“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”!

Talking About Muslims Is A Fashion

For long I have been wondering why we talk about Muslims so much? Now it appears to me that it is merely a fashion and a noble pastime. We get conditioned to this culture and fashion learning it very well from the older generations and the environments we grow in. We notice it at every level and in every place. All possible means and platforms are being used for talking about Muslims. One amount of talking leads to an increased amount of talking. It is one of the trendy things to do. Talking about Muslims is a fashion which is always in fashion.

Those who are well settled and have some or a lot of free time they indulge in this entertaining and self-aggrandizing exercise and earn some name and fame in doing so. They become the community leaders and have become uncountable. I sincerely wish we didn’t have so much concern about Muslims that we did not have time to find out the reasons of this concern. I wish we weren’t so busy treating this patient that we forgot to conduct some tests for diagnosing the disease first.

When we shed a lot of tears about Muslims it gives us sadistic delight. It shows that we are much better off than those wretched creatures. In other words we say, “See how different am I? I am a class apart! I am so much different!” Profuse talking about Muslims is an expression and reinforcement of a herd-mentality at its best or worst. It is symptomatic of the fact that we do not think twice about the things that we talk about and do. This is one of those fashions which is not getting old. Talking about Muslims is always in vogue.

We look for excuses to talk about Muslims – of which we get plenty. A recent example is the case of Anna Hazare. It provoked many to ask why there is no Anna Hazare in Muslims. I always wonder that those who yearn for Anna Hazares why don’t they become Anna Hazares themselves. They are the most qualified ones for the job because they know that there is a need for Hazares more than anybody else. It reminds me of a nikaah ceremony. The khateeb fervently prayed many times over that a Salahuddin Ayyubi is born to the newly married couples. I wondered why he did not have any such hope from the already married ones and why he did not become Salahuddin Ayyubi himself knowing the urgent need of one – more than anybody else.

The same applies to our yearning and crying for Sir Syed Ahmad Khans and Muhammad Iqbals. Those who lament for them are obliged to become a Syed and an Iqbal. They are obliged because they are the ones who realize their need more than anyone else. The ones who realize a particular need the most are most obliged to supply what is needed. If they do not become what they think is needed the most it will be a breach of trust and they will be held accountable for the absence of Syeds and Iqbals.

But our job ends at lamenting and praying. Why do we expect a lot from (other) Muslims (and not from ourselves) is not of much concern. We want different things from Muslims but don’t do anything different for that. We keep doing the same things and keep asking for different results. But this is not a concern. Because the concern for the Muslims is the only concern. The fashion of talking about the Muslims is always in fashion – come what may.

What is not in fashion is to find out what are the reasons of this talking and concern? We get different reasons for this – none of those qualifies to be called a reason. Poverty, backwardness and number (which is always less than desired) is not the prerogative of Muslims. If the economic condition of Muslims is the reason then what about those who are poorer than Muslims? They deserve to be talked about even more. If educational backwardness is the reason then they aren’t the only ones to occupy that rung.

As a small step towards reducing the abundant talks about Muslims I propose to ask what are the reasons behind talking about Muslims. I intend to ask this question a thousand times till I get a satisfying answer, in sha Allah.

Course-Correction In JIH

In response to the write-up on Core Ideology & Current Stances Of Jamā‘at-E-Islami Hind a respected gentleman has observed the following: “What is your core ideology…..? Is course-correction not possible or allowed? Did Jamāt-e-Islami not evolve into a social group after Independence much different from the Jamā‘at in Pakistan? And how simplistic is your suggestion that all our ills will be cured by teaching Arabic to all.” Course correction is important, undoubtedly. I am under the impression, however, that only an incorrect thing needs to be corrected. It leads to one more question, namely, what was wrong in the previous course and why? Also, do the members of the Jamā‘at consider it a correction acknowledging that there was something wrong in the previous course? All these questions might help us more.

In my interactions with some of my friends who are the sympathisers of Jamā‘at I have not been able to clearly figure out if they are acknowledging the correction or not. If the members of the Jamā‘at agree to the idea of course-correction they will have to analyze the core ideology itself and what had gone into the making of it? It will require reviewing the entire literature. Maybe there is something wrong with a significant part of it. The truth never changes, I tend to think. It is not relative. It is absolute and free from self-contradiction. Nothing can influence and alter it, I guess.

Before becoming a “social group” what was the most appropriate adjective or description for the Jamā‘at and why? Why that description and adjective is not suitable anymore? What change has happened in the society now which is new and which has forced this course-correction and which wasn’t called for at the time of the inception of this ideology? What are the possibilities of any future course-corrections? What are the possibilities that emotionalism is gradually giving way to pragmatism? Is it a case of the laws of nature gradually prevailing – the laws which we are used to fighting with?

As regards what is the “core ideology” of this scribe, I would say “NONE”. I subscribe to no “core ideology” out of a “general ideology”. This is because I am most afraid of being selective. I am scared of it because of being under the impression that the “core ideologies” are our bane. We take a “core ideology” out of the entire gamut of beautiful principles of life (Islam) – according to our whims. We start quoting selectively having an inflationary idea of that limited ideology which we are particularly fascinated with. I do not subscribe to any “core ideology” as I cannot afford to postpone a lot for an unknown sunny day to arrive in an obscure futurity. This is because I am already quite late.

The astonishment in “And how simplistic is your suggestion that all our ills will be cured by teaching Arabic to all” is reassuring. Introducing Arabic as an important subject in schools for all Muslim kids is the first significant step in the right direction. It will facilitate a paradigm shift. Arabic comes as a package, in fact. It will do away with the duality of knowledge into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ and the life into ‘deeni’ and ‘dunyaawi’. All of this will remove the self-doubt of the ‘modern’ educated – leading to excellence in every field of study and life. The ‘traditionally’ educated, on the other hand, will have to revise many of their concepts and stances.

Commenting on the same write-up, another very respectable gentleman has observed: “Talk about solving problems and issues of the Indian Muslims, than wasting our time with your Jamā‘at-e-Islami philosophy and politics.” This observation presupposes that the Jamā‘at is not in the “issues” and it has nothing to do with “solving problems”. I wonder how the two feet tall weeds in the AMU Campus are (rightfully) a subject of discussion but an organization which has a history of many decades is not.

The above observation, however, is symptomatic of our overall atomistic approach. We fail to see the connection of one thing with the other. The interconnectedness of all aspects of our collective life escapes our notice. This interconnectedness is precisely what we need to realize and start seeing – if we want betterment. Unless we do that we will not be able to develop a coherent body of ideas. And we will be contradicting ourselves every now and then – currently a very common phenomenon indeed.

Core Ideology & Current Stances Of JIH

It is difficult for me to reconcile the original ideology of Jamā‘at-e-Islami Hind (hukûmat-e-ilāhiyyah or iqāmat-e-deen) eloquently and emphatically outlined in the literature produced by Maulana Maududi (rahimahullah) and the current stances of the Jamā‘at. Iqāmt-e-deen (as understood by the Jamā‘at) has been stressed upon as an obligation – fareezah (hence, Fareezah-e-Iqāmat-e-Deen by Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Marhoom). We often lament on not having stalwarts of the stature of Maulana Sadruddin Islahi Marhoom who could further strengthen the ideology of the Jamā‘at.

All those things which the Muslims are currently deprived of were they enjoying them earlier and, hence, the Jamā‘at did not require to fight for it then and opposed the very same mechanism which is now supposed to ensure those very things for (mainly) Muslims? All those things which the Jamā‘at wants to do now were required from before the inception of the Jamā‘at. But it did not focus on it and focused on its ideology, instead. Why that ideology is taking the backseat now and other issues are taking the centre-stage?

I am afraid, the Jamā‘at has begun to consider the Muslims as a racial group (nasli garoh) as different from a nazariyyāti (ideological) jamā‘at. This is what Maulana Maududi was not comfortable with and was, in fact, inimical, to. At this pace, however, of ignoring the core ideology where is the Jamā‘at heading to? The core ideology and the current policies need to be satisfactorily reconciled.

On the other had, there is an alternative course of action for the Jamā‘at. The urgent task in front of ALL the Indian Muslims is to do away with the duality of knowledge into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, which is at the root of all our problems. As one significant step towards this objective we need to teach Arabic to all Muslim kids. The Jamā‘at – with its sincere and devoted cadre – can do a lot in this campaign. Hope this humble suggestion, besides all the previous ones, will be favourably considered by the Jamā‘at.

The Aligarh Beradari Hindering Change

This is ironical. The friends from Aligarh were expected to be the catalysts for change. But this is precisely what they are resisting! This approach of my friends defies logic and it is beyond comprehension. It is strange that these respected friends keep contradicting themselves day in and day out. This is not that big a problem as the fact that they do not acknowledge this self-contradiction after repeated reminders. It becomes very difficult to communicate in such situations. It just makes one think about the possible reaction from the ‘traditionally’ educated. If this is the level of tolerance in the ‘modern’ educated then the level of (in)tolerance in the former can easily be imagined.

The Aligarh fraternity is not ready to go back to the VISION of Aligarh Movement which is what it keeps swearing by. This resistance is against the crux of the Aligarh Movement of which the fraternity considers itself to be the exclusive upholder! The VISION is the most disliked topic as it is evident from the communications with the friends from Aligarh for over a year. Our friends from Aligarh will demand answers to all their questions but will not provide answers to the questions asked to them. They haven’t satisfactorily answered a single question, namely, why they are so much concerned about Muslims.

In my humble view, these friends have forfeited every right to talk about change and betterment because this is what they are stalling with all the rigidity and might at their command. They have an extremely casual outlook towards highly important matters. If they talk about change and betterment it will be farcical. Also, it will be self-contradictory. Because this is precisely what my friends are inimical to.

The Aligarh Beradari is a shining example of supporting each other on falsehood – giving a clear indication that the Right Hands are empty. A huge number among them are silent spectators. Why should they speak? They have a job and are taking care of their families. This is exactly according to the existing (lack of any) VISION. But it overlooks the fact that they owe a lot to the community and the society. They were supposed to enrich us with ideas. Instead of doing so they are happy sponsoring some children, giving some scholarships and running some institutions here and there. Not to mention the most novel idea of running coaching classes and centres.

The Aligarh Beradari is clinging to the ideas which it has conveniently inherited and painlessly borrowed from the previous generations. The friends are ready to say good-bye to all principles except those ‘ideas’. The friends from Aligarh are a highly conditioned lot. Hence, it is very difficult to discuss important issues with them beyond their favourite topics. Despite being highly educated they are abhorrent to talking about ideas.

It is an uphill task to count the number of Alumni Associations all over the world and the number of yearly dinners. Having a count of the office bearers of the known and unknown Association is next to impossible. But the hallmark is directionlessness and lack of VISION. This widespread phenomenon clearly indicates that the forms are more important to us than the contents and the bodies are more significant than the souls. The friends from Aligarh will be gravely mistaken if they think that these observations are from a specific individual. These observations have, in fact, been plagiarized from walls.

My sincere appeal to the friends from Aligarh is to shun casual approach towards significant problems that we are currently facing. My request to them is to spend some quality time figuring out what the crux of the Aligarh Movement is and then act accordingly. My plea to them is to take up the task of bridging the gap between the ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’. My plea to them is to pay back to the society in the required coin and live up to its (unexpressed) expectations.

Am Not An Expert On Minority Affairs, Al-Hamdu Lillah

Thanks to God Almighty, I don’t have the latest data on Indian Muslims. I don’t have the statistics about each constituency and the population of Muslims in it. I do not have the data about the Muslim MPs and MLAs who have fought and won or lost elections so far. I don’t know which constituencies witnessed the splitting or non-splitting of their votes and how and why. Praise be to Allah that I don’t know which place can I get these and many more data from. I don’t know which places I should contact for the most reliable database on Indian Muslims. Al-hamdu lillah I don’t know the individuals who are an authority on this subject and whom I should never seek any information from.

Al-hamdu lillah I do not have the exact number of Muslim periodicals in various languages – regional and national – and the total number of their circulation as well as readership – within the country and overseas. Also, I am not aware of their impact on the society. Al-hamdu lillah I don’t know exactly which of these periodicals are the organs of which specific Muslim organizations and what is the total number of these organizations as well as their names. Al-hamdu lillah I am nobody to talk about how much pakaR they have in ‘awaam. How much is the pakaR of ‘awaam is obviously irrelevant and immaterial.

Al-hamdu lillah I do not know anything about the clauses under which our Institutions are granted their minority character or are deprived thereof. Thank God, I have no idea about when the minority character has been granted or revoked over the years. I have no plans to seek minority character for any Institutions. This is because I am under the impression that the minority character is not to be sought or fought for. It is to be adopted, undertaken and discharged. The option probably lies with the person and not with the Government.

Luckily I am not sure about the total budget earmarked by the Government for the development of minorities and am not able to organize any conventions for protesting against the unutilized budgetary allocations. Happily I do not have any statistical data in this regard and am not able to assess the trend in the past few years. Not being able to do so I cannot devise any strategic plans for the next couple of years and the projected growth in certain areas. Fortunately, I haven’t read the Sachar Committee Report and haven’t convened or attended any sessions for reviewing its recommendations as well as the callous attitude that the Government has adopted towards these.

Al-hamdu lillah I am not aware of the total number of Muslims who have obtained employment through reservations and how many of them were refused. Thanks to Allah the Almighty I do not know the number of Muslim students who appeared in interviews last year and how many among them were selected or rejected. Al-hamdu lillah I do not have graphic information about the performance of Muslim candidates in the Civil Services and the trend in the last few years and the total count of Coaching Centres as well as their comparative performance.

I am very pleased that I don’t know the various strata among Indian Muslims and haven’t memorized the various names with which they are known (except the fact that we want to remove and reinforce them – both at the same time). I am not aware of the conventions of any of these categories among Muslims. Fortunately, I am not sure how many more of these strata are in the pipeline and we will be able to see them in due course of time and then include them in the statistics so that the statutory bodies could do something about them.

Al-hamdu lillah I am not aware of the exact number of graduates each year both from the ‘traditional’ and the ‘modern’ institutions from all the departments of studies. Fortunately, I could never conduct any such surveys and could not collect some very useful information about the current numbers and how it compares with the past few decades. Thanks to God Almighty I do not have an exact count of the engineers and doctors as well as scientists among Muslims and the engineering and medical colleges run by them.

Thanks to Allah the Almighty I have lost the count of Muslim political parties in India. Haven’t analyzed the latest trend in this regard and the future prospects. Happily I don’t know the names of all the political parties of Muslims. I am not aware of all those affairs which are included under the Minority Affairs, al-hamdu lillah.

Vibrant Colours & Shades Created By Allah

In response to one of the articles (ALIGARIANS: Dividing Dunyaa From Deen) a respectable gentleman asks “do they have hearts large enough to accommodate different opinions or want to paint the entire world in white instead of the vibrant colours, hues and shades that (has) Allah created?” This is a genuine concern and worth pondering upon. There is, however, a presupposition in the above assertion. The gentleman assumes that by doing away with the divide between dunyaa and deen we will lose the vibrancy of colours and the world will become monotonous. This presupposition puts a very big question mark on our understanding of Islam. Because of this unwritten huge question mark I argue that the ‘modern’ educated have a self-doubt which is the by-product of the division between dunyaa and deen and between deeni and dunyaawi (knowledge).

This is an age of the truncated perception of Islam and lopsided approach towards it. There is an urgent need to move towards the holistic vision of Islam. There is an urgent need to reach out to the crux and the essence of it – knowing very well that selective and whimsical quoting from texts is the biggest hindrance in this path. Islam stands for everything beautiful in life. It enriches life beyond imagination. It seeks to embellish life with many colours instead of destroying it and running away with its beautiful shades. The problem is not with Islam. It is with its exposition and our understanding of it. Instead of correcting our discourse about Islam we seek to banish it from the “social aspects of the discussion”.

If, however, we are able to do away with the duality of dunyaa and deen (from our minds) and deeni and dunyaawi ‘uloom (sciences) it will remove the self-doubt of the ‘modern’ educated. What will be the impact of the abolition of this duality? It will foster EXCELLENCE among those who pursue the ‘modern’ sciences. Then we will not require two separate streams of knowledge and education. Ultimately, it will bring more vibrant colours, hues and shades – more than we can currently imagine of. Just the contrary to what we are presently apprehensive of. It is the excellence which is missing now.

For a paradigm shift, we have to promote a culture of revising our deep rooted notions which we have picked up randomly from the environment and are repeatedly uttering them without reconsidering them. We are merely passing them on to others without living with them for a while. The only way-out for us is to stop at all our assertions – with utmost humbleness and patience. Let us develop a culture of sharing our weaknesses openly. Nothing should stop us from doing our best to reach out to the truth.

(Peaceful) Islam Scares The West(?)■

Both in one go. Amazing! But there is no dearth of such amazing ideas. Everything is messed up, literally. When we talk about Islam and peace we stop scaring the West. As soon as we start scaring the West, we forget about “Islam for peace (amn, taraqqi aur najaat)”. “Islam is for peace” is a very nice sentence. I would only reiterate here that Islam doesn’t merely stand for peace. It goes one step ahead and establishes that peace, too (http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2010/10/peace-conferences-are-short-cut.html). So whenever we hear that “Islam is for peace” we should unmistakably ask how it is going to realize this peace for everyone including the West. We should not stop after hearing “Islam is for peace”.

When we say that Islam really scares the West (or any other observations similar to this for any other parts of the world) I wonder what we mean by it. If we really mean what we say then it raises very serious questions about our own understanding and perception of Islam. We need to stop here and evaluate our own concept of Islam before we evaluate how others look at it. How others perceive Islam and how much they are loving or phobic to it is a completely different matter. We should deal with this question separately and afterwards.

If the upholders of Islam themselves start believing and propagating that Islam truly scares certain areas of the world and its people then why not those areas and its inhabitants should really be scared of it? If they get actually scared they are completely justified. It only indicates that a very good product doesn’t have very good salespersons. If, however, we do not mean that Islam “really scares the West” then it is extremely dangerous to utter these words and stop after uttering them. Besides deafening, the silence after such sentences has serious consequences as it reconfirms the notion that Islam certainly frightens. (Does it!?)

If later we argue that “The West does not like the empowerment of the Muslim world and its empowerment scares it. The trends are only like that.” and again stop there then again it raises many questions. For instance, “Why the ‘un-empowered Islam’ is NOT a threat but as soon as it gets ‘empowered’ it will scare a reasonable part of the world?” To put it in perspective, I am prompted to ask how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would have reacted to such assertions? What would have been his world-view? How would he have reacted to the dreading full stop (■) and the silence of the highly educated among his Ummah!

It occurs to me that such full stops (■) are our enemy. Such ‘punctuations’ and grammatically correct sentences as the ones above are not allowing us to pause and ponder. We repeat the same sentences which we have heard a thousand times from others – the educated and the uneducated alike. This is why we are the greatest supporters of peaceful Islam and scare a huge part of the world from the same peaceful Islam. (The fact that Islam does not require any adjectives before it is yet another matter.) Please help me understand this situation and let me know what I should conclude from this phenomenon.

Special Aversion To Hadeeth Seems Illogical

A friend of mine made it easy for me. What I was not able to convey in paragraphs after paragraphs he put it cogently in just a few words. Referring to many among our friends he says that they “will study everything under the sun, but develop a special aversion to Hadeeth”. I cannot understand the aversion to Hadeeth and ever willingness to share one’s own ideas, interpretations, inferences and footnotes – and doing so in all possible and available modes of communication. These very people will continue to use all future channels and means of communication which we cannot even imagine of currently.

Referring to a specific Hadeeth and trusting it 100% authentic (only to reject the remaining ones) while objecting to its delayed recording, is worth pondering upon. I am not able to fathom the logicality in this standpoint. Why shouldn’t the Ahaadeeth be taken into consideration if they were recorded much later and we should listen to the arguments against it even further later in time? Why the period of time is not applicable in the latter case? Why is it a factor only for the special aversion to Ahaadeeth and not for any other thing?

The special aversion seems a kind of escapism to me. Because then one doesn’t need to take the trouble of verifying and evaluating (applying the rigorous principles of Hadeeth criticism) – leave alone relating and applying it with today. In other words, there is no need for Ijtihaad – an extremely difficult task. Now we can sit back and relax. A question, however, springs to mind, namely, where are we investing this saved time, energy and resources and what have been the results? It will be enlightening to know this.

We have many more illogicalities. A respected gentleman argues – without any qualifying [restricting] observations – that “Yes, Muslims are supposed to scare the enemies of Allah” – referring to Soorah al-Anfaal, 8: 60. This gentleman quotes a single verse out of thousands. He doesn’t think that it is necessary to go back and see the context. He doesn’t notice that he is excluding a sizeable part of the world from the purview of hidaayah, the foremost objective of Qur’anic verses. But Qur’an is serving the purpose of justifying the position of one individual or the other in an arbitrarily selective manner and Hadeeth is being quoted in the same manner to negate Hadeeth!

These are all the consequences of the lack of coherence in our thought patterns. We end up supporting and opposing the same thing. This is because we haven’t popularized the fact that truth is free from self-contradiction. We don’t clearly see the incoherence of dividing knowledge into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ and the disjointedness of many other aspects of our collective life. The popularization of critical and scientific thinking – together with the search for the whole picture – will put everything in order. It will bring about real (and not artificial) unification in our ranks. It will put all the different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in order:

sab ke dil mei(n) hai jagah teri jo too raazi huwaa

mujh pe goyaa ik zamaana mehrbaa(n) ho jaa’ega

WE – The Hosni Mubaraks

It is not over. We are mistaken. We all are standing at the Tahrir Square helplessly. Without being able to remove the rule of Hosni Mubaraks. These are those Hosni Mubaraks who have been in power for over “thirty years” – actually generations. These are none other than ourselves. We are clinging to our prejudices, preconceived notions, respective schools of thought and outdated ideas more strongly than Hosni Mubarak clung to power. Some of us are clinging to them from a much earlier age. Some of us are still not relenting while Hosni Mubarak actually did. Hosni Mubarak proved to be more flexible and accommodating.

Having studied in Jami‘atul Falah I know many of my Falahi friends. A big number of them find it extremely abhorrent to hear anything different – different from what they have grown older with. This defeats the very purpose of the existence of Jami‘atul Falah (if some of the words have some meaning). When I see that they have become followers, it hurts. When I see that they make fun of the same methodology which they have learnt, then it pains. When I see that they are not willing to see beyond, then I wonder. When I see their giant Hosni Mubaraks then I aspire for many more Tahir Squares.

Am fortunate to know many AMU alumni. For them their preconceived notions and gravely mistaken ideas about ‘the nearest life (al-hayaat al-dunyaa)’ and ‘the way of life (al-deen)’ – which they have relentlessly clung to for many generations under severe conditioning effects – are far louder than all the clamouring on the Square. They give a deaf year to the protests. They are not listening to the teeming millions who have swarmed the streets of Cairo. Their rule of “thirty years” is not coming to an end. Not in the near future.

Our arrogance is the greatest Hosni Mubarak. When I find arrogance it only means that truth is eluding us the seeking of which is our career on earth – to the best of our capacities and with utmost humbleness. How can we afford not to relent when faced with truth? How can we be arrogant and the seeker of truth – both at the same time? If we still cannot see the difference then we need to go back to Makkah and analyze the characters – who was arrogant and why and who wasn’t and why not?

We have been against one Hosni Mubarak mistaking him all this while to be somewhere farther away from ourselves. But the one which is the real one and is constantly in the mirror we do not worry about him. And we allow him to perpetuate his tyrannical rule as long as he wishes. The struggle for deposing these Hosni Mubaraks has to continue – all the life. Unless we depose them we will not see the real and lasting change which we are aspiring to and are deservedly excited about.

We expect change from masses and then the Governments. We think that the change in regime is a precondition for the change within. But then what and why do we teach? How will we justify the existence of so many educational institutions? The day we sincerely work on ourselves and send our own selves to Sharm El Sheikhs (or anywhere else) we will see a new dawn. We will see a changed world around us. Congratulations for removing one Hosni Mubarak. There are many more.

Some of them I recently met during a study circle of Qur’an. The friends had reached to the concluding rukoo‘ of Soorah al-Baqarah. On being asked to comment, I protested on the Tahrir Square that “My pace of studying Qur’an is very slow and I haven’t reached the end of Soorah al-Baqarah as I am still stuck with ‘Show us the Straight Path’ in Soorah al-Faatihah because when I contrast it with our situation then I hardly find any Path or anything Straight”. But my protest was brutally crushed. I am sure the same regime will continue for some more time and any protests will be dealt with in the same manner. Everyone is the victim here, though. Including the circles and the Book.

I have seen them in the emails on our Forums. I come across them in my daily conversations. I see them in our directionlessness and complete disorientation. I see them in our mistaken priorities. I see them in our frequent ‘assertion’ that “Jirgah apni jagah par lekin parnaalah wahee(n) giray gaa”. I see them in our love for speed and distaste for direction. I see them in our notion that we cannot do anything unless the regime changes. I see them in blaming all others for our ills and evils. We have to depose all these Hosni Mubaraks – one by one.

Arguing In Circles & The Juice From Three

We have a knack for arguing in circles. A case in point is Ahaadeeth. Inspired by the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) the early Muslims became the founders and promoters of sciences in the world (without dividing knowledge into ‘religious’ and ‘secular’).  Motivated by the same teachings – in whichever form they got it – the earlier generations gave maximum expression to their latent potentialities and became leaders. They imbibed the whole spirit without getting lost into bits and pieces. We have the same teachings handed down to us. But disregarding the collective spirit we have turned many of the blessings into curse. We need to clearly realize what we are and what we were supposed to be.

We do not mind asking the same questions over and over again. The discussions on Rak‘aat in Taraaweeh is not an isolated case. It is the norm. We have psychological barriers and these barriers we have to remove as much as possible. These barriers aren’t allowing us to move out of the vicious cycle of arguments. Arguing in circles we drain our energies and resources. Our state and mind-set is very well described in the following couplet:

yeh kolhoo ke bailou(n) se kuchh kum nahee(n) hai(n)

chalei(n) ‘umr bhar aur wahee(n) kay wahee(n) hai(n)

Sometimes we are deliberately distracted from the main course. We should refuse to allow it to happen to ourselves. We have to break the vicious cycle of debating and discussing the same issues – over and over again. We have to move ahead – literally. Now the most important question is how to move ahead. To come out of the present predicament we need the wealth of ideas. We need the juice and the gist. We need zaad-e-raah (provision). With all gratitude to all those who have tried to capture the spirit of the pristine Message we can arguably identify three persons who could particularly guide us, the Indian Muslims, initially.  There is something to learn from these three persons. We have to articulate those things and MOVE ON.

We have taken something from Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. We have popularized ‘modern’ education. Numberless projects are being launched. Now it is the time to go back to the VISION given by him: 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. There is a need now to promote rational and scientific thinking and incorporate it in the syllabi. We will not be able to move in the direction of the above VISION otherwise.

The second is Muhammad Iqbal. What to take from him? His emphasis on individual – which is very much in harmony with the goal of education. This is what khud-aagaahi (khudi) is. Our educational institutions should groom self-concentrated individuals who go in the depth of their personalities and come out to give us new standards of thought and action. This is how the poverty of ideas will be removed and we will move ahead. Also, as individuals we have fewer prejudices. With the association to a particular school of thought we suddenly become responsible for a huge amount of (unwanted) burden. Why should I be responsible for the ideas of anyone else? Besides the above, the wisdom behind the finality of Prophethood (khatm an-nubuwwah) and Ijtihaad which Iqbal beautifully describes as “the principle of movement in the structure of Islam” are extremely valuable zaad-e-raah from him. Why we haven’t grasped the wisdom behind khatm an-nubuwwah is beyond comprehension.

‘Allama Hameeduddin Farahi (1863-1930 CE) seeks coherence (nazm) in verses, Soorahs and the entire Qur’an. He argues that the “whole has a value which the parts do not”. Apparently a Church and a Masjid are built with the same materials. If we look at them in parts then they aren’t different from each other at all. When, however, the two are complete – and become whole – then they aren’t the same anymore. Considering the parts, Qur’an hasn’t used any letters which weren’t there in Arabic language. It hasn’t used any unknown Arabic words either. What is divine in Qur’an, then? It is the order in which the letters and then the words and later verses as well as Soorahs have been put together. The search for the organization and coherence in Qur’an should be taken outside the classroom. We have to see and create the whole coherent picture outside the school, too.

Disregarding the coherence when we quote one verse we ignore the previous and the next verses, the previous and the next group of verses, the previous and the next Soorahs and the spirit of Qur’an as a whole – and the environment. This is why when we move to one topic we do not remember or consider the previous ones. With the three luminaries along with us we can hit our wagon to the stars. The three of them can do wonders for us if we give them (or ourselves) a chance. Their legacy is of everyone. The last one is not well known – unfortunately. His approach to Qur’an will change the outlook of people. At the moment there is only some “academic” interest in his works. (Sometimes “academic” sounds “most irrelevant” to me.) Let us reflect on these submissions for a while.

“They are/he is at least doing something”

This one pious and apparently sincere and appreciative statement has done the greatest damage. This one sentence has not allowed us to move forward. It serves as the most powerful break on all that we want to do. It unmistakably and without fail appears at that point of time when we are on the verge of forging ahead! We have to fight the menace of this sentence – tooth and nail. This one sentence serves as a huge psychological barrier and it is a big hindrance in the path of the promotion of critical and scientific thinking. It is the antithesis of learning anything from our previous experiences.

Apparently it is a harmless utterance and it is full of good intentions. But the sentences like this are responsible for making the situations worse. “They are / he is at least doing something” brings the discussion to an abrupt and untimely end. So the journey we had undertaken and in which we reached somewhere ends. After this sentence has been uttered there is no need to continue the journey (analysis) any further. Consequently, we keep moving in the same cycle and initiate the same discussion at some other point of time again only to hear this one sentence once more. I cannot recall the number of times I have heard this sentence and the number of times nobody dared to say anything afterwards.

Let us illustrate what “at least” means in a couple of situations. An unqualified person starts treating a patient – in all sincerity and with good intentions – by administering all sorts of injections. He is very much concerned with the human life and wants to save it by all means. Seeing his enthusiasm our friends might say, “He is at least doing something.” And we should respond to it with standing ovation! Someone might start beating someone for no reasons whatsoever. And our friends of this sentence may say, “Look, he is not sitting idle. He is very active. He is at least doing something, ma sha Allah.” A group of people may alter the priorities and may be messing up with things and the gentlemen will say, “They are at least doing something, you see.”

This one sentence is draining our energies and resources. It indicates our love for speed and indifference for the direction. As a people we have fallen in love with speed. Before, however, we utter and after we have heard “They are / he is at least doing something” let us think about this sentence many times over. We need to say good-bye to “at leasts”. Let us recall that this one sentence indicates a lot of blank space in our thoughts. Let us try to fill those gaps as we do in the following couplet:

magas ko baagh mei(n) jaanay na dena

ke naahaq khoon parvaanay ka hogaa

(Allow not the honeybee in the garden. It will kill the moth, otherwise.)

It has been noticed that even our educated repeat the same sentences a thousand times which they have heard and which the non-educated repeat. We encounter it on a daily basis. This is why I tend to believe that our educated, too, are not (truly) educated. When the educated start repeating “at least” then it is a bad omen for a whole people. We do not try to see the link between the noble objectives of our life and this one sentence. This is why I will argue for a complete overhaul of our education system – and our thought patterns – which is producing followers and not leaders, defeating the very purpose of education.

When the situations demand a certain course of action then there is nothing like “at least”. The “at least”, therefore, should be an unaffordable luxury for us. We have enjoyed it so far. But now we have to make it so expensive that nobody should be able to buy it. The genie of this sentence needs to go back to the bottle now. We are not going to be overawed by this false intimidation – not anymore. Let us summon up some more courage and say an emphatic NO to “at leasts”.

Selectively Quoting From Texts

Selective quoting from Hadeeth has the same problem as does the selective quoting from Qur’an. While quoting a single Hadeeth one ignores the fact that he might be ignoring thousands and thousands of Ahaadeeth. It has been noticed that nazariyah pahle wujood mei(n) aata hai aur daleel ba‘d mei(n) laa’i jaati hai. But the impression given is that because of these dalaa’il (evidences) we have reached to the following nazariyah (theory)! The reality could be just the opposite. It is most likely that after we have already decided a certain idea then we have started looking for its ‘evidences’. The problem is our atomistic outlook. We isolate one phenomenon from the rest as does the science. This is precisely what we do with the verses and Ahaadeeth, too. We do to our texts what we do to everything in our life. Our outlook is the same everywhere as we are the same persons everywhere.

We have mastered the art of quoting selectively from the texts. Our entire edifice stands (actually crumbles) on selective quoting. A friend of mine says, “Of all the things, we are so good at searching for gaps in the ocean of knowledge, ignoring all the goodness and confirming the fact that we don’t want to learn and are closing our minds to learn from Ahaadeeth.” We are very sharp and skilled in this art. But our ingenuity in this field is not allowing us to outgrow a certain age. This art, however, has made one job very easy for us i.e. writing and speaking on every topic of our desire (actually whims). Because if we are hell bent on quoting selectively then we can prove and disprove anything as while quoting one verse or Hadeeth we don’t need to keep in mind the thousands of verses and Ahaadeeth.

Unless we stop quoting selectively we will keep supporting one school of thought if we belong to it and will keep opposing all other schools which obviously we don’t belong to. And with all earnestness and sincerity we will believe that all those schools of thought are mutually exclusive. We have to stop belonging to various schools of thought, though. We have to start belonging to Islam – alone. And it will be enough for salvation. If it is not, then please tell me that school of thought which guarantees the salvation and I would like to join it forthwith.

Because of the selective quotes which is both the cause and the effect of a partial outlook we are not able to develop the whole picture. It is because of this missing whole picture that there are those who are distorting Islam beyond recognition. They are trying to adjust Islam according to everything around and not the other way round. This is happening in the name of slogans like ‘Islam and pluralism’ and ‘Islam and multicultural societies’ etc. Islam certainly stands for all those beautiful things which our well meaning friends want us to believe. But after Islam has stood for all those things, Islam doesn’t wait for good things to happen – from a safe distance. It goes out in the thick of it and makes things happen.

The selective quotes are like a serious contagious disease mainly because we don’t see any problem in this widespread practice. We need to go back to the outlook of Muhammad (pbuh). He represented the whole Islam and was holistic in his outlook, engaging the life as a whole. He did not wait for a sunny day to arrive in an unknown futurity to start his work. He did not focus on only one aspect of the Faith with an inflationary idea about it. This outlook and approach is the only solution for us. We have tried all other options and ways. Let us try this one, too.

The selective quoting is our enemy. It is not allowing us to move to the second stage. It has turned the blessings into curse. We have trained generations after generations for selectively quoting from our texts and we are going round and round in circles facing the same situations and the same questions which we have discussed over and over again and aren’t tired of. The graduates of our ‘traditional’ institutions are very good in this practice of selective quoting. The same art has been imbibed very well by many ‘modern’ educated. It appears as if we will not leave any unwanted art and craft without mastering it.

I reiterate here that let us be very careful whenever we hear anyone quoting. Because it is most likely going to distort the things once again. It is most likely going to mess up with the order of things yet another time. There is a chance that once more someone wants to win a new argument rather than a new heart. If we want all of the above then we can ignore selective quoting. If we do not, then we need to be watchful – about ourselves and others.  Let us not be satisfied by merely selective quotes from someone. Let us not quote to defeat someone in arguments and prove the supremacy of one ideology over the other. Let us collectively try to reach to the crux of it and to the collective spirit of Islam.

If we stop selective quoting it is most likely to bring about the much sought after and talked about unity (I am not sure why do we seek unity). (Unity is a by-product, a natural outcome of certain processes. It is not a process in itself.) It will bring about unity because it will force our writers and speakers to move to the second stage and talk about the cumulative spirit of Islam. (We need to camp here.) It will help them come out of the denominational and sectarian as well as partial outlook and try to look at the whole picture. Once we develop the capacity to look at the whole picture we will most likely see the same picture – which is precisely what we are not able to see currently because of selective quoting. We have to collective (and not selectively) stand against this selective quoting.

To Those Who Reject Hadeeth

There are some discrepancies in the standpoint of those who reject Ahaadeeth. Their selective hesitation in accepting Ahaadeeth and willing acceptance of many less authentic works raises some questions. And these questions need to be satisfactorily answered. I would like to know which are the other works of historical relevance (and which work doesn’t have that relevance?) which they reject for the same reasons as they reject the Ahaadeeth for. I would request for furnishing a complete list of all such works so that many more people could be more careful and do not fall in any trap. It will especially be enlightening to know their position on A Short History Of The World by H G Wells, A Study Of History by Arnold J Toynbee and The Glimpses Of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru, as an example. I would like to know why do they accept or reject any of these books and why or why not – especially with reference to the comparative authenticity.

A respectable gentleman who seems to be rejecting the Ahaadeeth once observed the following while addressing me in response to one or some of my previous emails: “Carry on, Doctor! You seem to be on the right track. If I am arrogant, you have to tell me so and you have to tell me why. Yes, I am going to be hurt, but that is a small price you have to pay for performing the duty of ta’muroona bilma‘rroofi wa tanhawna ‘anil munkar imposed on members of the best Ummah by the Creator.” While I sincerely thank him for this encouragement I would like to ask why should I carry on? I shouldn’t, actually. And even if I do, why should anyone read or listen? Nobody should, in fact. Why should the gentleman himself carry on with his own work? Why there is anything left to carry on? Why should ANYONE on earth carry on with ANYTHING? If the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not allowed to carry on? (What does the rejection of all that which he ‘carried out’ signify, otherwise?)

A position against the entire literature of Hadeeth seems to be untenable. To me there is no reason why anyone who rejects the Hadeeth literature should write or read any emails on any of the Networks, as an example. Every word which he writes – irrespective of what it means – goes against the idea of rejection of Hadeeth. Why should anyone listen to them or read what they write? What is the justification behind all their work? Why there is a need for their saying or writing anything in the first place? To me the person rejecting Ahaadeeth is a proof against himself. It is like using technology (and there is no other way) to denounce technology itself. Obviously every word uttered in negating technology will only reaffirm it. To prove the incoherence of that person we don’t need to look anywhere else. We only need to look at him silently.

Why should we most respectfully listen to the arguments of our friends who reject Ahaadeeth today but should squarely reject all the arguments of Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ahmad ibn Hambal, Nasa’i and Az-Zuhri and others? We are ready to do so but we need very convincing arguments for this readiness. Also, civilizationally speaking, we have to find out who among these is moving ahead and who is asking to reinvent the same wheel again and again. We have to find out who is not allowing us to move to the second stage and who is keeping us in an unending cycle.

There is a need to see the motive and the inspiration which the compilers of Ahaadeeth had for their painstaking efforts – the parallels of which we do not find today. They certainly considered the entire legacy of the Prophet (pbuh) as a treasure and did their utmost to preserve it for the posterity (unmindful of the possibility that the posterity will ungratefully reject it!). They, too, knew that the Qur’an was complete (or have we recently discovered it?) but carried out the hard work. The desire for knowledge, for truth and for guidance must be their main concerns. How come their work which signifies all of the above became the antithesis of all of these? There is something amiss here.

When Qur’an is ‘complete’ (as understood by those among us who reject Ahaadeeth) why should they write anything about it? Why should we still read their writings and try to figure out something? Why will they again hold a pen in their hand to refute these submissions? Why are they reading these submissions in the first place? Why there are still some arguments left – especially on their side – if the Qur’an is ‘complete’? The next write-up from anyone who rejects Ahaadeeth will be its own emphatic and incontrovertible refutation – irrespective of its content.

What if the electronic communication and technology becomes so advanced tomorrow that we are able to trace and record the voice of the Prophet (pbuh) and get to know for sure what he said? Will we still reject his words because we have nothing to do with Hadeeth? Why saying those things was fine (was it?) but doing one’s utmost to record them isn’t? Isn’t everything being recorded whether we ‘record’ it or we don’t – in any case? Doesn’t Qur’an vouch for this recording? Isn’t the advancement in technology proving it at the exponential speed?

Let us not forget that our calling on earth is to discover truth to the best of our capacities. Also, let us not forget that it will NEVER be an easy job. Just as finding the pearls and diamonds isn’t (and shouldn’t be!). It will be a painful process – always. Otherwise we will not realize its worth and our capacities will also remain grossly underutilized. Hence, we will always have to creatively reach out to the truth by all means possible and utilizing all the resources available. There is no way that we can take to the shortest route when it comes to searching for truth. When, however, we reject the Ahaadeeth we give an impression that we are not ready for the toughest job and that we are falling prey to the short-cut.