From the basement, the murmur and
footsteps coming from the ground floor sounded like a victorious military
march. As they came closer to the low lit two feet wide passage, their faces
and clothes got visible. They were wearing salwar kameez, pants and shirts. At
the door, the once empty passage steadily filled with slippers and shoes. They
then entered inside the hall covered with red carpets.
As the clock slowly crossed 4:15
PM, more and more audible sounds of chatter and footsteps could be heard. On
the basement of Mandela Hostel at Sharda University, it was time for the third
prayer for the Muslim, the Asr, one of the five praying times. The other four
are Fajr, Dhuhr, Maghrib and Isha.
After around 20 minutes of
silence, except the cohesive sounds of movements when they bowed down or stood
up during prayers, they walked out of the Masjid. Once again, the two feet wide
passage filled with sounds. This time, the sounds faded.
Rabiu Abdul Kadir and Ayman
Aminu, both 25 and from Nigeria were two of the 80 Muslims who prayed on Monday
(Nov. 3) at the Masjid. The former in white salwar kameez and the latter, in
jeans and t-shirt expressed that Islam meant “submission to only One God, Allah
and believe that prophet Muhammad was the last messenger of Allah.” Both Mr.
Kadir and Mr. Aminu agreed that there is no deity worthy of worshiping except
Allah.
As terrorists, in the name of
Islam continue to spread violence and killing of innocent people across the
world, Muslims believe that their religion is losing its beauty. (A 2014 UN
report stated in the past eight months, more than 24,000 people have been
injured or killed by ISIS.) As a result, they argue that the religion should
open up to modernity. However, some, on the other hand argue otherwise. Mr.
Kadir opined that the teaching of Islam were universal and are suitable for any
time.
OPENING UP
“A Muslim submits himself to Allah and to what
is written in the Holy Quran without doubt because it is the eternal truth,”
Mr. Kadir expressed, adding that “whoever expressed doubt was not a Muslim.”
The 21st century has
been blessed with inventions and discoveries. These inventions and discoveries
have, in turn, eased the world to know and understand what was unknown before. Powerful
and economically rich nations devote billions of dollars for research and
development. In 2013, the Obama administration devoted $140.8 billion alone.
While such inventions are
accepted with more awe than doubt, Mr. Kadir and Mr. Aminu take a retreat. They
highlighted conditions before accepting such inventions and expressed that
Islam had already mentioned such inventions 1400 years ago.
“Any new discoveries are tallied
with what is written in Quran. If it is mentioned, we accept. But if the
finding are not mentioned, we think twice before accepting,” Mr. Kadir
elaborated.
“In the first case, even if
inventions are not written in Quran, and if they do not contradict anything
that is written in the Quran, we accept it. In the second case, anything that
is not mentioned in the Quran and that also contradicts the Holy Quran, are to
be rejected.”
However, views vary. Sheik
Hassan, 25 (name changed) argues the contrary. Mr. Hassan argues that Islam is
suffering because of the silence that people have been enforced in the name of
religion. “We should question everything that is written in the religion,” Mr.
Hassan argued.
“We should be guided by reasons. These reasons should be within the context of
the modern world. Quran was written long time ago and things have changed. Quran
was written at a time when there were no countries and societies and law. Now,
we have nations, laws and societies.
“By sticking to what is written
in the Quran, we are forgetting the first verse, Al Kalam, which urges Muslims
to ‘Read.’ What ‘Read’ means is to cultivate the ability to think and to be
rational,” Mr. Hassan said.
By questioning, Mr. Hassan
suggested that each Muslim should introspect themselves and ask if this is the
Islam they want for themselves and their children. Moreover, Mr. Hassan argued
that it was important that Muslims came together to redefine their religion to
the world.
“We need to properly represent
Islam through media, cinema music and not by weapons,” Mr. Hassan said.
Mr. Khalid Akhtar, editorial
research consultant with India’s state run media, Door Darshan, argued that
Islam was losing its beauty in modern age due to politics and distorted
interpretations. He argued that politics and religion should be independent of
each other.
Moreover, Mr. Akhtar opined that
scholars should sit together and discuss and debate over the interpretations of
the Quran and come up with the conclusions that fit modern times.
However, the thirst for power is
limitless. The clerical classes, especially religious preachers, do not want to
lose their grip on the society. As a result, the clerical classes become
adamant towards reforms. Eventually, the scholarly voices, Mr. Akhtar argued,
gets suppressed and silenced.
ORIGINAL QURAN, NOT A CUP OF TEA
Quran was originally written in
classic Arabic, which is not everyone’s cup of tea and only highly fluent
people can read it in its original text, Mr. Akhtar opined.
“As a result, the Quran was
rewritten and reinterpreted in simple and different languages by Imams of
different countries. The rewriting was based on what the Imams themselves
understood of the original Quran which was written in classic Arabic,” Mr.
Akhtar expressed.
Researches and developments in
the field of psychology and cognitive developments is increasingly highlighting
how individuals act or react to certain message. One of the theories of
reading, the Reader-response theory argues that any reading of a text is valid.
The theory believes that each individual has different understanding of the
text due to various factors like family, surrounding, culture, tradition,
lifestyle amongst others.
However, the theory maintains
that the “Reader” is defined as an imaginary person who reads the text exactly
the way it was written—being careful of the stated, the implied, the grammar
and the context, without having any biases. These researches have concluded
that reading of the same text by the same person in different setting tends to
produce different interpretations.
These personalities affect how an
individual reacts and interprets a text. The four interpretations of Quran are
no different, Mr. Akhtar explained.
“Yes, Quran is sacred but the
interpretations were made by Imams who interpreted on their own understandings.
As a result, so far we have four interpretations of the Quran. While we cannot
change anything that is written in the Quran, we can always improve our
understanding and interpretations in light to modern times,” Mr. Akhtar said.
JIHAD, ONE WORD, DIFFERENT VIEWS
Followers of Islam are divided on
what Jihad means. Mr. Kadir and Aminu define it as self defense. They further
expressed that death of a person during self defense was permissible. However,
Mr. Hassan defined Jihad as a struggle and shared that Jihad Alnafs, (the
ability to control oneself and their desire and senses and how they treated
other living beings), is the highest form of jihad.
In their article, “Jihad: A
Misunderstood concept from Islam”, authors Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani and
Shaykh Seraj Hendricks expressed that
while the Arabic word was often translated as “holy war,” “in a purely linguistic sense, the word
‘jihad’ meant struggling or striving.” The authors argued that in a religious
sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of Prophet Muhammad, jihad had
many meanings. “It could be referred to internal as well as external efforts to
be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the
faith of Islam.”
‘ISLAMIC
MILITANT GROUP’ OR ‘TERRORIST’ OR ‘WARRIORS OF ISLAM’?
Views continue to be divided on
whether to call the groups that are spreading violence across the world as
“Islamic militant group” or as “terrorist.” While the larger population calls them
both, some contend that lines are blurred. The Oxford Dictionary, 2014 defines
terrorist as “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorism, the Dictionary continues to define, is “the unofficial or
unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political
aims.”
Mr. Kadir expressed that while he
personally, he could not come up with saying if these groups were “terrorists”
or “warriors of Islam”. Nonetheless, he agreed that there were some
principles of Islam that they had failed to follow. Mr. Kadir expressed that although
“these groups” were acting in the name of Jihad or self defense, they
nevertheless were against the concept of jihad. Mr. Aminu expressed that these
groups were “transgressing the limits of Islam” by killing innocent people.
However, Mr. Hassan did not
hesitate to identify them as terrorists. “I do not think that they are
representatives of Islam. Not at all,” Mr Hassan expressed.
“Warriors?” Mr. Hassan said rhetorically.
“Warriors have something to fight for. These terrorists have nothing to fight
for. They are blood thirsty people. If their cause was justified and if they
were warriors, they would not use kids and teenagers as shields for their cause.
They would not trade women, bomb public spaces and kill innocent people. These
terrorists don’t justify Islam. Not at all,” Mr. Hassan gasped, adding, “They
are like cancer. The longer you keep, the more it spreads across your body. You
can’t cure it. The only way you can stop its spread is by amputation.”
However Mr. Akhtar remarked that
it was a catch. He argued that “while some of the demands these terrorist groups
have made seem reasonable (as in the case of Israel and Palestine where both
the nations are looking for a solution to the problem of land and fighting for
their existence), their action of killing innocent people to achieve their
goals under the name of Islam was not justified.”
Likewise, the Iraqis have been
protesting because they want American and other Western troops to go away from
their land. Iraqis see Western selfish interests as a cause of their internal
suffering and destruction, Mr. Akhtar added.
A WIDENING GAP?
As the global media continually
reports increasing numbers of violence where innocent Muslims and other people
are killed in the streets of Middle East, people feel that the gap between the
Muslim and the non-Muslim community is widening.
The widening gap is a catch: as long as the
Muslim community does not stop violence and killing of innocent people, the
world would further discriminate Muslims. And as long as the world does not change their view of how they look at Muslims, the Muslim community cannot stop
violence.
Moreover, developing nations are
continually fighting for a religion based identity. The rise of Narendra Modi
and his right wing Bharat Janta Party (BJP) in last year’s general election of
India was interpreted as a triumph for the followers of Hinduism. Believers of
Hinduism in India urged Modi and his party to call India as a “Hindu Rastra”.
Similarly, rightwing Rastra Prajatantra Party of Nepal also advocated for
reverting Nepal back to Hindu Rastra from a secular country after BJP came into
power in its Southern neighbor, India.
Mr. Akhtar argued that religion
and politics should never be intertwined. “Religion is a private affair.
Politics should be separate from religion and vice versa,” Mr. Akhtar said,
adding that “societies and nations needed to be accommodative and
representative of all religions, castes and classes. In order to do so,
governments should positively discriminate to increase popular participation.”
THE WAY FORWARD
Every year, developed countries
spend billions of dollars to counter terrorism. The United States alone spent
$16 billion in 2013. From 2001 as of 2014, America has spent more than $1.5
trillion, all to no avail. Terrorism, unlike planned, is continues to grow.
Every year, new factions emerge killing hundreds and thousands of innocent
people. Global economies continually collapse and countries even get engrossed
into Civil War.
After the Arab Spring, Syria went
into a civil war. The conflict between Shia, Sunna and the Hutis in Yemen is
creating a political deadlock. Israel and Palestine have been striving for
existence without any compromise.
In such light, views are turning
to constructive counter terrorism approaches. These propagators are arguing
that rather than spending billions of dollars in weapons, nations should invest
in education and schools and creating employment. “We don’t need mosques. We
need schools where we can learn freely. Schools which give us platform to raise
queries, clear our doubts and understand better,” Mr. Hassan said.
Mr. Hassan and Mr. Akhtar argued
that every individual and society needs to work together for the way forward.
They argue that both need to trust the other. Apart from reporting negative
images of Muslim, media also needs to convey positive images of good Muslims
and positively discriminate them from the terrorists.
“Scholars should sit together and
ponder upon the four interpretations and its validity in modern age. They
should make reforms on practices and adjust according to modern times.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Akhtar
maintained that modernity was subjective and needed clear definitions.
“However, any form of regression to a society in the name of modernity should
be discarded.”
Similarly, the Muslim community
should also work towards peace. Moreover, Mr. Hassan argues that in modern age,
with education and wider global exposure, individuals should be guided by
reason and not by what is written. “We need to ask if it is applicable in
modern day or not. If it is not, we should let it go.”
“In its core, Islam is respects
freewill,” Mr. Hassan said.
(Names have been changed to protect the identity of individuals in light
of potential threats.)
