“Beyond Talking” & “The Think-Tank”

A highly respected gentleman wrote on Tuesday, 27 July 2010: “Perhaps it might be easier (and cheaper) to set up a Social Sciences think-tank to discuss, debate and research the Aligarh Movement in today’s context. AMU needs to provide India’s political class with leadership and advice on the issues plaguing Indian Muslims. Can alumni work towards funding such a Centre?” and the same gentleman writes the following on Thursday, 12 May 2011: “The community needs to go beyond talking to an action mode – to establish conditions to excel and compete.......” and “We show our frustrations, then get into discussion mode, but never come up with any road-map to establish conditions on the ground, to change these not-so-well ground conditions”.

We are not aware if the above-mentioned Social Sciences think-tank has become functional and has discussed, debated and researched the Aligarh Movement in today’s context. We are not sure if this Social Sciences think-tank has already accomplished all that it was expected to. If this is not the case (and we don’t have a proof that the think-tank has actually done any of the above) then how can we conclude that “The community needs to go beyond talking to an action mode”? Has the idea of establishing a think-tank been shelved and there is no need for it anymore?

If we are still working hard to establish such a think-tank then what will be the meaning of going “beyond talking”? Shall we not wait to know the outcome of the discussion, debate and research on the Aligarh Movement in today’s context? If we still assert that we need to “go beyond talking to an action mode…………” then what will be the justification for and function of the think-tank? Why should we still work for the establishment of the think-tank? And why the think-tank itself should not go “beyond talking to an action mode”? If it goes to that mode how will we get “any road-map to establish conditions on the ground, to change this not-so-well ground conditions”? And if we get a “road-map” who will communicate (or ‘talk’ about) it as we have already concluded and publicly announced that we need to “go beyond talking”?

“The community needs to go beyond talking to an action mode” indicates that we have already talked enough and there is no need for it anymore. If this is the case, then how will we counter someone if he argues that we haven’t actually ‘talked’ enough and this is why we haven’t ‘acted’ enough? We haven’t ‘talked’ enough if we haven’t tried to reach to the crux of the matter to the best of our capacities. We haven’t ‘talked’ enough if we are living with a lot of prejudices and preconceived notions under severe conditioning effects of generations. We haven’t ‘talked’ enough if we haven’t really taken the analyses to the logical conclusions.

Finally, why should we go “beyond talking to an action mode” if we haven’t “come up with any road-map” as yet and we have candidly admitted it, too? If we still get to “an action mode” which road we will be treading on? Will it not be a direction-less (read VISION-less) journey and action?

“Naadaan Dosts”

In a discussion on “naadaan dosts” a very good friend asked this scribe “how we have to identify the Naadaan Dost? Do you have any idea? Can you name some of them, please?” To the humble submission that “ALL those who quote from Qur’an and Hadeeth SELECTIVELY are “naadaan dosts”, I am afraid” the friend further asked to “Explain in clear terms who are Naadaan Dosts and how the Ummah can identify them”.

Surrendering to the persistence of my dear friend I am obliged to disclose the identity of one “naadaan dost”, at least.  He is a few years older to his friend (for no choice of his and no fault of his friend). He is growing older (not up) every moment with a lot of misconceptions, preconceived notions and false assumptions. Despite having spent a lot many years in educational institutions he isn’t truly ‘educated’. He is merely informed about a few things.

This “naadaan dost” does not know the time and the people that he is living in and with and he is extremely happy about it, too. There is no need to contrast this situation with the aim of Jami‘atul Falah (http://www.jamiatulfalah.org/) to produce those who “clearly understand the issues of their time”. He is floundering in a flood of confusion and mired into self-contradictions, the latter being his forte. But he doesn’t mind (or notice) it.

This “naadaan dost” is fond of quoting – almost always with the idea of proving himself or his ideology right. He does not notice that like his favourite verses the other groups, too, have their own favourite verses and the fact that it has obscured the spirit of the Book. It is not important for him to stay with the serious problems a bit longer. He doesn’t need to undertake any such painstaking job as he has already arrived – before even undertaking the journey! He has automatically inherited all those things which many others work very hard to earn.

Being an INCOMPLETE PRODUCT because of coming out from the un-integrated system of education, the worldview (Weltanschauung) of that “naadaan dost” is highly distorted. He doesn’t know whether to look at the world as the enemies of Allah or as prospective customers. This “naadaan dost” gets angry and frustrated forgetting all the ideals that he should be holding. He is not in need of anything like the interesting article titled Bahs-o-Takraar (by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan). 

This “naadaan dost” is fond of spoon-feeding. This is how he has wants to be overfed and would like to feed others. He is not much comfortable with healthy engagement in an objective manner. He immediately takes sides and magnanimously invites the truth to join him in order for the latter to feel emboldened. This “naadaan dost” always feels threatened and under attack. The foundation under his feet is shaking all the time. His structure is ready to crumble to pieces anytime. And he doesn’t try to find out why is he witnessing this shakiness?

He is not sure what do the words “broad-minded enough in order to carry out the duty of social reform and reconstruction” mean and how could it be applied today. He is happy with the status quo, no matter how many times he repeats “ta‘meer-e-nau”. He is not sure what could be the implications of “above all kinds of prejudices against any sect, group or faction” and how can we relate it with our current affiliations and outlook. He is precisely the kind of “naadaan dost” whom we need to save the Ummah from. How to accomplish this task is what we need to find out.

“Those are matters of the world, not matters of religion.”

A highly respectable gentleman during a discussion on an important subject observes the following:

“Yes, Islam is a major religion and its scriptures give a lot of guidance to mankind. That guidance is on various aspects of a man’s life. Religious matters are only one aspect. The overall guidance from religion is like a top level macro criteria (work hard, seek God’s help, be honest etc). But to be practical as we deal with and explore various aspects of our lives; economics, health matters / medicine, housing, transportation / engineering, food / agriculture, natural phenomenon / science; civic matters / law, politics etc, we have to expand each subject matter and develop expertise in those areas. 

Those are matters of the world, not matters of religion. To handle each of these respective areas we need leadership in them. The leadership in each area should be knowledgeable in the areas that they are leading. Thus a very learned leader in the field of Islamic theology can not lead in the field of science or economics because he/she is simply not knowledgeable in science and economics. How can one lead in a field where he does not have knowledge of that field? In fact this is how major mistakes with devastating results have occurred.

To say that by doing this we are separating matters of Duniya from the matters of religion is to confuse the subject. The Qur’an and the prophet themselves exhort man to develop learning and knowledge in each of the fields that form part of life.”

If we use Urdu equivalents of “world” and “religion” it will obviously be Dunyaa and Deen respectively. Let’s once again read the sentence “Those are matters of the world, not matters of religion” and try our best to figure out if we are(n’t) dividing the two, Dunyaa from Deen.

While the beautiful principles of Islam guide the overall life, when we come at the micro level then a significant part of the same life immediately goes beyond the purview of those beautiful principles and becomes the “matters of the world, not matters of religion”. If it still remains within the purview of those principles, will we call it “matters of the world” or the “matters of religion”? There is something amiss here. And we need to stop here for a while.

In our life – the complete life – we are either following Islam or we aren’t following it. There is no other option and position. For instance, when we are on a road then either we are observing the traffic rules or we are violating them. One cannot say that today I have firmly decided to neither observe nor violate any of the traffic rules in my entire journey from Dubai to Abu Dhabi.

Is “learning and knowledge” required in one part of life and not in others? If someone begins to “develop learning and knowledge in each part of the fields that form part of life” because of the exhortation from Qur’an and the Prophet then how “economics, health matters/medicine, housing, transportation/engineering, food/agriculture, natural phenomenon/science; civic matters/law, politics etc” will be the “matters of the world, not matters of religion”? Can we argue that a rudimentary knowledge of these areas will be the “matters of religion” but the advanced knowledge and expertise in these very same areas will become the “matters of the world”?

The same gentleman in another message on  a different subject argues: “Time has come that these large Muslim organizations use their base in the community and resources to improve and modernize madrasas so that the madrasa graduates become productive members of society and are able to help- their own families and community.” Earlier it was suggested by him that “matters dealing with madrasaas” are “religious issues”. What will happen if the madrasaas are modernised? What is not happening now which will happen then? How will the “madrasa graduates” become “productive members of society”? What is meant by society (does it include “religious” as well as “non-religious issues”? Why aren’t they “productive members of society” now (if they aren’t)?

There is some serious problem with our worldview due to a faulty education system. We as a people have to come to terms with the reality that Islam has NOT established two different worlds, Deeni and Dunyaawi or Spiritual and Material. It has a unified outlook towards (the complete) life, hence our unflinching belief in Tauheed. Life is a single entity as is the Universe. If the value of ALL that we do is determined by our INTENTION and the ultimate purpose behind it, then how much valid should the division be?

The division of Dunayy and Deen is very deep, however. This is why those, too, keep dividing the two who think that they aren’t dividing them. It is a hindrance in developing a correct worldview and it makes us constantly contradict ourselves. Moreover, this division is a big check against excellence. This division has created self-doubt among the ‘modern’ educated and a sense of guilt in them. It has created a sense of detachment from life among the ‘traditionally’ educated. They both are INCOMPLETE PRODUCTS from a faulty industry.

‘Leaders’ & ‘Representatives’

We probably mix up with these two terminologies. Many a times we use ‘LEADERS’ where actually we should have used ‘REPRESENTATIVES’. These are just two examples of our reckless use of words without much reflection. A leader, to me, is a mirror. He holds fast to the TRUTH which he has reached out to after years of hard work and (re)search. He holds that truth closest to his heart and dearer than anything else. He shows the same truth as a mirror to his people.

The people reject and ridicule the leaders for a while and after only due passage of time accept them. This is almost always the case. The leaders know their people very well and the times they live in. They have a very clear idea about what is happening and why. They are well aware of what is not happening and why not. And what needs to be done to change the situation and how. They do not exploit a situation as do the representatives.

Our leaders are those who take us from one stage to another and a tangible difference is recorded by history – unmistakably. They treat their people not as they are but as they can and should be. They remove a lot many cobwebs in the minds of their people and educate them. They give new meaning to the words. They awaken them from deep slumber instead of lulling them into sleep at the noontime. Despite all these favors they are hardly ever garlanded. And they do not worry about it either. They are more concerned about garlanding their people.

The leaders talk to their people in clear and understandable terms. They are never confused about their own ideas. They clearly stand for something. And that something is clearly known to all. They talk to their own people more than ever talking on their behalf to others. This is what marks the LEADERS from REPRESENTATIVES. A leader is a life-long leader whether anyone follows him or doesn’t. This is not the case with representatives. They certainly need someone to represent.

A ‘representative’ only represents. This is his job. This is his career. He does not lead. Because he has no clear idea of the path and the destination. There are many external factors which make him a REPRESETATIVE. But he considers himself a leader and the people, too, consider him a leader. It compounds the whole situation. And it is hardly realized. Generations come and go but the confusion between ‘leaders’ and ‘representatives’ persists.

If we decide not to mix up between ‘LEADERS’ and ‘REPRESENTATIVES’ and use these two terms quite judiciously it will make a difference. A simple change of description will take away the charm from ‘leadership’ and it might set a few things right. Let us resolve to be very careful in the use of words like these and try our best to regain the lost meanings – a precondition for changing the discourse and moving towards rebirth.

After having established educational institutions with a VISION where our job is (or should be) to ‘develop a coherent body of ideas and creatively reach out to the unknown with critical and scientific thinking in order to arrive at the whole picture’ we will not need one single leader to show the mirror. We will get plenty of them from our Institutions. If we aren’t getting them now it is because of an incorrect concept of knowledge and lack of the following clear VISION:

The students coming out of our Colleges and Universities should have Qur’an in the right hand, most modern scientific and technological advancements in the left hand and the crown of Laa Ilaah on the forehead. So that the Muslims regain the same glorious status of founders and promoters of science and technology as they did during the ascendance of their civilization.

ISLAM: Simple Or Complicated?

Islam is as simple as philosophy and as complicated as commonsense.

They say in Persian: Shud pareeshaa(n) khwaab-e man az kasrat-e ta‘beerhaa (my dream got spoilt by so many interpretations), and it sums up the case of Islam very well. Maybe our ta‘beer of Islam is complicated while Islam is in fact quite philosophical i.e. very simple. Islam will be complicated when we will consider “interpretation of Sharee‘ah laws or Hadeeth or Fatwas or Personal laws or matters dealing with madrasas” as “religious” and matters like “Muslim educational institutions, or reservation for Muslims in educational institutions and jobs, or the need to address the community’s socioeconomic and educational uplift, or the political situation of the community, or the civil liberties, or the situation of Muslim women” as “non-religious”. And we will do so with utmost self-confidence and with no room for second-thoughts.

Islam is a ‘way of life’ – very simple. It sounds complicated because it is divorced from life. It gives a direction and greater sense to all that we do. Without it we will not be able to satisfactorily reason any higher purposes of our actions. It gives the complete answer. If I were to meet Charles Darwin I would ask him, “Thanks a lot for taking the pain of explaining to us where we have come from. Kindly tell us more about the origin of species and how the fittest survive. After having done the above, please do one more favour and tell us what are we supposed to do on this earth and what is our ultimate objective and destination – after having successfully evolved from all the named and unnamed species”. If, however, we settle down for an incomplete answer then the simplicity of Islam will elude us.

Islam guides the human beings in every aspect of life with its beautiful principles – without dividing it into the categories of “religious” and “non-religious” or Deeni and Dunyaawi. You divorce it from life and it will become extremely complicated. It will become difficult to understand and explain. Because it will not have a frame reference. It will lose the ground which is where it was supposed to be standing. When you keep it in suspended animation it will not be itself. It will certainly complicate the situation. When we hear a lecture dealing only with what is beneath the earth or above the heavens we are certainly going to say, “Islam is really complicated, my friend”.

Islam does not make the lawful unlawful and the unlawful lawful. It is between fisq (transgression) and rahbaaniyyah (monasticism). Islam is not about speeding when the signal is red. It is not about remaining stationary even when the signal is green. (For an assessment of the current situation we only need to ask a few people about the percentage of Halaal and Haraam in Islam and then analyze the answers.) This is what is meant by the ‘middlemostness’ (wasatiyyah), which is inherent to Islam. As soon as we utter ‘Islam’ it immediately implies wasatiyyah. This is the ‘bi-polarity’ of Islam which combines the East and the West (soul and body) – seamlessly. If, however, we do not combine the two despite believing in Oneness then Islam will certainly be complicated.

Islam and truth are one and the same thing. If instead of walking all the way to the truth we start urging the truth to follow our path it will not remain simple anymore. Because it will not remain truth anymore. An incomplete truth is anything but truth. Ek bhi harf ahtaanay ki nahee(n) gunjaa’ish! Truth has never been complicated. Our perception of Islam has, in fact, been partial and distorted. Truth is not easily recognized due to the conditioning effects of generations after generations. Hence, truth has become extremely “complicated” and highly “philosophical”.

Islam is a religion of common humanity. It is as simple for that humanity as air, light and water within everyone’s reach and satisfying everyone’s need in all walks of life (whether public or private). If it remained like that it was simple. But it has become a private affair. Becoming a private affair and a matter of personal preference, it has immediately become complicated. Now it is so complicated that we don’t know in which aspects of our life we can refer to this manual and in which situations there isn’t any need, in fact! In many a matters of life it is obviously non-applicable!! Being applicable at one time and non-applicable at another and a constant switching between the two is a sure recipe for making it complicated.

For commonsense to become common and for philosophy to become simple we will have to change our discourse. We will have to redefine the terminologies which we frequently use in a borrowed sense. We are not going to use new words for a change in the discourse. We are only going to assign new meanings to the already existing words. Or more correctly, to regain the lost meanings. If we do not do so, Islam will not become as simple as philosophy and as complicated as commonsense.

Qur’an’s Collective Spirit & Today’s Context

It is an extremely important question and an uphill task. We as a people need to start the expedition of finding out that spirit. The collective spirit of Qur’an is lost as our focus is on individual verses. Our immediate quotes from Qur’an have done much harm. They have taken us farther and farther from the crux of it. When we quote one verse we forget all the remaining ones. This is why we do not move forward in our understanding of the Book. This is symptomatic of our collective life. We are lost in the details.

Qur’an is not concerned about numbers as much as it focuses on quality, for instance. Now this aspect of Qur’an needs to be contrasted with our outlook and our focus. If our focus is on numbers then it means that we need to review our outlook. We need to dwell on the concepts of ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ a bit more in the light of Qur’an.  If we keep focusing on the numbers disregarding the Qur’anic world-view then how will it be unjustified to say that our Right Hands are empty? Keeping this perspective of Qur’an in view we have to review the ‘minority character’. Here we need to stop for a while and reflect. 

Qur’an assigns a lot of duties to its upholders. Imbibing this collective spirit of Qur’an the Believers should be more concerned about others than themselves. As opposed to this spirit of Qur’an we are busy talking about and demanding our rights. If our ‘Ulama, too, stand for ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ as it is perceived by the multitudes it is very much surprising. They were, in fact, expected to wean us away from ‘minorityism’. Here again we need to pause and ponder.

If Qur’an does not contradict itself and we keep contradicting ourselves without really worrying about it then how can we argue that we are holding Qur’an in the Right Hands? In my communication with many ‘modern’ educated Muslims through various Networks I have noticed that we contradict ourselves a lot. When we do that then I am not sure what we stand for. But Qur’an stands for something and this is precisely why it is consistent. If we want to be in harmony and consistent with Qur’an, we will have to stand for something. And that something we need to figure out.

Not trying to reach out to the collective spirit of Qur’an we have our priorities messed up. We don’t know what needs to be done and why and how. For instance, the focus of Qur’an is on giving and not on seeking. Now we need to contrast this focus of Qur’an with our own current focus. There is a need to review the resolutions passed in our conventions and symposia. With what message do the audiences leave the venues? They go back with a resolve to contribute or with the resolutions of demands. If they go back with the resolve to contribute are they aware about why and how will they do so?

In our efforts to reach out to the collective spirit of Qur’an we have to find out how much it focuses on community and how much on the individual. And then contrast it with our current focus. We have to review if we are aligned with the spirit of Qur’an in this respect. If someone argues that we are more focused on the collective entity or the community as opposed to the individual – disregarding the collective spirit of Qur’an – how will we react to this observation? Will we agree or disagree and why or why not?

Qur’an guides us to clear and higher purposes behind all our actions. It defines the final goals before the outset. In other words, it gives a clear vision. Contrasting it with our current focus we find that a lot many things that we do have no clear goals and no well thought out objectives behind it. We do things but we do not know why we are doing them. This approach of ours needs to be contrasted with the spirit of Qur’an. We need to reach to some conclusions in this regard and take corrective measures if the findings are not quite encouraging.

From the particulars we have to derive the universals. This is inductive reasoning, al-‘aql al-istiqraa’ee. And this is what Qur’an emphasises upon by constantly asking us to reconsider our preconceived notions shunning our casual approach. If, however, we as a people easily get carried away from the main subject then it clearly indicates that we haven’t grasped the inductive intellect well. We get lost in particulars without reaching to universals. This is proved by the fact that we start discussing a subject but do not worry about taking it to the logical conclusions. Hence, we do not reach to the idea in the real sense of the word. But still we keep lamenting about lack of implementation (of what?).

If Qur’an does not divide knowledge into ‘religious’ categories and ‘secular’ and it does not divide life into ‘deeni’ and ‘dunyaawi’ spheres and we keep dividing them, then how can we argue that we are in harmony with the collective spirit of Qur’an? We have dismembered Qur’an by focusing on the parts and ignoring the whole. By focusing less on its soul and more on the body. We need to make a (paradigm) shift here. We have to make maximum efforts to reach to the crux of the Book.

“Your Contributions To Our Society(?)”

In response to the write-up “Talking About Muslims Is A Fashion” a gentleman observes: “When you know what the problem is, then do suggest your solutions. Also we would like to be inspired by your real life contributions. It’s very easy to highlight problems but equally difficult to cite your personal contributions. We all are aware of the practice amongst us that you have mentioned in your post, but it has more credibility coming from someone who is an example for others. I would love to know your contributions to our society.”

Unfortunately, I have no answer to this question. And the respectable gentleman has to bear this disappointment. I am not able to contribute because I am an INCOMPLETE PRODUCT due to a faulty education system and two divergent streams of knowledge. My worldview is severely affected by the misconceptions prevalent in our society. I am constantly contradicting myself. When I cite a Qur’anic verse or quote a Hadeeth I forget the rest of the texts. And I quote only to prove myself right. I am habitual of supporting and opposing the same thing over and over again. I am so used to this practice that I do not even realize it.

I am not qualified because I consider a huge part of the world as the ‘enemies of Allah’. I am passionately waiting for a walk-over. Please do not expect any contributions because I haven’t learnt the art of turning problems into opportunities and negatives into positives. I am not qualified because I am intensely focused on numbers and this is what I would like to add more and more as much as possible. I am not the one to contribute anything as I am more comfortable among the like-minded people. And they are already like-minded. The outside circles are not my concern and I need not worry about them.

I am not quite aware of the problems of our society either. I am not able to diagnose what is wrong with it. Hence, I am disqualified even before applying for the job. If this is the case, how can anyone ask me to contribute anything? I should rather refrain from contributing because I may end up doing something wrong rather than helpful. Efforts should, therefore, be made to stop me from doing anything. Otherwise, it might endanger the future generations and the current generation may suffer some irreparable damages. Who will be responsible for this state of affairs if I am allowed to contribute?

Being brought up in an environment of a specific ideological leaning in the formative years of my life I am not able to come out of it. With the current presuppositions in my mind if ever I happen to step out of the boundary of that particular ideology the damages of it to the society will be incalculable. Hence, it is advisable that I toe the same line which is already expected from me. I am, therefore, happier and contented in my current assignment of allowing and maintaining the things as they are. Any efforts at altering them will obviously be counterproductive.

It is very difficult for me to contribute as I am not clear about what is the field of action and if there is a need for contribution. If I am not clear about what needs to be contributed, it is extremely dangerous to take up any such tasks. As a precautionary measure we should just stick to the status quo. This is the safest route and this is what I should most sincerely take to. We should just speed along that route and should shun any thoughts of slowing down a bit and asking any questions. This will hinder our journey and we will not be able to reach to our well known destinations before yesterday.

Instead of asking me about my contributions I should actually not be allowed to contribute as, being ill-equipped, I may further spoil the things. If still I am forced to contribute, I may write about the contribution of Muslims to the world civilization in the past and then stop there. I may write a book on the khidmaat of some previous luminaries without suggesting what needs to be done now for the flowering of human resources and excellence in our society. If obliged to contribute I may establish a VISION-less educational institution to produce INCOMPLETE PRODUCTS like myself. If forced to contribute even more, I may form a forum, a party or an organization to avail the natural opportunity of being its President or join an already existing outfit to become the Joint-Secretary. It might lead to other opportunities as well.

Apparently, the best option and course of action for our society is to continue with the existing discourse. It will allow many more qualified persons to continue working overtime in order to earn a lot of rewards in the Hereafter. It will gradually make the world Paradise-like. The world will become more and more Paradise-like in direct proportion to our indifference towards it. This seems to be almost absolutely certain. Let us not take any risks. It will be foolhardy, otherwise.

On the other hand, there is no need to contribute. Because we are already bereft of a clear VISION. Our Right Hands or the Left Hands are already empty. We don’t need anyone’s contribution because knowledge is already happily divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ categories. No contributions are needed from anybody as Dunyaa is irrevocably divorced from Deen. All these tasks have been accomplished in style. Hence, all that we need to do is to sit and relax and enjoy the greatest luxury on earth – as opposed to performing the most difficult job on earth.

There is no need for any further contributions because we have already educated everybody well that knowledge is merely ‘knowing the known’. And it is already quite unknown that knowledge is ‘developing a coherent body of ideas and creatively reaching out to the unknown’. There is no need for any further efforts to incorporate Arabic in the curriculum for ALL Muslim kids as Urdu is already making “more sense”!