they found various ways of violating gender equality. Thus it would be unfair to blame gender oppression in Muslim societies on the Quran.

In all interfaith dialogue, the idea should be to understand the other rather than convert the other to one’s own point of view.

An interfaith dialogue should be carried out in the spirit of acceptance of the other rather than rejection. For this, it is necessary that both sides be well-versed in their respective traditions. Deep conviction is necessary in one’s own tradition before one is able to appreciate the conviction of the other.

However, this does not mean one should be rigid about one’s own position. Tolerance and respect for the other is the very basis of dialogue. One should not condemn the other even if one cannot accept the other’s point of view or practice. A good example is that of Mazhar Jan-i-Janan respecting the Hindu tradition of idol worshipping and its justification from the Hindus’ viewpoint, though he himself would not do so.

Intra-faith dialogue is also very important for the coexistence of various sects of the same religion, especially where majority and minority sects are concerned. There exist misgivings about one another’s beliefs and rituals, which can lead to rioting amongst adherents of the same faith but following different sects. In pre-independence days there were riots between Bohras and Sunni Muslims in Patan, India, when a Sunni boy went missing and it was said that he was slaughtered and his blood mixed with rice by Bohras, who ate it. It was on Jinnah’s intervention that the riots stopped and peace was established.

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

__________________
No signature...

Dealing with extremism

By Syed Imad-ud-Din Asad
Friday, 18 March, 2011


DUE to their absolute and brutal intolerance of dissenting views and modernity, Islamic extremists have succeeded in presenting Islam as the most barbaric way of life ever. Unfortunately, their influence is increasing.

They are never short of recruits and their area of operations has expanded. Ignorance or lack of self-confidence or both are the main reasons for the spread of such vicious attitudes. While ignorant people can easily be influenced and won over, educated, but insecure, individuals are equally prone to falling into the trap laid by clever, confident and determined extremist elements.

Did Adolf Hitler not transform the Germans into a machine bent on destroying all who opposed his ideas of nationhood? Were the Germans not an educated and advanced people at that time, particularly keeping in view the number of Nobel laureates the country had produced?

They had excellent education but faced grave insecurities. The man who appeared to guarantee a secure future was immediately hailed as the saviour and obeyed slavishly. As we know, it was followed by the destruction of Europe and the Holocaust. The exploitation of Germany at the hands of one man should make it easier to understand how ignorant and deprived Muslims can be easily manipulated by selfish and power-hungry leaders.

This is how things generally work in the Muslim world. The majority consists of uneducated masses living in poverty, suppression, with little hope of an end to their miseries. Islam as a religion is usually their only source of solace. However, most of them are not as aware of the teachings of Islam as they ought to be. They know Islam the way it is presented by their
local cleric, who blindly follows a certain senior cleric or his mentor.

All such clerics, instead of consulting the Quran and the Sunnah, in order to know the actual Islamic position on different issues, prefer to follow the interpretations given by a particular scholar or school. Mostly, these interpretations are regarded as binding in nature. Thus, ignorant people are kept ignorant of the real Islam. They remain totally dependant on the cleric, who can drive them in any direction he wants or as instructed by his seniors. This is exactly what extremist organisations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are doing in order to gather support for their agenda among Muslim populations in different countries.

Suicide blasts, assassinations of dissenters, aversion to modernity and a degrading attitude towards women and non-Muslims are all strictly prohibited by the Quran and the Sunnah. However, taking the examples of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the unaware people are told by the Taliban and scholars who support them that these acts are not only justified, but also necessary to further the cause of Islam. Just as the Germans obeyed the Fuhrer, these Muslims follow the Taliban leaders.

How can such un-Islamic movements in the name of Islam be stopped? Should we wipe them out by pounding them all with heavy artillery? Should we try to convince them to surrender? And if we decide talk to them, what arguments should we employ?

We must first try to convince such Muslims that their beliefs and actions are wrong. As the Taliban have no regard for anything western, it is useless talking to them in terms of universal human rights, etc. We will have to use what they believe in, i.e. arguments from the Quran and Sunnah.

It is important that only the actual Quranic and Hadith texts be relied on, not their interpretations. The reason is simple: it is while interpreting these texts that extremist scholars get an opportunity to present Islam as supporting their outrageous ways and ambitions. If we show two interpretations against them, they would also show two in their favour.

Those who say that the economic development of Muslim communities supporting the Taliban is the real answer to the problem are simply overlooking the religious dimension of the situation. Money and infrastructure will not help unless Islamic arguments are used first. The Taliban do not care about better roads, schools, hospitals; all they want is the imposition of their version of Islam.

We must be absolutely clear that the Taliban, and others like them, are not blowing themselves up for economic boom; they want the Sharia. They need to be shown that the Sharia they want is not the Sharia that has been laid out in the Quran and the Sunnah. Once these people are convinced of their folly, only then we must focus on their individual and collective economic development. Saudi Arabia, which has exported more Islamic militants than any other Muslim country, is implementing measures to debrief and reform such extremist elements in the kingdom. Rehabilitation centres have been set up for captured fanatics. There, in a friendly environment, Islamic scholars discuss with the inmates issues like jihad, terrorism, etc., and, ultimately, convince some of them to change their radical approach.

Upon their release, these former militants are assisted in their plans for education, employment, marriage, etc. Egypt and Yemen have also made similar efforts. The Religious Rehabilitation Group, Singapore, is another good example of how the influence of Islamic terrorist organisations can be countered. The same approach must be adopted in Pakistan. It is like fighting an idea with another idea.

Of course, as in all conflicts, there will be among them those who refuse to accept any logic. For such transgressors, the Quran and the Sunnah provide sufficient penalties.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the director of the Centre for Law and Policy, University of Management and Technology, Lahore.
syed.asad@umt.edu.pk

__________________
No signature...

Conditions for nikah

By Nilofar Ahmed
Friday, 25 March, 2011

THE Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said, “The nikah is my Sunnah”, meaning that getting married and performing the nikah is not just a legal formality, but also an important example of the Prophet. This fact does not detract from the importance of the act of getting married, but it clarifies that a person who is not able to get married has not committed a sin.

The word ‘nikhun’ in Arabic means to bring together and to absorb. If a man and a woman are to become absorbed in one another, a minimum, basic condition will, therefore, be the mutually agreeing of both the parties to perform the nikah, which is expected to bring them together as partners for the rest of their lives. They must, therefore, be clear on the conditions, compulsory duties and rights that apply to them in a marriage.

In Islam marriage is a mutual, legal contract in which both parties agree about each and every article of the agreement, which has been called a “strong bond” (4:21). The articles can be anything that does not go against the tenets of Islam. It is not a holy sacrament which would tie individuals in a divine bond. This means that the contract can also be revoked according to the strict conditions as specified in the Quran in Surah Al-Talaq, Surah Al-Baqarah and Surah Al-Nisa.

The very fact that the woman and the man are asked, at the time of the nikah, if each one is willing to go through with it, means that without their consent the nikah is invalid. The Quran asks the believers not to marry women forcefully: “O you who believe! You are not permitted to inherit women by force” (4:19). Contextually, this refers to the pre-Islamic custom of the inheriting of widows, but in a broader sense it can also refer to forced marriages, which have become common in many Muslim societies.

The nikah should not be a secret affair and should preferably be performed in front of the guests as a formal announcement.

This way the guests will also be witness to, and share in, the good deed that is performed. Maulana Umar Ahmed Usmani says that the presence of two witnesses is absolutely essential at the nikah. They should be two men or two women who are just, adult and Muslim and are aware of all that goes into a Muslim marriage.

According to custom, a just wali or legal guardian should be present. The Hanafi school of thought sanctions the appointment of a wakil of her choice by a woman acting at her behest. The man and woman desiring to be married should ideally be of equal standing. This standing, according to modern norms, could refer to one’s social, financial and educational status or compatibility in age. The woman should not be in her forbidden period of iddah in relation to recently having lost her husband through death or divorce.

The mehr, or the wealth given to the bride by the groom at the time of marriage, is also one of the conditions of nikah and should be agreed upon by both the parties. The mehr should preferably be given to the bride on the first day. Sometimes, the bride never gets to see the mehr since the father or brother of the bride get hold of it. This gives the impression of a sale, and for all practical purposes it may very well be. The mehr belongs to the woman and no one else has a right over it. She must return this if she later demands a divorce (2:229).

After the woman gives her permission, the one performing the nikah should first read the khutba of nikah and also recite the istighfar. The amount of mehr agreed upon should also be announced. The groom should then state clearly that he has accepted the nikah, after which the bride and the groom are legally man and wife and have the right to start their life together, which should not be delayed for minor reasons.

Another condition of the nikah in Pakistan is mentioned in a column in the official form or nikahnama, which originally stated that a woman would be allowed to initiate the divorce if the husband agreed to this condition. Most families think that mentioning divorce at the time of nikah is inauspicious. Some qazis regard this condition as being against the Sharia. However, it is the law that now applies regardless of the man’s consent.

There are also some unwritten conditions of the nikah which are understood: the bride and groom should be of marriageable age, there should be no expectation or demand of a dowry or jahez from the groom’s family, the financial support of the wife is the duty of the husband, and neither partner has the right to force the other to cut off relations with his or her parents.

It is said in the Quran, “O Prophet, We have made permissible for you the wives whose dower you have paid” (33:5). If the Prophet was supposed to pay mehr to the women that he chose to marry, it is clear that no marriage is valid without it.

In South Asia, often a huge amount of mehr is agreed upon but never paid. Sometimes the woman is asked to forgive the mehr at the husband’s deathbed or funeral. All those indulging in wrong practices, such as advocating forced marriages, marrying off and handing over minor girls to considerably older men, not paying the mehr, or taking away the mehr from the bride, should be careful, for they are going against the teachings of the Prophet.

nilofar.ahmed58@gmail.com

__________________
No signature...

A progressive Muslim

By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 01 April, 2011

AT the Asian Muslim Action Network (Aman) assembly which took place in Pattani, Thailand in February this year, a discussion took place as to the prerequisites of being a progressive Muslim. I was asked to speak on the subject, and the following is what I had to say.

A progressive Muslim is one whose actions are firmly grounded in the Quranic values of truth (haq), justice (adl), compassion (rahmah), wisdom (hikmah), and he or she does service to others rather than being served by others. A progressive Muslim does not believe in sectarian Islam (Sunni, Shia or Ismaili, Deobandi or Barelvi, Ahl-i-Hadith or Salafi streak), but rises above all these sects and gives importance to the Quran above everything else.

Adhering to progressive Islam one does not adopt a sectarian approach, but is respectful of entire humanity, and of human dignity as per the Quran: “We have honoured the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of our creation” (17:70).

Thus, one leaves ideological and theological differences to Allah alone and does not condemn anyone who differs with oneself as kafir, as often many sectarian-minded Muslims do. Such an approach widens the differences and intensifies conflict. A progressive Muslim uses, as per the Quran, wisdom (hikmah) and goodly words (mawizat al-hasanah) in discussions. He does not try to be judgmental.

A progressive Muslim is least influenced by personal prejudices and always gives more importance to knowledge than his own opinion. The Quran condemns prejudiced opinion (zan) and promotes knowledge (ilm). Also, openness of mind is a seminal quality which helps avoid arrogance born more out of ignorance than knowledge. Those who have little knowledge are more arrogant and those who have a greater degree of knowledge know the limitations of their own knowledge and hence tend to be humble.

A progressive Muslim first of all studies his/her own religion in depth and tries to understand as objectively as possible the causes of differences between different religions while showing full respect to the beliefs of others. It is those who do not know their own religion, much less that of others, who condemn the religion of others. The Quran says, “And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits they abuse Allah through ignorance” (6:109).

Further in the same verse, Allah says, “Thus to every one people have We made their deeds fair-seeming; then to their Lord is their return so He will inform them of what they did.” Thus ultimately it is Allah who will judge. We human beings, when we judge, we judge more out of ignorance and arrogance of our own ego than based on knowledge and selflessness.

The key words in this verse are that for ‘every people’ ‘We made their deeds fair-seeming’ to ‘them’. Then who are we human beings to condemn the beliefs and deeds of others? Let Allah alone be the judge of who is right and who is wrong in their beliefs.

A progressive Muslim celebrates pluralism, as diversity is the creation of Allah. If Allah had desired He could have made entire humanity one community. (5:48). The Quran also says, “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours. Surely there are signs in this for the learned.” Thus, a progressive Muslim will never have any prejudice against the speakers of any language or the people of any colour or creed, for they are all creations of Allah.

Likewise, both men and women are the creation of Allah and both need to be treated with the same degree of dignity. Allah has created all species in couples and it is necessary for survival of all species. No species will survive unless it is created in couples. Thus the feminine of the couple is as important as the masculine, and in human beings both genders must be treated equally. Gender relations reflect social and cultural constructs while equality and fair play are Islamic values.

A progressive Muslim knows this and treats both men and women with equal dignity, ensuring equal rights to both. In today’s context, gender equality becomes a crucial test for a progressive Muslim. Female servitude was purely a feudal cultural creation; Islam opposes it and pronounces the doctrine of gender equality in clear terms (2:228). A progressive Muslim knows that certain Sharia provisions establishing male superiority were in response to the cultural needs of a patriarchal society rather than based on the Quran and Sunnah.

Thus, a progressive Muslim will give importance to Quranic pronouncements in gender-related matters and not condone the feudal female servitude, considering such provisions of existing Sharia laws as eternal and unalterable. A progressive Muslim, therefore, would strive to reconstruct Sharia laws today in order to accord rights to women which the Quran gives them. One believer cannot be superior to another believer. Male superiority is a human construct and human construct cannot override divine injunctions. Also, physical differences, i.e.

bearing children, etc. should not result in determining who is superior or inferior.

A progressive Muslim would also accord seeking knowledge priority, as knowledge has been equated with light, and ignorance with darkness (zulmat). Allah brings out believers from darkness to light. The Prophet (PBUH) has said that a moment’s reflection is more important than a whole night’s worship (ibadat). Thus knowledge has priority even over worship.

These are some of the characteristics of being a progressive Muslim. Those who imbibe these characteristics will survive the challenges of time and not face difficulty in keeping pace with changing reality.

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

__________________
No signature...

Role of the media

By Nilofar Ahmed
Friday, 08 April, 2011


TELEVISION can be seen positively as the most powerful instrument used today for teaching, creating awareness, swaying opinions and the influencing of minds, especially of the young. In fact, the media has provided our country with many outlets for debate and discussion which are necessary.

It has the added advantage of speedy dissemination. But with the electronic media fully entrenched inside each household, it has become extremely difficult to sift and to block out the kind of influence that one does not want to expose one’s children to.

On the surface, the TV channels appear as service providers of necessary information and harmless entertainment. But the actual incentive behind the continuous blaring of sensational information in every household is mainly corporate, commercial greed with little regard to media ethics. There seems to be no concern to play a positive role in the development of the people by trying to bridge the gaps which have been left due to bad governance and lack of vision by the leaders of a predominantly illiterate country.

The engine driving the greed of the globalised, corporate marketing is their advertising lever. It can be argued that advertisers
select the kind of shows that a channel produces. Some channels are said to have the policy of showing only the rich and the glamorous in their shows. Recently a programme which showcased the good things being done by citizens was dumped for a dramatised commercial, for a hefty sum, obviously.

Almost all the shows are made for the urban, consumerist population — an easy prey for the advertisers. For the majority of our population it is a daily struggle just to make both ends meet. When they see the lavish cooking shows, which use nothing less than boneless chicken and canned mushrooms, ingredients which are the products of huge corporations, and plays in
which females wear Banarsi saris, gold jewellery and full make-up in their daily lives at home, what are the people living on meagre rations of everything supposed to make of it?

With so much social alienation between the economic classes and the urban/rural divide, can they identify with the country our media depicts? How do we expect them to have patriotic feelings or the right values?

I remember watching a popular children’s programme in which an actress, when asked if she would like to give a message to the children, enthusiastically replied, “Khao, piyo aur mazae karo!” (Eat, drink and be merry!). What an opportunity lost.

There were at least 20 children in the studio and hundreds of thousands watching in their homes. A little friendly advice could have motivated the children to care about the less fortunate, to study better, to be respectful towards their elders, to be honest in their dealings or not to litter and throw garbage all over the place. Insights and inspiration for nation-building could have been given. But do media persons care?

Some secular people, in their desire to become ‘modern’ and ‘international’, have gone overboard and thrown away all the norms of propriety of values, dress and behaviour and have started aping blindly those countries which do not share our moral, social and religious norms. The result of this will be that we would have fallen between two stools: neither can we ever be fully westernised nor will we preserve the good values which are an essential part of our heritage.

The conservative elements representing Islam should also be selected with care. Some of these obscurantist, so-called ‘scholars’ are so generous with the belittling of women and their wajib-ul-qatl (liable to be given capital punishment) fatwas that if they had their way there would be beatings and bloodletting in every household. Character assassination, especially of women and scandalous exposures, which go against Islamic values, should be kept in check. The rights of the minorities should also be highlighted, keeping in mind the example of the Prophet (PBUH). Instead of indoctrination of conservative ideas, media ethics based on Islamic values need to be developed.

Once I had the idea that I would try to see a certain media mogul and give him suggestions about how he could play a positive role in changing this country for the better. He could help the non-literate in absorbing certain concepts, such as traffic rules, which they had never had the opportunity to learn.

TV channels should display some ethics and corporate social responsibility by trying to include the rural and the poor population in their audience and plough back some of their profits in trying to bridge this divide. Some time should be dedicated to nation-building, developmental programmes, from adult literacy to awareness of traffic rules, environmental issues such as garbage disposal and conservation of water, moral values such as honesty, respect for other people’s rights such as queuing up and not elbowing out people who were there first.

There can be shows about good techniques in farming, hygiene, nutrition, respect for women, benefits of cooperation and good social values in daily life. There should be follow-up reporting on issues like the earthquake or flood stories, instead of being covered only when they make sensational news.

nilofar.ahmed58@gmail.com

__________________
No signature...

Women’s rights & nikahnama

By Anwar Abbas
Friday, 15 April, 2011


“[IN matters of civilised behaviour] women have the same rights over men as men have over women” — Al Quran (2:228). The Arabs of the ‘age of ignorance’ often indulged in infanticide of girls.

Even a woman in a marriage was not held as an equal companion who participated in the life and decision-making of her husband. She was merely an object of pleasure and the keeper of the man’s house. She was meant to carry out her husband’s commands.

Women had no right to property and no safeguards against ill-treatment by their husbands, fathers or other men folk within or outside the family.

If this description even today resembles the lives led by some men and our social mores it means that a part of society continues to live in the age of darkness. Islam has not touched their lives. There are many verses in the Quran as well as the sayings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and incidents in his personal life and conduct which raised the status of women and gave them many hitherto denied rights.

The first thing Islam did was to declare a genuine equality between the sexes, and no people or community has the right to make changes in the mutual relations ordered by the Almighty. In fact, it is not just a matter of right but also of decent behaviour. Men must learn to treat women with respect and consideration as well as with a sense of justice, both in economic and social relations.

Because women have been the ‘weaker’ sex throughout history, men have been specifically enjoined to see that they are given their due rights and treated fairly. In his final sermon, the Prophet said, “The best of men [before God] is one who deals with his family in the gentlest way possible,” and that “he is the best of believers who is courteous and treats his dependants gently.”

The Quran did not restrict itself to recommending gentle behaviour towards women but also gave specific instructions in matters of inheritance, marriage, divorce, etc. Besides laying down the share of women in inheritance the Quran says, “Men have their share in what they have earned and women have their share in what they have earned” (4:82). This means that women not only have the right over what they have earned but also the freedom to spend it.

The injunction further clarifies that women have the right to earn their living by their own efforts, which is a repudiation of the feudal and conservative mentality that developed later. There are many Quranic verses which specifically enjoin all people, men and women, to work and earn their living by the sweat of their brow. The word for such work is ‘fadl’, which means ‘God’s grace’.

Marriage under Islamic law is not that men and women must be irrevocably yoked together under all circumstances or that women should become an object of mere gratification for the man. Its real purpose is to bring two persons together for a good and decent relationship. This calls for love, a spirit of harmony and a proper discharge of obligations by both. When this higher purpose is lost, it can open the door for separation.

When divorce is unavoidable the Quran lays great stress on the man to be just to the woman who is being divorced. Their parting should not be in anger or spite. It should be a reluctant recognition of the fact that the two have failed to make a success of their marriage. The Quran says: “For divorced women maintenance should be provided on a reasonable basis. This is the duty of righteous men” (2:241). If the Islamic law is followed fully the wife should have the right to divorce and retain her financial benefits agreed to in the marriage contract.

The marriage contract is one of the most important agreements that a bride and a bridegroom agree on to solemnise their union in accordance with the Sharia. But do we treat this agreement with the respect it deserves? In Pakistan, the nikahnama is sometimes modified by maulvis and registrars without the knowledge of the marrying couple, and often with connivance of the groom’s family. The bride’s parents are given false promises and sometimes even subjected to emotional blackmail.

There are widespread reports that nikahnamas are modified and contentious portions deliberately removed to appease the boy’s family. Often the portions that safeguard the girl’s rights and privileges are crossed out with disdain. Even a highly educated bride is kept in the dark and is compelled to sign the document in the midst of din and confusion while she is covered in a ghungat and barely able to uncover her hand to sign this important document. The question of reading it before or after the signing seldom arises.

Such abuse of the nikahnama confronts many couples in Pakistan after they have entered into wedlock. Often, there are greater ramifications for the woman than the man. It is a serious religious and legal document which is given least importance by the families concerned. The issue deserves urgent attention to fulfil the dictates of the Sharia.

Assuming that the abuse of the nikahnama is done intentionally, it a criminal act for which the guardians on both sides and one solemnising the nikah should be held accountable under the relevant laws. There is a dire need to educate society about the meaning of nikah, the rights and privileges that go with it, and to have legal mechanisms that punish violations of the marriage law.

__________________
No signature...