What is Islam about

Hi, this is Jacob de Villiers. I discovered Islam. What?... you might ask? What's an Afrikaner doing being a Moslem? He probably married a moslem girl hey. No, not so. I found something deeper and is now understanding reality. In otherwords, I came out of the unrreal world I have been living in. Let me share the following experience with you.

Jacob

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Holier than thou: Islam and the religious ego

 
 
Holier than thou: Islam and the religious ego
by Asghar Ali Engineer
Back Print
 
Every religion has its own concept of the 'other', specially the 'religious other'. Generally the followers of a religious tradition looked down upon other religious traditions as inferior and less true, if not untrue though it may not be exactly the scriptural position.
 
All of us have our own religious ego, like personal ego. In fact our religious ego is nothing but reflection of our own personal ego. Thus all of us tend to glorify our own religious or faith tradition while devaluing that of others. If we do not find direct support for our 'communal ego' in our scriptures, we choose some verses to so interpret them as to support our own egoistic thinking. There is hardly any exception to this rule except few individuals who have more open mind.
 
Islam arose among Arabs, particularly among those of Mecca. Mecca, a well- developed town on the highway of international trade in the 6th century was divided into different pagan tribes worshipping their own deities though the concept of monotheism was not entirely unknown. Thus in pre-Islamic Arabia there was the 'tribal other' rather than the religious other. Though there were a few Christians but there were so far and few in between that they hardly made ay impact on the Arab society.
 
In Madinah of course there was a considerable presence of Jews, and for pagan Arabs of other tribes there did exist a religious other. However, despite the presence of the religious other in Madinah the real conflict was between tribes rather than between religions. Thus even in Madinah the real other was the tribal, rather than the religious other. In Mecca though there was no concept of a religious other at all. It was for this reason that there was a fierce opposition to the Prophet of Islam when he began to preach the message revealed to him. The Meccan Arabs, for the first time, became aware of a religious other in their own midst.
 
Islam too, did not confront any 'religious other' as far as Mecca was concerned. It was only in Madinah that Islam was pitted against Jews. But right from the beginning the Holy Prophet did not treat the Jews as the 'religious other'. He tried to integrate them in a composite political community through what is known as the Mithaq-i-Madinah (pact of Madinah). This compact was drawn between the Muslims (as newly emergent religious community on the horizon of Arabia), Jews belonging to various different tribes and pagans belonging to various tribes. Thus even in the religious category the 'tribal other' remained an important category.
 
The Mithaq-i-Madinah is a very important political document drawn up by the Prophet (PBUH). It shows the statesmanship of the Prophet and his catholicity towards religious other and also his most modern concept of composite political community. He described this community as Ummah wahidah i.e. one community. Though in other empires of the world religious minorities were tolerated but were given no political rights. It was the Mithaq-i-Madinah, which did. It is interesting to note that the leaders of Jami`at al-`Ulama-i-Hind quoted this political compact drawn up by the Prophet (PBUH) to oppose two nation theory of Jinnah. They maintained that when the Prophet created a composite political community in Madinah why Indian Muslims cannot.
 
It would be interesting to quote from this document drawn up by the Holy Prophet as it helps us to understand the status of the religious other in Islamic community. It is important to note that all scholars are unanimous on the authenticity of this document. In fact, it is a series of pacts signed by the Muslims and several tribes on different dates. Many scholars differ on the dates on which these pacts were signed but there is hardly any doubt about its contents.
 
Barakat Ahmed says in his book Muhammad and The Jews (Delhi, 1979,p-39) "The Sahifah signed by the Muslims and the Jews, and erroneously called 'The Constitution of Medina ', is very important document for the understanding of the status of non-Muslims in a Muslim dominated society. Scholars of all schools of thought, such as Watt, Serjeant and Hamidullah, agree that the document is 'unquestionably authentic'."
 
Barkat also points out that "The Sahifah is actually not the constitution of a state; it lays the guiding principle for building a multi-cultural and multi-religious ummah in which dominant group will always be Muslim." (P-46). But one cannot agree with Barkat Ahmed when he says that the dominant group will always be Muslims. It is his interpretation. In fact, a close look at the document and if the date of its signing - the first year of Hijrah according to Ibn Ishaq in his Sirah - is kept in mind it is obvious that the Muslims were an emerging community, not the dominant community in Madinah then.
 
The non-Muslims had, in the document, security rights equal to all the groups and also equal political and cultural rights with the Muslims. Also, complete religious freedom was guaranteed and all groups were accorded complete autonomy.
 
However, it was also required that Muslims and non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the ummah (which was an inclusive term) and will share the cost of war (in fact there was no state taxation system then and each tribal community had to provide arms, horses and camels for war preparations). Also, the Sahifah said that Muslims and non-Muslims were sincere friends with honourable dealings and no treachery. This is provided in the Article 37 of the document. Significantly it was also provided in the Article 45 that non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in the religious wars of Muslims nor Muslims will be obliged to take part in the religious conflict of the non-Muslim members of the ummah.
 
As there were no Christians in Madinah there is no mention of them in the Sahifah. Had they been present they too, like the Jews, would have been included in the compact. It is borne out from the fact that when a Christian delegation led by Abdul Masih and Bishop Abu Haritha b. 'Alqama visited Madinah, the Messenger of Allah invited the Christians too to join him on the basis of unity of God. It is mentioned in the Qur'an as follows: "O People of the Book! Come to a word equal between us and you that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partner with him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside Allah." (Al-'Imran:64)
 
This invitation to Christians was extended to them after they declined to accept Islam. It clearly means that the Apostle of God honoured the Christians right to freedom of religion and emphasised what was common between them i.e. the Christians and Muslims. This document, it can be said without any exaggeration, was, in fact, foundation of the concept of modern liberal state with different religious communities constituting a single political community (ummah wahidah) which was multi-religious and multi-cultural and also multi-tribal as every tribe was an autonomous entity in every respect including various traditions and cultural practices.
 
It is important to note that freedom of religion is cardinal to the reachings of the Qur'an. It states the doctrine of freedom of religion in different ways. About the Jews it states that "Should they (the Jews) come to thee seeking judgement in a dispute, either judge between them or leave them. If thou keepest away from them, they shall not harm thee at all. But if thou undertakes to judge, then judge between them with equity. Surely Allah loves the just." (Ma'idah, 46-47)
 
If one has to judge with equity one has to judge according to ones own religious beliefs and on which the Jews always insisted. Thus the Prophet judged disputes between Jews according to the Commandments of the Torah. The principle of freedom of religion has been stated directly in the words of the Qur'an often quoted La ikrah fi' al-din (i.e. there is no compulsion in religion). (2:256) It is a clear statement of the freedom of conscience which is a fundamental philosophy of the modern secular state. The religious other cannot be forced into accepting religion much less persecuted on account of ones beliefs, religious or otherwise.
 
In keeping with the ethos of the time, the Qur'an divides people into three religious categories: 1) believers i.e. Muslims or Mu`mins; 2) Ahl al-Kitab i.e. those who possess a revealed Book from Allah like Bible or Torah (and later some Sufis of India included even the Vedas in this category of the revealed scriptures) and 3) kafirs i.e. unbelievers i.e. those who possess neither any scripture nor believe in any Supreme God. The word kafir has been much misunderstood due to its loose usage both by Muslims and non-Muslims.
 
The word Kafir literally means one who hides (truth). One who accepts the truth of other religions cannot be condemned as kafir though many Muslims did use the term in that sense in history (i.e. they used the term kafir for those who were not Muslims though they did believe in Christianity or Judaism). This is not true as far as the Qur'anic usage is concerned. Also, the Holy Prophet and his companions even accepted those not mentioned in the Qur'an as the people of the Book. For example, the Prophet made a treaty with the Zoroastrians of Bahrain as people of the Book. The fourth Caliph Uthman also entered into a similar treaty with the Berbers of Africa though they possessed no scripture of any kind.
 
It was much later that these categories came to be applied narrowly by some rulers and their religious collaborators. It was more due to arrogance of power or for political reasons than on account of the Qur'anic teachings. The category of kafirs was initially sub-divided into harbi and ghayr-harbi kafirs i.e. war-mongering non-believers and those with whom the Muslims have a pact for peace.
 
It is the duty of Muslims to live in peace with those unbelievers who have either a no-war or peace pact with them. War is permitted, as a last resort only with those unbelievers who commit aggression against Muslims. It is clear both in Qur'an and hadith that rights of all non-Muslim citizens whether ahl al-kitab or not i.e. even of unbelievers must be fully protected. As explained above, there cannot be any discrimination in matters of political, religious and cultural rights between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Mithaq-i-Madinah itself makes it quite clear.
 
The Qur'an does not make it obligatory on Muslims to convert others to Islam. Even if they do they should do it with wisdom and goodly manner (16:125). No one is permitted to apply coercion at all. Even aggressive style of d`awah (i.e. mission) is not in keeping with the spirit of the Qur'an. Also, four most fundamental values of the Qur'an are justice ('adl), benevolence (ihsan), wisdom (hikmah) and compassion (rahmah). These values are to be universally applied to entire humanity. And in keeping with the spirit of these values the rights of non-Muslims in a Muslim society must be protected.
 
The Qur'an says, in respect of those non-Muslims with whom there is a pact, "And if they seek help from you in the matter of religion, it is your duty to help (them) except against a people between whom and you there is a treaty. Thus even if Muslims seek help from Muslims against those with whom the Holy Prophet had entered into a treaty, such a request cannot be accepted.
 
Since Allah is just He will reward anyone who submits to His Will and is doing good to others. Thus we find in the Qur'an "Nay, whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others), he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for such nor shall they grieve." (2:112). This verse was revealed in response to the assertion by the Christians and Jews that they alone will enter paradise. Here in this verse it is made clear that all those who surrender to Allah's will and do good to others will receive their reward from their Lord. Salvation does not come merely by following this or that religion. This has also been asserted in the verse 2:62. It says: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."
 
Yet another verse of the Qur'an (16:36) elaborates on the universal approach of the Qur'an in matters of religion. It says, "And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger, saying: Serve Allah and shun the devil. Then of them was he whom Allah guided, and of them was he who inevitably fell into grievous error. So travel in the land and see what happened to those who rejected the truth (mukazzibin)". Thus all those who follow the path of truth as preached by Allah's apostle in their community, will be rewarded and will have nothing to fear.
 
And even if there are disputes in matters of religion it should be left to Allah to decide. It is for us to do good and submit ourselves to the will of Allah and to do justice. Thus the Qur'an says, "I believe what Allah has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. For us are our deeds; and for you your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will gather us together and to Him is the eventual return." (42:15)
 
This verse is crystal clear that there is no use disputing about religious beliefs. We should go on doing good to each other. It is for Allah to judge on the Day of Judgement for what we believe. The real message of the Qur'an is what it calls istibaq al-khayrat (i.e. excelling each other in good deeds). See verses 5:48 and 2:148. But we waste more time in disputing with each other about our beliefs, be they inter-religious or intra-religious rather than excelling each other in good deeds.
 
It is also important to note that Allah has created diversity (5:48) and we should accept it in all humility. Diversity is, in fact our test. Our response should be pluralism i.e. respecting diversity. Human ingenuity also flowers in situation of diversity rather than in situation of monolithic socio-cultural or socio-religious structure. Each religion is unique as Allah has sent His apostles in all communities and nations.
 
The Qur'an advises the believers to live in peace with those who do not harm you or do not derive you away from your hoes and hearths. And the first attempt should be to make peace even with enemies. It is quite likely that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those of them whom you hold as enemies. And Allah is Powerful and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (60:7)
 
In the above verse also it is clear that we should do everything possible to remove causes of hostility and forgive our enemies, as Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. To live in peace with others is our religious duty. The religious other should not be treated as enemy just because he/she follows another religion. The Qur'an not only teaches tolerance for others but goes a step further and makes it obligatory on Muslims to treat all prophets of Allah with equal respect and those who do not do that are not real believers.
 
Thus it is obligatory for Muslims to treat all prophets of Allah before Muhammad (PBU) with equal respect. In the hadith literature (Sahih al-Bukhari 9:5) we find the Prophet (PBUH) saying that "do not give me prefernce over the other prophetsÉ" And the Prophet had said this after a Muslim had slapped a Jew for saying that Moses was above all human beings and refused to say that Muhammad was also above all human beings.
 
Thus Islamic teachings were far ahead of its times for showing not only tolerance but equal respect for others prophets and founders of religions. It was so far ahead that even Muslims could not appreciate it adequately. Though the Qur'an does not mention non-Biblical prophets but has made it clear that the list of the names of the prophets given is not exhaustive but only illustrative.
 
And since the Qur'an also maintains that Allah has sent His prophets to all the nations many Islamic thinkers, theologians and Sufi saints have concluded that there are Allah's prophets in non-Biblical communities also. Some Sufi Saints like Mazhar Jani Janan even maintain that the highly revered religious personalities in India like Ram and Krishna could also be the prophets of God. But even if they are not, Muslims should not show any disrespect to them according to the Qur'an verse 6:109.
 
As pointed out above it is Allah's will to have diversity in the world and believers have to live with the diversity in a way, which will promote peace and harmony. Our world is now becoming increasingly diverse with faster means of communication in our globalised world. Though there has always been diversity throughout history there is much more today and it is becoming a challenge for us.
 
Religion is an identity marker and in this increasing diversity we want to preserve our identity even with more vigour for fear of losing it. Now there are two ways of preserving ones religious identity: either in a negative way or a positive way. The negative way is to have un-respectful or even hostile attitude towards other religious identities and the positive way is to distinguish oneself through uniqueness of ones religious beliefs while maintaining a positive attitude towards others beliefs and identities. Normally most of the people follow the positive course.
 
But as we have discovered in democracy and in the situation of diversity, vested interests Ð more often political Ð manipulate religious identities for communal support and clash is artificially created. One has to meet this challenge continuously in day to day life. Often powerful religious symbols, which are part of these identities, are used to promote hatred and conflict. The most recent case in India is that of Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid issue.
 
Both Ramjanambhoomi and Babri Masjid are powerful symbols and have emotional appeal. The Hindutva forces, in order to enhance their political appeal, manipulated this identity marker and brought about tremendous conflict resulting in bloodshed. We have to be wary of these religious symbols. It is to be clearly understood that it is not religion per se but its followers with powerful vested interests manipulate its emotional appeal for their own purposes.
 
As far as Muslims are concerned they live either in majority situation or in minority situation in this diverse world. Where they are in majority it should be their religious duty, in keeping with the Qur'anic spirit and hadith teaching to treat non-Muslim minorities in an honourable and respectful manner. It is also to be noted that in the modern democratic world there is no 'political other'. All should have equal citizens' rights. Politically it is not religion but citizenship, which is important. Citizenship should not be determined on the basis of ones religion. Thus Muslim countries should not distinguish on the basis of religion as far as citizenship is concerned. Dhimmi, it should be noted, was a political category and was most important political category in its own time. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) took upon himself to fully protect dhimmis (i.e. the religious other) and exhorted Muslims repeatedly, as we see in the hadith literature, to treat dhimmis with great responsibility (dhimmi itself means for which Muslims were responsible).
 
But today this category has been replaced by the notion of citizenship. And all citizens should enjoy equal rights be they political, cultural or religious. Similarly the Muslims in minority situation (i.e. where Muslims are in minority) should enjoy equal political, religious and cultural rights. According to the Quran all children of Adam are equally honourable (17:70) irrespective of their caste, creed, race or tribe. This verse clearly establishes the doctrine of human rights and the concept of human rights is most fundamental to the philosophy of democracy.
 
Thus while religion is most important in giving meaning to our lives, it should be divested of its political implications. A composite and diverse political community should be treated as political ummah as the Prophet did after coming to Madinah. It is this concept of composite ummah wahidah (one political community) enjoying equal political, religious and cultural rights is most valid category in the modern world.
 
Thus Islam is most respectful of both the religious and political other. It does not treat either 'religious other' or 'political other' with a sense of hostility but, on the contrary, it makes it obligatory on Muslims to concede all rights to them and treat them with full respect. It believes in dialogue rather than in confrontation (see Qur'an ,29:46). And dialogue and diversity are the very basis of a democracy. And both are upheld by the Qur'an.
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
 
end
This message is subject to Metropolitans disclaimer pertaining to electronic communications. To view the disclaimer please visit http://www.metropolitan.co.za/disclaimer

Did Abraham Tell a Lie?

Message
 

Did Abraham Tell a Lie?
By Abu Samad, Nayeem Akhtar, M.D. (abusamad@hotmail.com <
mailto: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?

Message
 

 

Are Women to be beaten?

 

004.034
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafitha
tun 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.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

I was scared too!!!

Message
used to be scared of Islam until my children grew up and acknowledged the fact they are harvesting the fruit of their father's uncompromising attitude towards them. My Allah is A living and Lasting God (2:256) The Lord of all creation (1:2) The Gracious, the Merciful (1:3) The Almighty (29:43) All-hearing, all-knowing (5:77) The Wise (34:2) The Forgiving (34:3) The Bountiful (27:41) The Loving (11:91) The Creator, the Maker (59:25) The high, the Great (2:256) The Holy (10:69) The Lord of all praise, Owner of all glory (31:13) The One, the Supreme (39:5) Who is free from all wants (64:7) Begets none and is begotten by no one, and has none as His equal (112:4-5) Who guides men 10:36, 33:5) Hear prayers (2:187) Speaks to such of them as fulfil His covenant (3:77& 42:52) Punishes the transgressors (48:18) Reward those who do good (6:84) Love those who do good (2:196) Our attitude towards Him has to be that of complete submission (3:20) Why should I be scared of Him and His commandments.This freed me from all shackles of self-imposed asperities and since the day I am fully satisfied with my life, enjoying bounties of my Nourisher without doing anything except enjoying the company of my internet friends.
 

Dont ever take sides with anyone against the family

Message
Disloyalty is a character flaw

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.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

How Esteemed is Dr Zakir Naik?

Message
How Esteemed is Dr Zakir Naik?

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?

Message
 

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 jugaaliwe 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 jugaaliwe will be able to “reach out to the unknown”. Without this jugaalithe 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.