Saif Mahmood - It is not enough for Muslims to say that terrorists misinterpret Islam
I am amused when I am
often asked to present a “liberal Muslim viewpoint” on an issue. Why am I considered a
“liberal Muslim” ? I was born a Muslim.
As a child, I was made to read the Quran in Arabic – a language I do not
understand – by rote. I was tutored in the essentials of faith by a
neighbourhood maulavi through a book written for young Muslim
boys in the early years of the last century on the correct methods of
performing ablutions, praying, fasting, and compensating for doing all or any
of this in an impermissible way.
But I also attended
English medium schools, participated in Diwali pujasat the
neighbours, celebrated Raksha Bandhan in school, earned a
number of degrees, joined the bar, made English my language of communication,
travelled the world wearing western suits and wrote and spoke extensively on
‘non-religious’ matters. So perhaps this makes me a “liberal”. Together, these attributes
perhaps make me a “liberal Muslim” – a favourite commodity for TV channels
debating anything from Triple Talaq to Ramzan terrorism.
As Television Rating
Points enthusiasts rejoice in this discovery, I ask myself : Is it possible to
be a liberal and a Muslim at the same time? That this question can be asked for
a religion that came as an egalitarian social reform movement itself bears testimony
to the fact that something is fundamentally and terribly wrong.
My Islam vs theirs
Even as hundreds are
being killed in the name of religion, apologists continue chanting the corroded
mantra – terrorists have no religion – and to back their
defence, explain that if they did, they would not be killing fellow-Muslims or
bombing the Prophet’s city. Yes, there are Islamic
injunctions against violence. There are verses that give the message of
tolerance and universal brotherhood. There are exhortations for treating even
enemies with deference. But that is not the only side of Islam and cannot be
overstretched to cloak the other side that has been successfully usurped by
ISIS and the like.
In covering themselves
with this Oedipus blind, these apologists are deliberately disregarding the
fact that the killers involved in each of these incidents (including the one in
Medina) also swore by one or the other Quranic verse to justify their acts as
part of an essential religious duty. For them, what they
were doing was as Islamic as for me or you it is un-Islamic. After the recent
Medina bombing, Muslims all over the world are busy declaring that the bomber
had nothing to do with Islam since the Prophet had reportedly said: “Anyone who harms (the
people of) Medina, Allah will make him melt in fire like iron or
like salt in water”.
In making these
declarations, they conveniently forget that, probably, it is the self-same hadith that
made the bomber unleash terror on Medina in the first place. It seems that the
man was convinced that some religious practices being followed there were
“harming” true Islam and to save Medina from these harms, decided to “melt
people in fire”. What does it result in
then - their Islam against mine?
What must Muslims
do?
It is this philosophy
of everyone claiming ownership of his own brand of Islam that has led to Islam
being at war not only with the rest of the world but also with itself, leading
to dreadful instances of bloodbath in Syria and Iraq. In these
circumstances, is it enough for Muslims to say that terrorists “misinterpret”
the scriptures ? Are our scriptures and theological texts beyond
misconstruction ? I am afraid, the answer is an emphatic “no”.
In fact, both the
Quran and the Hadith (Prophet’s teachings) are, what journalist Hasan Suroor
calls “a minefield of ambiguity allowing people to cherry-pick” verses and
sayings to defend their case. The hundreds of translations and the dozens of
authoritative commentaries of these texts are not only vulnerable to but, in
fact, invite manipulation – and portions from both are routinely quote-mined to
defend outlandish opinions. After all, why does no one misinterpret Newton’s
law of gravity?
The question that
naturally follows is: what should, then, a “liberal” Muslim do if not say that
that his religion and its teachings are being misinterpreted? This question
needs to be answered at various levels. To begin with, it is
not only the “liberal” Muslim but every Muslim who must do something about this
– and that “something” is to stop living in denial. Instead of being defensive,
we must acknowledge the problem – this itself will lead to a serious change.
Among other things,
Muslim parents need to create an environment, not only of passive tolerance but
of active harmony. Ordinary Muslims need to mobilise a mass movement and come
out on streets against extremism, as they do – and rightly so – against
Israel’s excesses on Palestine. The ordinary Indian
Muslim on the street is a formalist who makes it to the local mosque, at least
every Friday. The neighbourhood Imam should, therefore,
instead of reading an incomprehensible sermon in Arabic and advising people on
the length of their pyjamas while praying, publicly denounce and slam violence
in his weekly sermons and declare it anti-Islamic from the pulpit without any
“ifs” and “buts”. The message should be loud and clear – irrespective of the
cause, violence shall not be tolerated in any form.
Finally, Islamic
scholars must recognise the fundamental need of Islam – Islam is in need of a
Renaissance. Like every other religion that has grown by proselytisation, Islam
too has had a violent history which, in those times, was defensible. However,
much as the advent of Islam was all about progressivism, unlike their
proselytising predecessors, Muslim theologists have failed to inform their
beliefs and attitudes with contemporary standards and demands of inclusivity.
There is a pressing
need to present Islamic texts unambiguously and in consonance with present-day
realities, leaving no room for misconstruction by anyone. If they keep their
political differences and selfish interests aside, this is an exercise that can
stem from faith itself rather than through an artificial compromise with a
phenomenon from outside.
This is what Muslims –
“liberal” and others – must do.
But what about
non-Muslims?
But are Muslims alone
required to take the entire burden of solving this mess? Is the onus of
arresting radicalisation solely on them? Again, the answer must be an equally
emphatic “no”. Societal and political
attitudes towards Muslims need a drastic change. Expecting the common Muslim to
apologise for a terrorist attack in Paris or circulating jokes on how everyone
must keep a Quranic verse handy to save oneself from unexpected murders after
Dhaka only adds fuel to the communal fire in which the oppressed and mistreated
Muslim community has been burning for ages.
And, in India, what
certainly does not help is the demand of selectively banning an obnoxious
pinheaded Muslim evangelist while ministers who unabashedly hurl the filthiest
of abuses on the Muslim community not only go scot-free but are accorded
official protocol.
Muslims must set their
house in order but what will they build on if every now and then someone keeps
perforating the foundation on which their house stands? As we try to answer
such bewildering questions, the “liberal Muslim” in me must seek refuge in
Iqbal who has best explained the dilemma of every “liberal Muslim”:
Zaahid-e-tang-nazar
ne mujhe kafir jaana
aur kafir ye samjhta hai, muslmaan hoon maiyn
aur kafir ye samjhta hai, muslmaan hoon maiyn
While the
narrow-minded mullah considers me an infidel
the infidel thinks I am Muslim
the infidel thinks I am Muslim
Saif Mahmood is PhD
(law), Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Founder, South Asian Alliance for
Literature, Art & Culture
see also
Six Outrageous Things BJP Leaders Have Said About Dadri Murder
NAUJAWAN BHARAT SABHA on attempts of 'Sangh Parivar' to foment communal tension in Delhi / Beef murder bid to stir hatred ahead of polls? / SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: The fight is now over your right to not be killed for what you eat
NAUJAWAN BHARAT SABHA on attempts of 'Sangh Parivar' to foment communal tension in Delhi / Beef murder bid to stir hatred ahead of polls? / SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: The fight is now over your right to not be killed for what you eat
The Broken Middle - my essay on the 30th anniversary of 1984
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
The Abolition of truth
RSS tradition of manufacturing facts to suit their ideology
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
The Abolition of truth
RSS tradition of manufacturing facts to suit their ideology