Utilizing Our Resources & Changing Our Discourse

It is not about Organizations and Institutions. It is about exclusivity and isolationism. It is about more words and less meanings. It is about the fear that we instil in us before even starting the journey. It is about remaining behind and not being in the forefront – which the upholders of the beautiful faith like Islam are obliged to be in. It is about directionlessness and confusion. It is about disorientation of all our Institutions. It is about the maximum utilization of our resources and changing our discourse. The names of Organizations and Institutions figure out when we discuss the issues threadbare. If we should not then the names will not. The choice is ours.

It has been asked if I have “genuine regrets of being associated with that kind of ideology and culture of exclusivity?” Yes, I have genuine regrets for being associated with the culture of exclusivity if we do not take any corrective measures and do not change the discourse. And allow the energies and resources to get dissipated and allow the discourse to remain where it currently is. But I have no regrets if we learn the right lessons. And do not run in a situation that we again ask someone, “Are you having genuine regrets, of being associated with that kind of ideology and culture of exclusivity?” How many more empty-handed people can we afford? So the above question we should ask to ourselves and to every individual: “Nay, man will be evidence against himself. Even though he were to put up his excuses.” (al-Qiyaamah, 75: 14-15)

When I suggested abolishing madrasaas I was merely aligning myself with the VISION. It is the same alignment that I am seeking in my submissions about the Jamaa‘at-e-Islami. I would be happy to seek the same alignment in all aspects of our life and in ALL Organizations and ALL Institutions. We will need this soul-searching at EVERY level. Many things will clearly be in harmony but many may not be. It may, however, get easier and easier for us to figure out the anomalies if we continue discussing the issues. I would request the respected readers to think for themselves how could we keep the VISION and continue doing exactly what we are doing now – including the fact that we are countering each others’ efforts on a daily basis and with clock-like regularity.

If we keep the VISION in view (what else a vision is for?) then we will be able to clearly see the “apples” from the “oranges”. What is our term of reference, though? Is there any or none? Because we do not have a clearly defined goal we do not know what to compare with what and why. Just as we need to liberate Islam from the traditional seats of learning we need to liberate it from ‘religious’ organizations, too. Just as nobody has monopoly on the sunshine and oxygen, nobody has the right to appropriate Islam for himself or his group. It should be given back to those whom actually it belongs to i.e. EVERYBODY in every place and everywhere on this planet earth.

If I come across a member of Tableeghi Jamaa‘at I will ask him the following question: “I am not happy with giving da‘wah only for a few days in a month or a few months in the entire life. I want to do so everyday, all the time and everywhere by not just words but by my deeds, too. Please advise how I could do that? And if I may start doing that will I still need khurooj (going out) as I think I am already out”. I will ask if we can give da‘wah “in our own ‘Makkah’ and in its streets?” But finally I will tell the respected member of the Jamaa‘at that I will go out with him to a faraway place. Because I am not ‘Saadique’ and not ‘Ameen’ in my ‘Makkah’. Nobody listens to me there. My wife does not listen to me either. Hence I will go to a place where I am Mr Perfect and Mr Clean.

Giving da‘wah is not a mechanical action which is carried out in a mechanistic manner. Da‘awah means listening to your addressees may be more than you need to speak to them. It is not one way traffic. It is like medicine (not the entire pharmacy) which is prescribed according to the requirements of each patient. Also, it is not about giving da‘wah to somebody in South Africa and then returning to Aligarh and never being in touch with the same person disregarding the fact that it requires constant monitoring and working in this field in a very natural manner. It is not about khitaab-e-‘aam (public address) either. All these methods are the reinforcement of the fact that we love short-cuts. We as a people have to understand the fact that ‘the longest is the shortest’. The ‘longest’ (or the ‘shortest’) is to live Islam in every ‘Makkah’. How could I live Islam if I leave my students behind for months together for the selfish motive of ‘earning thawaab’? This is the partial outlook. This is the bane.

Inviting everybody to masjid and to the basics of Islam is great. Ignoring, however, the ultimate purpose of Islam and the fact that Salaah is like a powerhouse for discharging greater responsibilities of life is not so great. Disregarding the fact that “Seek help with patience and prayer; this is indeed an exacting discipline, but not to the humble, who know for certain that they will meet their Lord, and that they will return to Him” (al-Baqarah, 2: 45-46) is not so great. Missing out the point that we ‘seek help’ for performing some difficult tasks and we need “patience” in it is not great. The existence of madrasaas and ‘religious’ organizations, however, is a symptom. The disease is our exclusivity. The disease is our isolationism. The disease is our markaz gureziyat (‘centrifugality’). The cure is to be watchful about every discourse and every write-up and every outfit and set-up.

We face difficulty in communicating with the Jamaa‘at-e-Islami Hind. Wrote my observations to some of its functionaries but did not get any response. Yes, I had a meeting and few telephonic conversations with Professor Siddique Hassan, Deputy Ameer-e-Jamaa‘at. Professor Siddique Hassan concurs on many issues of concern. But he is of the view that one should create his acceptability first. And then bring the changes (from within - probably). Apparently, he has some models of this type of working in his view. But there is a model that we get in the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He did not try to create his acceptability first. To me ‘creating acceptability’ first means that one should FIRST say the same things which all others say – in any given set-up – for quite sometime till he is sure that he is accepted. After he is accepted he should start saying things contrary to what he has been saying so far. How any truth-loving person can do so and keep his conscience alive is beyond my comprehension.

It occurs to me that all the Organizations are having partial truth. The problem with the partial truth is that it is not truth. Hence, “Yet they divided themselves into factions, each rejoicing in what they had. So leave them in their bewilderment for a while.” (al-Mu’minoon, 23: 53) Not understanding the essence, we have so many ‘religious’ parties. Also, we have a strange phenomenon that they all consider each other as adversaries. It indicates some basic flaws. While on the other hand the educational institutions cooperate with each other – this is particularly true about the Institutions of higher learning. This is why it was argued that the ‘religious’ organizations become sects after a while.

Precisely because it is the “time for globalization, where corporations run the world so if jamaat takes any stand which is different from Maulana Maududi then there is nothing wrong” not just the Jamaa‘at but the entire Muslims (including those in the Jamaa‘at-e-Islami) should adopt a unified VISION. If we do not have a unified VISION then we should not talk about unity (ittihaad). Ittihaad is a by-product. It is a means to an end. And not an end in itself. If we do not have a VISION then we should not review the contents, methodology and the environment of madrasaas. Then we should not exchange any emails – as everyone is doing an “excellent job”. The question of alignment does not arise either.

Why does the Jamaa‘at not have sufficient resources with its wide network while it launches an anti-imperialism campaign? How will it counter the imperialism with the kind of resources it currently has? How there is dearth of resources despite the fact that there are thousands of workers and sympathizers? As regards “10000 duroos-e-Qur’an”, it is mere statistics. I wondered a lot when I found out that someone was keeping a record of those who attended dars-e-Qur’an and those who did not. It says a lot without saying. While in the SIO and in Aligarh I always wondered why do we have to have a dars-e-Qur’an for each gathering? Why do we need to take the life out of the Book and make its recital and dars just a formality. Why couldn’t we just gather together for sake of just meeting and discussing? I have noticed that we have made all possible efforts to take the life out of all that we do. If we want to continue in the same mode then we forfeit the right of complaining.

When I find that University teachers are working for Jamaa‘at-e-Islami and Tableeghee Jamaa‘at, I seriously doubt their commonsense. I wonder how do they reconcile the fact that “a University stands for humanism, for tolerance, for adventure of ideas, experimentation and unceasing quest and diversity of opinions” with the exclusivist and partial outlook that the above-mentioned Organizations espouse. I wonder how such instructors can continue working in a University without disregarding the objectives of their Organization and vice versa? I wonder how could one live peacefully holding two different objectives (one partial and the other holistic) – both at the same time? I also wonder how they will bring any clarity in the ideas of their students with such confused and unclear notions in their own minds. I wonder how without first seeing the “whole picture” themselves, are they able to show that picture to their students. A University teacher has to promote critical and scientific thinking. If he really promotes it then he himself and his students will look at everything critically and will find that the limited objectives of a given Jamaa‘at are not in harmony with their holistic objectives as teachers and students. I wonder how will they persist in this self-contradictory situation? The University teachers not devoting their hours on and with their students keeping the VISION of a University in view and spending their time in such Organizations as mentioned above do not really do justice to their profession. Not finding the (un)commonsense even in University instructors is all the more surprising. Because:

chuN kufr az Ka‘bah bar kheezad kujaa maanad Musalmaani

I endorse the following views of Dr Razi Raziuddin (with the exception of some observations about the Aligarh Movement): “Therefore, we should not target Jamaa‘at-e-Islami alone. Rather target all these ideological outfits who have messed up with the Muslims, ruining their past, present and future. Their objective is more political than religious. But what is lacking most prominently is the “missing road-map” for establishing a vibrant, dynamic, modern Muslim society based on the true Islamic ethos of universal brotherhood, toleration, spirit of broader inquiry and research. In essence, they all failed in producing a manual for re-kindling the spirit of renaissance of the Abbasid period. One lone movement, The Aligarh Movement of Sir Syed, tried its best with a limited success. And that is what the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent should have followed as their sole Model for emancipation and uplift. These all others have so little to offer to the present day Muslims, except invoking and exploiting in the name of Islam.”

I do not believe that the Aligarh Movement has been successful. If it was successful our both the Hands should have been really full. But there is a hope with this Movement. Especially with its second phase. The phase two of the Aligarh Movement is about taking everybody along. The first phase was about popularizing the modern education. This Movement tried its best to put something in the Left Hand which was completely empty. Now there is something in that hand. Now the challenge is to fill both the Hands. Which is rarely the case anywhere. Because of the empty hands either there is no excellence or there is exclusivism. Either way we are not in an exemplary situation and are not in the driver’s seat – for the larger good of the people, too (which is a matter of perception). Promoting scientific temper and rational approach was another avowed which intimately related with what has been described earlier.

Because of the empty Right Hand, the “Aligarh Movement has also produced atheist(s) of the stature of Irfan Habib, Mushirul Hasan, Jan Nisar Akhtar etc. Do we think this worldly things (sic) are of any use if one can’t differentiate between the right and wrong? What’s the difference between a human and a dog in that case? Is it not a failure of Aligarh Movement that a well educated individual turns astray? Shouldn’t we throw that type of Aligarh Movement into pacific ocean”. Agreed – for a moment (because we have to separately analyze each individual mentioned here and this has to be done by those who know them more). The fact that their individualities survived and thrived is an admirable aspect, though, which should not be overlooked. We do not need morons. This is precisely the issue here. While I may or may not agree with one or the other of the above mentioned personalities I am happy that they existed and are existing. Having said that, I also believe that with the Book in the Right Hand they could have given more expression to their individuality and may be in a different (or better) direction. The above phenomenon, however, is better than that restrictive environment wherein the individualities are crushed beyond recognition. Wherein the human beings cease to exist.

We should also consider the fact that the exposition of Islam in an exclusivist manner does not satisfy some of the individuals who are more curious and want ‘more’. The dry as dust homilies do not attract some of the minds. Unfortunately, the ones who became the spokespersons of Islam were more interested in frightening the people than encouraging them. They advocated shunning the world rather than engaging with it. It may not be quite appealing to curious individuals. Besides the above, let us not forget that the freedom granted to human beings is a very big responsibility and the man will always be at the cross-roads. That atmosphere, like this world, will always be more appreciable where one could give full expression to his individuality than that environment which crushes this individuality. While we can afford to live with the former and deal with it, we cannot afford the latter. The choice is ours. But still the history is on the side of the Aligarh Movement. If we had the option to “throw” any of the two Movements “into the Pacific Ocean” which one should be thrown – keeping the VISION in view?

As regards “what Jammaa‘at-e-Islami is trying to do is to extend the hukoomat-e-ilaahiyyah to the area where human being has freedom”, we should consider the fact that we will actually be able to do so only by adopting the proper concept of knowledge and not without it. Let us recall the debate between Adam (a.s.) and the angels. Qur’an explains (al-Baqarah, 2: 31) how Adam (a.s.) was given the ‘knowledge of things’ and he was able to ‘name them’. Naming the things, Iqbal argued, is in fact the ability of VISUALIZING them. Being able to visualize something implies the capability to CONTROL those things for our own purposes. ‘Knowledge is power’, therefore, isn’t a Western concept. It is borrowed from Qur’an. To understand this, we just need to look around and see who has given name to the things in the surroundings and who is using them (extending hukoomat-e-ilaahiyyah).

The Books says: “Do you not see that Allah has subjected to your (use) all things in the heavens and the earth, and has made His bounties flow to you in exceeding measure, (both) seen and unseen? Yet there are among men those who dispute about Allah, without knowledge and without guidance, and without a Book to enlighten them.” (Luqmaan, 31: 20) This subjection (taskheer) is essentially just an indication of huge potentialities of the discovery and utilization of the hidden natural laws. Research and experimentation is all about it. Some of them we already discovered since the inception of the humanity and many of them have not been discovered as yet. “And you have been granted but little knowledge.” (al-Israa’, 17: 85) The subjection (taskheer), therefore, is more an expression of a potentiality than actuality.

There is no short-cut to extending hukoomat-e-ilaahiyyah. Our efforts at the moment amount to watering the branches instead of watering the roots. Because may be we want quick results and forget the fact that ‘the longest is the shortest’. So if Jamaa‘at-e-Islami is truly interested in extending hukoomat-e-ilaahiyyah then it should really take to the path of creating knowledge whole-heartedly utilizing all its resources. But if it takes to that path then what is the difference in the Aligarh Movement and the Jamaa‘at-e-Islami? Then we will realize that these two are not “mangos” and “horses”. They are one and the same. They seem to be two strange things because what the Aligarh Movement had realized much earlier the Jamaa‘at-e-Islami has not been able to realize it completely till date. This is because of the essential difference between the perceptions of the initiators of these two Movements. Who should move in which direction is anyone’s guess.