Islam and terrorism

A recent gathering of Indian Muslims declared terrorism un-Islamic. They should have done it a long time ago, but as the saying goes, der aayad durust aayad (it is never too late):

A large gathering of Muslim scholars representing different schools of thoughts and Muslims organizations unanimously declared that terrorism has no place in Islam and all terror activities are un-Islamic.

The anti-terrorism conference organized by Darul Uloom Deoband and attended by about 10,000 scholars from all over India issued a declaration at the end of the conference, here today. "Killing of innocents is not compatible with Islam. It is anti-Islamic," read the declaration.

Declaration stated that "Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murder among severest sins and crimes."

Various fatwas have been issued in the past against terrorism but this is the first time that such a large gathering of scholars have came out strongly against terrorism. This is also a first attempt to define terrorism in light of Islam.

More

Another piece of interesting news:

Here's something for Maharashtra Navanirman Sena's Raj Thackeray as well as his uncle and inspiration, the founder of Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray, to chew on: If class X students from across the country were to take a common exam, who would perform the best?

Believe it or not, students from Bihar's madrassa board would stand high, second only to students of the ICSE board in Delhi.

Comparing the performance of educational boards across India, the HRD ministry has just released a report on student performance in various states in class X.

The results have the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination in Delhi topping with the highest pass percentage of 94.3%, followed by Bihar State Madrassa Board with a success rate of 91.4%. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, stands third with a pass percentage of 86.4%.

More

The Colours of Allah

I had read Akbar Ahmed's Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament and Promise in my university days. I was immediately drawn to the book as the book sought to find Islam's relevance and connection to the fast-changing world where no value or philosophy seemed to hold water. Everything was so transient. And Akbar talked about Madonna and Stallone in a language that made sense to me. As a young Muslim, I wanted to know and talk about these things, as my worldview was still getting informed.

After making a film on Jinnah, and some more books later, Akbar Ahmed has come out with Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalisation.

The book talks about the Aligarh (my alma mater), Deoband and Ajmer models of Islam, and how the once modern Aligarh model has failed (spawned by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, after the 1857 Indian mutiny or War of Independence). Akbar is advocating a marriage of the inclusive (sufi) model of Ajmer and a pared down but orthodox model of Deoband.

I find this concept very interesting as I myself have seen the transition of the Ajmer model in my hometown (in India) into the Deoband model (after the influence of the Tablighi Jamat). It is the transition of the soft Islam into a hard Islam and the people who are engaged in it are, in my opinion, perhaps unaware of the impact it is bringing about on the society at large. Of course, it is a sociological as well as religious issue and warrants an indepth study on its own, so I won't dewll on it any further.

I am yet to read the book but the review here is whetting my apetite.

The main purpose of the book, therefore, is to give western readers a more three-dimensional picture of the Islamic world, enabling them to engage with real-life Muslims and acknowledge "their common humanity". Ahmed's device for doing this is to introduce us to three "models" of contemporary Islam, which he associates with three rival centres - all in India, as it happens - that he and his team visit.

Aligarh, seat of the university founded on the Oxbridge model by the great 19th-century Muslim reformer in British-ruled India, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, stands for strengthening Islam by learning from the west. Deoband, a major madrasa in India, also founded in reaction to Islam's 19th-century crisis, stands for an almost opposite philosophy, one of asserting mainstream or orthodox beliefs and traditions. (Ahmed more or less equates this with the austere Wahhabi trend promoted by Saudi Arabia.) And finally Ajmer, shrine of the 12th-century Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti, stands for a more quietist, mystical Islam, stressing inner calm, transcendence of earthly passion through direct apprehension of the divine, and openness to other forms of spirituality such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

Again and again Ahmed confronts the crisis of the Aligarh model on which he himself was brought up. Its leaders seem to have lost all conviction, or become little more than corrupt dictators manoeuvring, sometimes adroitly, between American power and an ever more stridently anti-American public opinion. At Aligarh itself his American companions find the students insecure, defensive and unfriendly, whereas at Deoband, once they break through an initial barrier of suspicion and reserve, they find great courtesy, hospitality and willingness to engage in dialogue. Their host and guide at Deoband is in fact the fire-breathing Aijaz Qasmi, who later morphs into an advocate of peace and a respectful Ahmed disciple.

Crudely summarised, Ahmed's message to western leaders is to rely less on Aligarh products like his younger self, and to engage in more direct dialogue with the Deobandis - those in the Muslim world who at first sight seem most fanatically hostile. (No doubt, if asked, he would also have advised the UK government not to fan an almost-extinct controversy back into flames by giving a knighthood to Salman Rushdie.) But on the personal level he discovers a mystic streak within himself and a strong affinity with the Ajmer model. In the end, his advice to Muslims is to seek a synthesis of all three: "The accepting nature of the Ajmer model must be buttressed by the commitment and fervour that Deoband can provide, along with the skill and dexterity to negotiate with governments, organisations and political parties that is characteristic of Aligarh." Perhaps his next book should be a Journey into the West, on which his fellow travellers will be students from the Islamic world.

Debunking some great Indian myths

My friend Yousuf, who is a secularism activist, and convenor of Mediawatch group in India, keeps sending me interesting emails. Most of these are often media articles that either misrepresent communities in India or are biased against a community.

Recently, Yousuf sent me this interesting piece that appeared in The Times News Network. Quoting historians, this piece tries to debunk some of the great myths of Indian history. It has nuggets of information some of which even I was not aware of.
Read it to see if you believed in one of these myths, knowingly or unknowingly:

When UPA presidential nominee Pratibha Patil mentioned
that the purdah had been in existence since Mughal
times, she was being historically inaccurate, but
voicing a commonly held misconception.

In fact, according to N R Farooqi, professor of
History at Allahabad University, the Mughals probably
borrowed purdah from the Rajputs. Historian Harbans
Mukhia, in his book, The Mughals of India, cites the
Baburnama and the Humayunnama to state that the
Mughals were never in purdah. Farooqi says Mughal
women were introduced to the purdah only after Akbar
married a Rajput princess, who may have brought this
custom along with her.

Many other popular perceptions are often mistaken for
historical fact, such as Islam being brought to India
by Muslim invaders. Most historians concur that
India’s introduction to Islam was, in fact, through
Arab traders.

It’s not surprising that tales abound in India, since
our culture has a tradition of storytelling. Myths,
however, become intertwined with history, often
overshadowing it. That’s why the fictional
Salim-Anarkali romance is more popular than the real
Jahangir-Noorjahan love story.

Even stories which have an element of truth can be
blown out of proportion. Like Asoka slaying his 100
brothers, which historians believe was exaggerated,
though there probably was a struggle for the throne.

-----------------------

'Trade, not invasion brought Islam to India'
Atul Sethi/TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Irish dramatist Denis Johnston once said that myths
are not created, they create themselves and then find
expression in that which serves their purpose. Perhaps
it’s time we helped dispel some popular
misconceptions.

Islam was brought to India by Muslim invaders

Most historians now agree that India’s introduction to
Islam was through Arab traders and not Muslim
invaders, as is generally believed. The Arabs had been
coming to the Malabar coast in southern India as
traders for a long time, well before Islam had been
introduced in Arabia.

Writes H G Rawlinson, in his book, ‘Ancient and
Medieval History of India’, "The first Arab Muslims
began settling in the towns on the Indian coast in the
last part of the 7th century." They married Indian
women and were treated with respect and allowed to
propagate their faith. According to B P Sahu, head of
the department of history of Delhi University, Arab
Muslims began occupying positions of prominence in the
areas where they had settled by the 8th and 9th
centuries.

In fact, the first mosque in the county was built by
an Arab trader at Kodungallur, in what is now Kerala,
in 629 AD. Interestingly, Prophet Mohammed was alive
at that time and this mosque in India would probably
have been one of the first few mosques in the world,
thus highlighting the presence of Islam in India long
before the Muslim invaders arrived.

Asoka killed his 100 brothers to claim the throne

In his book, The Oxford History of India, Vincent
Smith writes that the story told by the Buddhist monks
of Ceylon that Asoka slaughtered 98 or 99 of his
brothers in order to clear his way to the throne is
absurd and obviously concocted to highlight Asoka’s
alleged abnormal wickedness prior to his conversion to
Buddhism.

In fact, Asoka, says Smith, took good care of his
brothers long after his succession, evidence of which
is found in his rock edicts. However, according to
Nayanjot Lahiri, professor in the department of
history at Delhi University, this is a legend which
can’t be summarily dismissed and it probably has a
grain of truth.

Although the reference to 100 brothers seems purely
metaphorical, there are references in one Indian and
two Sri Lankan literary texts that there was a
protracted struggle between Asoka and his brothers for
the throne. Since Asoka’s formal consecration was also
delayed for some four years after the death of his
father Bindusara, it indicates that his ascension to
the throne was contested, says Lahiri. How many
brothers were slain, or whether any were slain at all,
is however a question that is still debatable.

Buddhist monks were vegetarians

Most people associate Buddhism with non-violence and
imagine that Buddhist monks and nuns never consumed
animal food. However, according to Nayanjot Lahiri,
the idea that meat and its products were not allowed
to Buddhist monks is a myth. For instance, in case of
sickness, raw flesh and blood could be used by the
monks.

Fish and meat were mentioned among the five superior
and delicate foods that a monk who was unwell was
allowed to eat. Irfan Habib, former professor of
history at Aligarh Muslim University, agreed that
monks could eat meat. The only restriction, however,
was that they could not eat the meat of animals
especially slaughtered for them. Buddhist sutras also
mention that one may, with a clear conscience,
receive, cook and eat meat either freely offered by
someone else, or that which came from an animal which
had died of natural causes, but not of that which had
been especially slaughtered for eating. Even the
archaeology of Buddhism provides some evidence on
this, says Lahiri, as animal bones have been recorded
from two famous Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka—the
Abhayagiri vihara at Anuradhapura and the Sigiriya
vihara—which indicate that Buddhist monks were not
vegetarian.

The love story of Salim and Anarkali

A lowly courtesan falls in love with the crown prince
of the Mughal empire who, in turn, is ready to defy
his father’s will for the sake of his beloved. This is
the story of Salim and Anarkali, made popular by films
like ‘Mughal-e-Azam’. The tragedy, however, is that
the epic romance was probably just a work of fiction.

For, Anarkali never existed. Or, even if she did, she
was probably a slave girl who had no proven connection
with either Salim or his father, the Emperor Akbar.
According to Irfan Habib, the legend of Anarkali came
into being some four years after Jahangir’s death,
when she was mentioned briefly in some texts of the
1630s. After that, there’s no mention of her anywhere
and there is no reference to her in Jahangir’s
autobiography either. Yet, Anarkali’s name remains
closely linked with Salim and she is probably more
popular than even his wife, the historical Noorjahan,
was. What probably fanned this popular imagination,
says N R Farooqi, professor at Allahabad University,
was circumstantial evidence like a tomb, believed to
be that of Anarkali’s, situated in Lahore which was
built by Jahangir. Or tales spread by European
travellers and later picked up by popular culture,
thus cementing the legend of Salim and Anarkali in
people’s imagination.

Jodha Bai was the name of Akbar’s Rajput wife

Akbar’s first Rajput wife, it is believed, was the
eldest daughter of Bhar Mal, the Raja of Amber.
Popular perception has it that her name was Jodha Bai
and that she was Jahangir’s mother. History, however,
suggests otherwise.

According to Irfan Habib, there is no mention of
Akbar’s Rajput wife anywhere in any Mughal text. Abul
Fazal, in his ‘Akbarnama’, does not mention her name
as Akbar’s wife. Nor does Jahangir, in his
autobiography, ‘Tuzk-e-Jahangiri’, mention Jodha Bai
as his mother. This is because, according to N R
Farooqi, Jodha Bai was not the name of Akbar’s Rajput
queen. It was, in fact, the name of Jahangir’s Rajput
wife, whose real name was Jagat Gosain. Since she
belonged to the royal family of Jodhpur, she was also
referred to as Jodha Bai.

According to Farooqi, she was a very important woman
in the royal household. Besides being married to the
emperor, she was also the mother of Khurram, who later
became Emperor Shah Jahan. The myth of Jodha Bai being
Akbar’s Rajput wife, says Irfan Habib, probably gained
credence during the 19th century when guides at
Fatehpur Sikri gave her the mantle of Akbar’s wife, a
perception which is prevalent even today.