by Asghar Ali Engineer
Back Print
Back Print
In this section
Bohra literature
Publications
Islamic perspective
Features
The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. (And he goes through life, his mouth open and his mind closed.)' - Oscar Wilde
Did Abraham Tell a Lie?
By Abu Samad, Nayeem Akhtar, M.D. (abusamad@hotmail.com <
- Ibrahim broke the Idols and then lied about it, how true is this concept?
- He placed the axe on the shoulder of the big idol to shift accountability, right?
- Also, he gave false evidence to the priests, right?
- Then he blamed the chief idol, you agree?
- He recognized the power of the idols - they can work, think, act and quarrel, right?
- Ibrahim is such a dishonest prophet! Right?
Lets find out the truth!
Ibrahim(pbu) is one of the most prominent prophets of Islam. Allah(swt) addressed him as 'friend'. He is the chief architect to build the original Kaba. The religion Islam inherited so many things directly from him. Many scholars say that he founded the religion Islam in the first place. The very ritual of animal sacrifice at the time of Id-ul-Adha is based on the incidence pertaining to Ibrahim(pbu). Most of the rituals of annual Hajj is based on commemorating prophet Ibrahim(pbu). Other than our very own prophet Muhammad(pbuh), he is the only prophet who we Muslims mention in each prayer. We seek to Allah(swt) to bless us as He blessed the followers of prophet Ibrahim(pbu).
Ironically, many Muslims derive immense pleasure when they knowingly and unknowingly denigrate such a great prophet. These Muslims derive satisfaction when they claim that this great prophet practiced wrong doings. Due to our sheer ignorance, these Muslims see many of our prophets as cheat, liar, supporter of idolatry, instigator of shirk and guilty of many other crimes.
Did Ibrahim(pbu) tell lies?
Most of the Muslims have come to accept that Ibrahim(pbu) used to tell lies. They believe that according to records, he told lies in three major occasions! They gather false or weak Hadith to support their ignorant claims, they gather endorsement by contemporary scholars who also think Ibrahim(pbu) told lies. Most Muslims accept the pronouncement of these scholars on its face value and never question if such a great prophet could ever do such a crime. These Muslims read one or two incorrect translations and think well, the Quran says Ibrahim(pbu) lied. Whereas, in reality the Quran never said that Ibrahim(pbu) lied. It is these scholars of Islam who are acting dishonestly and falsifying the truth. They are suggesting that telling occasional lies are accepted norm of Islam. Prophets did it!!!! The Quran specifically tells in verse 3:161 that no prophet could act dishonesty.
3:161 No prophet could (ever) act dishonestly if any person acts dishonestly he shall, on the Day of judgement, restore what he misappropriated..... (Yusuf Ali's translation)
We know the incidence of Idol breaking by prophet Ibrahim(pbu). Time and again we have heard stories of how he broke the idols with an axe, sleazy details of how he placed the axe on the shoulder of a big idol. Then when he was questioned, how he told the audience that he did not break the idols, rather the big idol broke the smaller ones!
These scholars invented various sections and sub sections of self made injunctions to declare that under certain circumstances it is permissible to tell lies! You will find lengthy writing by such scholars whereby they justify and mystify Ibrahim's lies. They will argue with you saying how could Ibrahim(pbu) tell the truth in front of the audience who would have killed him if he told the truth! So according to them it was OK when he resorted to falsification for the sake of truth!
Will someone answer if he could not tell the truths in front of an audience why was he a prophet in the first place? What kind of a prophet was he who preached falsehood and lies rather than the Truth? Was he preaching Islam mixed with falsehood and lies, because he was afraid of crowds?
Analysis of verse 21:63
Verse 21:63 is the only place in the Quran where the events leading to Ibrahim(pbu) breaking the idols are described. First let us critically analyze the verse and understand the meaning of each of the words in the sentence.
Qala: He said
Bal: But, of course, by all means, indeed, rather
F'alahu: (passive participle) someone did it
Kabiruhum: The big one of them
Haza: This
F'asaalu hum: Ask them, question them
In: If
Kaanu yantiqun: They can speak, they can talk,
It is very important to note that there is a small punctuation mark signifying pause (waqf) in the sentence right after 'Qaala bal f'aalahu'. According to Arabic grammar, the meaning of the punctuation (waqf) is much like comma (,) usage in English. This sign alone or in combination of circle or other word means a very brief pause. The reader may pause here briefly, but is recommended to continue with the sentence. The sign simply demarcates one part of the sentence from the other in bringing out the meaning. If this sign means absolutely nothing, why is it inserted here? Why is the sentence not like another sentence where the sign is not at all there? Obviously, the insertion of the sign bears some significance. Strangely enough, the under-mentioned scholars refuse to pause or acknowledge the presence of this punctuation mark, rather they want to pause at a different place of their choice.
Samples of Incorrect Translations
Here are some examples of famous commentators who became victims of wrong translation. If you do not see names of other familiar commentators of the Qur-an here, most likely they have translated this verse correctly.
Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:
(Abraham) said: "Nay, this one, the biggest of them (idols) did it. Ask them if they can speak!"
Yusuf Ali:
He said: "Nay, this was done by this The biggest one! Ask them if they can talk."
Rashad Khalifa:
He said, "It is the big one who did it. Go ask them, if they can speak."
J.M. Rodwell:
He said: "Nay, that their chief hath done it; but ask ye them, if they can speak."
T.B. Irving:
He said, "Rather the biggest one of them did it. Ask them if they are able to speak up."
Ahmad Ali:
"No", he said, "It was done by that chief of theirs. Ask him in case they can speak."
Muhammad Sarwar:
I think the biggest one of them has broken the smaller ones. Ask them if they are able to speak.
N.J. Dawood:
'No', re replied, 'It was their chief who smote them. Ask them if they can speak.'
Muhammad Asad:
He answered: "Nay, it was this one, the biggest of them, that did it; but ask them [yourselves] - provided they can speak."
Pickthall:
He said: But this, their chief hath done it. So question them, if they can speak.
Ibrahim did not reply saying "No"
When Ibrahim(pbu) was asked whether he broke the idols, his reply was very tactful. Neither did he say 'Yes', nor did he say 'No'. His answer was passive "someone did it." This "someone" could be him, another person or the big idol or just anybody. There was no dearth of truth that someone truly did it. Instead of asking him, he wanted the audience to ask the victims directly. Let the victims testify if they can. The audience realized that these idols that they think as their gods, couldn't even protect themselves! How on earth these idols can be their gods! They realized futility of idol worshipping.
Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan, Ahmad Ali, Asad, Dawood and Rodwell used the word "No" or "Nay" - to mean that Ibrahim(pbu) flatly denied that he broke the idols. In the Arabic verse 21:63 there is no word that would mean "Nay". So how on earth these commentators found this negation? What are they trying to justify? The verse does not say Ibrahim(pbu) blamed the biggest idol. If he said "No" - that is a lie, if he said the biggest idol broke it, that is another lie. So it is a lie upon a lie. Some commentators made him lie once, some twice. But all of them made him guilty of several other offences in addition to telling lies. How did the scholars commit such a major mistake? The answer is simple:
1st , they ignored the punctuation sign,
2nd, they changed the position of words in the Arabic verse,
3rd, they changed the grammar of the Arabic verse,
4th, or they blindly followed the interpretation of Ibn Kathir et. al., without critically analyzing the verse
5th, and most likely these scholars were influenced by the oft-repeated story of Ibrahim telling lies
All the commentators translated the verse as: Bal haza kabiruhum fa'lahu. According to them the meaning of this transposed verse is:
Rather/No, This big one of them did it.
This translation is grammatically not correct to the Arabic words. Fa'lahu, a passive participle, does not mean "did it" - rather "someone did it".
Why a wrong interpretation?
The wrong interpretation evolved due to a "minor" mistake made by earlier scholars. This small mistake slowly gathered more dirt as time passed by. Ibn-Kathir and some other tafseer understood it in the wrong way. Yusuf Ali, Rodwell and Pickthall understood it that way without applying reasoning. The later day commentators simply followed them blindly. The result is that these contemporary commentators changed the words of Allah! Close attention to the verse 21:63 reveals that there is no word that would mean "No" or "Nay". We all regard Ibn-Kathir as a great commentator of the Quran. However, he was no more than a human being - he was subject to err like any other human being. Contrary to the verse 3:161, the conventional interpretation of the idol-breaking incidence suggest prophets can act dishonestly. It would be wrong to ascribe unquestionable authority on Ibn Kathir et.al. It would be wrong to perceive him as infallible. If his commentary goes against teachings of the Quran, we must give importance to the Quran and not his or any other commentary.
The Quran does not say Ibrahim(pbu) used an axe to break the idols. He could have broken those fragile idols by hand, by smashing them on the floor or by striking them with any object. Use of an 'axe' was probably invented to bring in some ferocity in the prophet's temper and action. The Quran does not say the infamous 'axe' was placed on the shoulder of the biggest idol. This is another invention of the story-tellers. Benefit of doubt may be given to the use of an 'axe' , but Ibrahim never ever placed the axe on the shoulder of the biggest idol.
Just a Lie? Or More Serious Offence?
In order to validate the conventional understanding and one weak (false!) Hadith, should we still accuse Ibrahim(pbu) of false statement? Is this just a lie or is there other serious offence in here? Many people incessantly tried to justify that Ibrahim could tell lies, or it is permissible to tell lies under certain circumstances. The moment we put the word "No" in Ibrahim's(pbu) mouth, we are making him culprit of several other grave offence as under:
1. Ibrahim(pbu) is telling an outright lie. A lie is a lie is a lie.
2. When Ibrahim(pbu) blamed the biggest idol, he is avoiding accountability by blaming a third person (object).
3. When asked if he broke the idols, Ibrahim(pbu) is giving a false deposition in front of the gathering.
4. By admitting that the biggest idol broke the smaller ones, Ibrahim(pbu) is standing a false witness.
5. Ibrahim(pbu) being a staunch critique of idol worshipping, at least at that moment admitted that biggest idol has ability to act and do things that idols cannot do. This is nothing but supporting idolatory.
Will any civilized society and nation of past and present accept false witness, false deposition, lies, shifting accountability etc as acceptable practice? Is any of this acceptable practice in Islam? Does Islam teach us these crimes? If you commit any of these crimes, will Allah forgive you? You tell me.
Are Women to be beaten?
004.034
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
KHALIFA: The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.
Fadribuhunne
The enemies of Islam throw this verse at us to show how we are allowed to use violence against women. Many of us have heard this criticism from Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc. that "Verse 4:34 of the Quran orders believers to beat their wives; so, Islam is a male dominant religion." Our scholars valiantly try to explain this away by insisting it must a be light stroke, it should not leave a mark or use a scarf to symbolically show her your dissatisfaction etc..etc. All kinds of explanations are offered but unfortunately we fail to let the Quran explain Itself. Lets see what the verse means:
How does Allah, the Most Wise order us to beat our women? What kind of solution is that? It is in contrast to the verses in which Allah describes marriage:
"Among His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other. He places in your heart love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are signs for people who think." (30:21)
Obviously, this mixed messages have bothered many contemporary translators of the Quran. To avoid the moral and intellectual problems, they tried to soften the word "beat" when they translate the verse 4:34. For instance, Yusuf Ali uses a merciful parentheses after "beat" to save women:
". . . As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly). . ." (4:34)
Many tried to "beat" around the bush to "beat" the problem generated by the "beat" of 4:34.
Most translations have mistranslated the four key words or terms of this particular verse. These are:
"Qawwamune," "Faddallallahu ba'dahum ala ba'd," "Nushuzehunne," and "Fadribuhunne." Lets focus on the last word, "Fadribuhunne."
A Famous Multi-Meaning Word
The problem comes from the word "Idribuhunne" which we used to translate as "beat them". The root of this word is "DaRaBa". If you look at any Arabic dictionary or lexicon, we will find a long list of meanings ascribed to this word. That list is one of the longest list in the whole Arabic dictionary.According to Edib Yuksel, a Turkish scholar, "DaRaBa" is the number-one multi-meaning word in Arabic. It has so many different meanings, we can find numerous different meanings ascribed to it in the Quran.
To travel, to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
To beat: 8:50; 47:27
To set up: 43:58; 57:13
To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
To take away, to ignore: 43:5
To condemn: 2:61
To seal, to draw over: 18:11
To cover: 24:31
To explain: 13:17
As we can see, in the Quran we can witness the verb "DaRaBa" having at least ten different meanings.
"DaRaBa" has also other meanings which are not mentioned in the Quran. For example, in the Arabic language, you do not print money--you "DaRaBa" money, you do not multiply numbers--you "DaRaBa" numbers, you do not cease the work--you "DaRaBa" the work. In English we have two verbs which are almost equivalent to "DaRaBa". These are "strike" and "beat".
Webster's Dictionary gives fourteen meanings to the verb "strike": hit (against); ignite; (of snake) bite; (of plants) (cause to) take root; attack; hook (fish); sound (time) as bell in clock etc.; affect; arrive at, come upon; enter mind of; discover (gold, oil etc.); dismantle, remove; make (coin); cease work as protest or to make demands. The same dictionary gives eight meanings to the verb "beat": strike repeatedly; overcome; surpass; stir vigorously with striking action; flap (wings); make, wear (path); throb; sail against wind.
In the beginning of this article we used "beat" in three different meanings in a single statement just to show the variety of meanings in a single word. In English, when we order someone to "beat it" we mean "get out". Similarly in Arabic, when we order someone with the commend form of "DaRaBa", that is "iDRiB", we mean "get out".
How Can We Find The Appropriate Meaning
When we encounter a multi-meaning word, we select the proper meaning according to the context, forms, and common sense. For instance, if we had have translated "DaRaBa" in 13:17 as "beat" instead of "explain", the meaning would be ridiculous:
. . . Allah thus beats the truth and falsehood." (13:17)
Another example of mistranslation of "DaRaBa" can be found in the translation of 38:44. Most translations inject a male-made story to justify their translation. Here is how Yusuf Ali translates the verse about Nabie Ayoub:
"And take in the hand a little grass, and strike therewith: and break not (the oath)."
Yusuf Ali, in the footnote narrates the traditional story: "He (Job) must have said in his haste to the woman that he would beat her: he is asked now to correct her with only a wisp of grass, to show that he was gentle and humble as well as patient and constant."
However, without injecting this story, we can translate it as the following:
"Now, you shall travel the land to fulfill your pledge (that is to deliver the message)." We found him steadfast. What a good servant! He was a submitter. (38:44)
Let's turn back to 4:34
Additionally, the word "Nushuz" which is generally translated as "opposition" has another meaning which can be translated as degrees of disloyalty ranging from flirtation to sexual liaison. If we study 4:34 carefully we will find a clue that leads us to translate that word as "flirting or cheating" or "extramarital affair" (Any word or words that reflect the range of disloyalty in marriage). The clue is the phrase before "Nushuz" as reads: ". . . and observe Allah's commandments, even when alone in their privacy." This phrase emphasizes the importance of loyalty in marriage life.
Furthermore, the same word "Nushuz" is used in 4:128, but it is used to describe the misbehavior of husbands not wives as was in 4:34. So, the traditional translation of "Nushuz", that is, "opposition" will not fit here. In vertical relations, "opposition" cannot be a double-edged behavior. So, translators try to avoid this contradiction by ascribing just the opposite meaning of "opposition", i.e., "oppression" in verse 4:128. However, the meaning of "Nushuz" as "disloyalty" is appropriate for both cases described in 4:34 and 4:128.
A Coherent Understanding
When we read 4:34 we should not understand "idribuhunne" as "beat those women". We must remember that this word has many meanings. Allah gives us three ways of dealing with extra-marital-affair. In the beginning stage of such misbehavior husband should start from giving advice. If it does not work and she goes further and commit a proven adultery, that time husband has the right to strike them out (4:34 & 65:1).
Let's present a beautiful suggestion for the translation of verse 4:34 derived from the Quran Itself:
"Men traditionally take care of women, since Allah has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme." (4:34).
Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too.
I think loyalty is one of the oldest ethical principles in existence. History is full of tales of treason, but there are not that many about loyalty. That shows that loyalty is the more common of the two and isn’t actually news. In other words, more people are loyal towards each other than are disloyal. Perhaps I should say, rather, that this is how it was in the old days, because I get the feeling that disloyalty is more prevalent in modern times. And it seems to me that it’s not a disgrace anymore either, as it was in the old days.
Rhoda Kadalie wrote this about Van Zyl Slabbert in Die Burger of 15 May 2010: “He gave up his seat in parliament to serve the new order, but was spat out by the Mbeki regime.” To progress from young Afrikaner leader as Head Boy of an Afrikaans school in Pietersburg to a renegade spat out by the ANC is quite a detour to take. I always wonder whether Slabbert could not have played a greater role for our country by rather leading his own Afrikaner compatriots towards a new dispensation, but instead he became leader of his people’s opposition.
During any war loyalty is highly regarded, and those who are disloyal are considered disgraceful, but in times of peace they, like Slabbert, receive acknowledgement in certain circles as being “enlightened and far ahead of their time”. In times of war the traitors and joiners are executed by firing squad, and in times of peace they become honoured leaders of the opposition. What a strange world!
The irony is that even criminals, amongst whom one expects a total decay of ethical values, place a very high premium on loyalty. The famous words of the Mafia’s Godfather are: “Don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family.” And we know what they did with people who turned against the family, because these words spoken by the Godfather were usually also the last words that the disloyal person heard.
I use words such as compatriots and family, but these are not the only places where loyalty is applicable. It’s definitely also valid in the marriage, business and groups that you belong to. Over the years I have often experienced disloyalty, and true to my nature, I always act quickly to eradicate it. During the good years the potential traitors are your best and most loyal friends, but as soon as the bad times comes knocking at the door, they only want to look after themselves. As soon as the good times arrive again, as they always do, they are eager to return – and some people will actually take them back. Never do this! They will betray you again, because that is how they are!
I believe that disloyalty cannot be cured, because it is a character flaw, and character flaws are incurable. Be grateful if you detect it early in your relationship with someone, and rid yourself of someone like this immediately – regardless of whether it’s a spouse, partner, team member, employee or friend.
The issue of apostacy is so important as it affects human lives.
I am quoting two verses from the Quran for Dr Zakir Naik to read:-
4:137 Those who believe, then disbelieve and again believe, then disbelieve, and thus grow stubborn in denial of the Truth, God will not preserve them against the Law of Requital, nor will He intervene to walk them through on to the Way.
2:256 (Although this Message has been sent down by the Almighty) there is absolutely no compulsion or coercion in Religion. Whoever rejects false gods (such as the clergy, human ‘authorities’) and attains conviction in God, has grasped the Unbreakable Support. And God is Hearer, Knower.
Sadly Dr Zakir equates apostacy with treason. In every land treason against the state is a capital offence and brings the death sentence, especially during war times.
Religion has at its core a set of personal beliefs and if these change the Quran is quite clear that this is a matter of free choice, the results of which will be determined by Allah, not some Mullah. Hence, treason is not the same as changing ones belief, however much Dr Zakir wants us to believe it is so.
A few more verses for those who do not accept the Quran as the ultimate authority to live by:-
2:170 When it is said unto these (satans), "Follow what God has revealed", they say, "Nay! We follow that wherein we found our ancestors.” "What! Even though their ancestors (and the ancient Imams) were lacking in understanding and were not rightly guided?”
[18:29, 31:22. No compulsion in matters of religion - This Rule shall have no exceptions since Right has been distinguished from Wrong. (3:4). At-Taaghoot = Those who, in rebellion to the One True God, claim to have Divine powers or try to portray themselves as His representatives = Sufis, mystics, priesthood, clergy, tyrants. Tagha = Rebellion. Idols of stones cannot rebel, hence, they cannot be At-Taaghoot]
2:257 God becomes the Close Guide of those who, after due reflection, have chosen to believe in His Word (12:108). He brings them out of darkness into Light (through the Qur’an). Those who deny the Divine System of Life have human "authorities" as patrons to lead them from Light to darkness. Such people have chosen Fire to be their eternal companion.
Let me a say a few more things about the ‘legendary’ Dr. Zakir Naik:
Death punishment for Apostate. See this video for the evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ44MDiwUkk
Dr. Zakir Naik is wrong! The Qur'an does not prescribe the death penalty for any apostate--but ALL 5 madhabs ( 4 Sunni + one Shia) do. Dr. Zakir Naik agrees with mullahs. Is he any different from them?
Here is another video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOog2NmrXgI
This video is irrefutable evidence that Dr. Zakir Naik justifies Saudi Arabia's law of not allowing the building of any churches/synagogues in Saudi Arabia. Let me ask:
Why is he and the Saudi scholars so afraid of other religions? Why do they feel so insecure to prevent the building of worship places in their countries? Yet it is ok to build mosques in western countries? If Islam is Haqq (truth)--and I believe it is--than why do we not allow other human beings to follow their own religions--especially when churches and synagogues are, according to the Qur'an, places where God's name is mentioned!
Just the other day, I saw a feature about the Hindu’s not being able to have/build their “shamshaan ghaat” for handling their dead according to the Hindu rituals in the Khaibar Pakhtoonkhawa province of Pakistan. They are compelled to bury their dead in a Muslim cemetery in Dera Ismail Khan! Is that what “No compulsion in religion” means???
ALL 5 major religions have this horrible stoning law in their Shar'ia and I have not seen a single instance where Dr. Zakir Naik ever differed from traditional “ulema”. Many major Ulema are—as they should be—against terrorism and suicide bombing but even those seem to add “so what, there is terrorism in other countries/religions as well”. As Dr. Naik puts it “Hitler killed 6 million Jews and he was a Christian etc”. This is a strange logic which is accepted without question. Hitler did not kill Jews under any religious edict or conviction. We do not find much of Jesus in his life.
You can also listen to Dr. Israr Ahmed –another so-called “great scholar” of Islam who points out that ALL Qadianis should have been killed when they were declared non-Muslims!! Please go to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYymQm461Mk
The real Islam is not by ‘terrific memory” and going around lecturing to the choir—it is by diligent study of the Qur’an and preaching of its true precepts and there are plenty of arguments there in favour of “No compulsion”, “No stoning for adultery”, and “All life is sacred and do not take it except in justice’.
But both Drs—Zakir Naik and Israr Ahmed are Qur’an-illiterate. They are stark idiots—doing much more damage to Islam than the “non-Muslims” can ever imagine.
How Educated Are Our Educated?
Please allow me to ask this question. In my humble opinion our educated, too, are not educated – generally speaking. This is because of a faulty education system which does not enable one to “creatively reach out to the unknown” and does not motivate one to “develop a well-organized (coherent) body of ideas”. I will believe that our educated are truly educated when I will find that they have developed a holistic outlook. As long as they will continue to look at things piecemeal with an atomistic approach and will not worry about the whole picture I will hesitate considering them educated. I will hesitate considering them educated as long as they do not mind running into self-contradictory situations every now and then unmindful of the fact that TRUTH is free from self-contradiction.
Our educated are not educated unless they think differently. Unless they look at the things differently. Currently, they hold the same opinions which the uneducated and the less blessed among Muslims hold. The only difference is that the latter are not able to articulate those opinions as eloquently as the former are. Our educated are not truly educated if they, too, react to the situations emotionally. If they do not take the discussions to the final conclusions, they are not really educated.
In almost all aspects of our life we need to adopt a different approach. Almost about all the issues we need to think differently. There are numberless notions that we have inherited from the past and we are passing them on without scrutinizing them. If we do so, our future generations will most likely do the same. The most crucial area that requires rethinking is the divide between deen and dunyaa and deeni and dunyaawee ‘uloom. Apparently many among us do not believe in this divide. But in reality even those who do not subscribe to this divide keep dividing the same at the deep psychological level. This I notice on a daily basis. And among the educated.
Our educated, too, have plenty of preconceived notions. We ALL need to carry out an exercise which could be termed as “jugaali” – for want of a better expression. I am not aware of its English equivalent. Did not search for it either as I thought that no translation can probably convey the essence.
This “jugaali” we are not used to. We have not developed a habit of “staying with the problems longer”. We get bored and then change the topic half-way. Hence, we are back to ground zero – most of the time. The educated among us should have been more patient and keener to find out the truth (reaching out to the “unknown”). They are not quite concerned about it. Who else will be concerned about it is beside the point.
Only with “jugaali” we will be able to “reach out to the unknown”. Without this “jugaali” the fodder will not become food. It will not become juzw-e-badan. It has not become despite so many colleges, Universities and various other seats of learning. Our education system does not teach the art of this “jugaali”. It makes us master the art of “vomiting”.
I wish we could hear what the Muslim Ummah says to and wants from us. I don’t know if we have any tools to listen to its call. It could have spoken clearly and audibly. But there is too much noise. To make the matters worse, we have stuffed something in our ears and have that education system which makes us mired into the parts – leaving the whole beyond our reach and perspective (“Yet they divided themselves into factions, each rejoicing in what they had. So leave them in their bewilderment for a while.” (al-Mu’minoon, 23: 53). This is particularly symptomatic of our ‘religious’ organizations. The confluence of the two divergent streams of knowledge is not our concern. In other words, the dissipation of our energies and resources is not a cause of worry for us.
The example of our educated, too, is the proverbial ‘watching of an elephant by the a few blind men’. They all described the elephant as per the parts which they had touched. They could not describe the elephant as a whole because of not being able to see the entire mammoth animal. Ours is the same situation which is proved by the directionlessness of our efforts and the partial outlook that we have towards life. We are standing at various stations in our cognition and are passing judgements from there without trying to map the entire journey and decide the final destination (a VISION) – as regards this world. I kind of think that without our maximum efforts to turn this world into a veritable paradise our desire for Paradise will be and is hollow.
I have hardly seen any modern educated among Muslims who is concerned with the whole picture. I haven’t found them quite keen on putting all the bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together in order to see the whole picture. They are as much atomistic in thinking as are the uneducated. Remaining contented with the atomistic thinking defeats the purpose of education. This is because “the whole has a value which the parts do not”. The whole has an extra property / quality which is missing in the parts.
The thankfulness is missing from among the educated as it may be missing from the uneducated. The educated were expected to be more and more thankful and should have spread this thankfulness among the masses. They have done just the opposite. This is in stark contrast of the injunctions of the Book. No surprises. Because our Right Hands are empty anyways. We will remain uneducated unless we think differently which is what the Book teaches us. The educated and uneducated both will blame the communal forces and both are equally oblivious of the fact that we have significantly contributed towards the communalism of the majority community.
Our educated ignore larger issues and are mired into smaller ones as much as our uneducated and less fortunate ones are. From this yardstick, too, I do not find much difference. Our educated will also discuss the utilities of the modern tools and gadgets as do the uneducated and the ignorant. Our educated will also not mind feeding the problems and starving the opportunities as the uneducated might do. Our educated, too, will spread negativity as do the less educated. Our educated too will instil in the mind of the twelfth player that he is the twelfth player and the twelfth player will remain the twelfth player. But the one who says it is himself a contradiction of his own claim.
Our educated will vehemently criticise the West for all its misdeeds. But he will not have any positive program for the same West and will almost discount it from the purview of the dominion of Almighty and our field of action. He will benefit the most from the West – at the personal level – but will react differently to all the emotive issues without realizing the implications.
Our educated will also learn wrong lessons from the right stories. An incident will occur and they too will react in a manner less desired, I guess. For instance, discrimination in services and selection in various competitions may be a reality. Instead of doubling the efforts many among our youngsters get disheartened before even the outset and get de-motivated. This they have learnt from their older generations. The ban on the entry of our speakers in certain countries was a story and a right one. We learnt wrong lessons from that right (factually correct) story. We learn history. We should learn from those events which divided the Ummah. But we refocus on the same issues over and again. Hence, history becomes counterproductive as it does exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to.
Our educated, too, are not transformed into leaders with the power of critical and scientific thinking. They, too, will wait for a leader to mysteriously arrive from somewhere and carry out the specific jobs. When asked about the kind of job they expected from the awaited leader they will not have a much clear idea about it. When asked what questions that awaited leader will answer, they will not be quite specific about it either.
Our educated, too, do not really appreciate the value of ideas. Just as the non-educated don’t. Our educated, too, will talk less of ideas and more of persons. No matter how many times they are reminded to discuss issues they will not do so. They will again start talking about persons. They are the ones expected to address the issues in a dispassionate manner. They will address the issues in every other manner except the dispassionate one.
Our educated, too, do not worry about the common thread and a connecting link between all that they say, write and do. They do not worry about the fact that all their speeches and writings as well as actions should support each other and should not run counter to any of the injunctions of the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah. Not being careful about it, we say one thing now and counter it the very next minute. It happens so frequently that one is surprised at this phenomenon. Resultantly, we remain a confused lot. We don’t find (and don’t really seek) a clear direction. I am not sure how long will we persist in this situation.
Did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever contradict himself? Didn’t he have the complete picture? Why his followers don’t? Did he support one thing on one day and opposed it the other day? Was his outlook atomistic or holistic? Did he have a positive program and a mission, too, for the entire world – despite the fact that he fought with enemies as and when demanded by the circumstances? We need to learn from the school of our Prophet (pbuh) and the Textbook.
The incoherence (disorganization) of ideas (bey rabtiy-e afkaar) – in the traditionally and modern educated alike – is the menace. It is the real culprit. And we need to fight with it to the last soldier.
Thanks and salaam.