Urdu columnist Zafar Anwar Shakarpuri regards the trend of Inter-Religious Marriages as an epidemic that has already enveloped metro cities and small towns in India and is now spreading towards villages, as village Muslim girls too are eloping with their Hindu boyfriends. He is extremely alarmed at the trend and seeks God’s blessings in warding off this "evil." New Age Islam is publishing his article in original Urdu along with a translation in English by Arman Neyazi.

IN this post-9/11 world characterised by a burgeoning clash of civilisations, multiculturalism and tolerance of religious diversity is under threat practically everywhere in the world. It has virtually ceased to exist in large parts of South Asia. In Pakistan, for instance, a near civil war in raging among religious, sectarian, ethnic and linguistic groups. Poor Pakistanis don’t even feel secure to go to mosques to pray. How does India then thrive in relative peace in the midst of this chaos, despite having the second largest population in the world, an astounding variety of religions, cultures, ethnicities and languages and dialects? [Indian constitution, for instance, recognises 22 languages and the country is home to at least 844 major dialects.] This question has staggered political scientists and sociologists around the world in recent times. …......

 To understand this one has to go to the very roots of Indian way of life, our dharma, that is now known as Hindu religion but it was always a conglomeration of religions, philosophies, including atheism and agnosticism. Yes atheism was as much an integral part of Hindu dharma as was faith in one God or a multiplicity of gods or any particular deity which may have had a following in only one small locality. So one Hindu family could have had a couple of devout believers in one God or several gods or atheists or agnostics, all living together under the same roof, their beliefs causing no hindrance in their lives together. In different parts of India too there were different religions, different scriptures, and people from different parts used to travel carrying their beliefs with them and sharing them with one another.

So when beliefs like Islam or Christianity or Judaism came from foreign lands, they hardly faced any problem in being accepted. In any case the Hindu or more correctly the Indian considered the whole world as a family, a kutumb.  One of the cardinal principles of Hindu philosophy was that there are many ways to the God and ultimately they all lead to the same divine truth. So while Islam’s encounter with some other religions was quite violent, Hinduism provided it with a fertile ground for growth. -- Sultan Shahin, editor, New Age Islam, speaking at Geneva in a United Nations informal seminar on multicultural experiences on 10 June, 2010.

The state does not interfere with the beliefs of its citizens and each individual is free to practise his/her faith. What the state has done, instead, is to ensure that no religious community is involved in politics. Politicisation of religion is considered the major threat to the Singapore model of religious pluralism. The state monitors and regulates religious freedom on the realistic assumption that religious harmony cannot be taken for granted. It has to be maintained through a diverse range of government inputs including pre-emptive measures to see to it that social cohesion and harmony are not jeopardised. -- Ishtiaq Ahmed

The thrust of Tariq Ramadan’s presentation was a plea for rethinking fundamental categories in both secular as well as Muslim/Islamic thought. Dwelling on the latter, he argued that ‘reform’ (for which he used the terms islah and ihya) in Muslim/Islamic thought on the question of the religious ‘other’ is an indispensable necessity, although many might balk at this. While the Islamic texts could not be changed or ‘reformed’, what could, he said, were our understandings of them on certain matters. This is because religious understandings are a human product and so can change in response to changing social and historical contexts. Religious traditions, he noted, are a ‘moving reality’ and one’s understanding of one’s tradition is—or should be—also dynamic and open to being transformed with shifts in time and context. -- Yoginder Sikand

Examples of the misused Qur'anic verses include, for example: "Let not the Believers take for allies or helpers Unbelievers rather than Believers" (3:28) and "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your allies. They are but allies to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for alliance] is of them" (5:51).These verses should be seen as providing the necessary support for the survival and cohesion of an early vulnerable community of Muslims–the Prophet Muhammad and his followers who arrived as refugees in Medina–in a potentially hostile environment. In other words, the Qur'an was advising a particular community of Muslims in 7th century Arabia to be wary of entering blindly into political alliances. And indeed they were betrayed at that time by some of their Jewish allies. In fact, these verses were revealed in particular because some Muslims, for personal gain, were keen to establish or keep alliances with non-Muslims at the expense of their co-religionists and the newly formed state. These verses therefore were instructing these early Muslims to be self-reliant and to not depend upon others' protection in order to establish a strong, lasting community. -- Maher Y. Abu-Munshar

He added, “It symbolises communal harmony and brotherhood which are the hallmark of the glorious pluralistic ethos of Kashmir.” The chief minister, while reiterating Kashmir was incomplete without pandits, said a multifaceted programme for their return is already in place and that the government has introduced new initiatives to facilitate their return which include earmarking of posts in the government departments and construction of transit accommodation in the towns of Budgam, Mattan and other places. -- Yusuf Jameel

Had Islam not been central to the creation of Pakistan, Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul would not have been able to invoke it for garnering support for a Muslim caliphate and they would not have been the darlings of our middle and upper class educated youth, we would not have had the Objectives Resolution as a guiding principle of our constitutions, Ziaul Haq would never have been able to pass retrogressive laws against women and minorities, our intelligence agencies and army would not have been suspected of links with the various jaishes and lashkars — not to speak of their well-documented grooming of the Taliban, our public schools would not have been a tool of retrogressive propaganda and we would not have had tens of thousands of religious seminaries, many of which produce violent jihadists. -- Ilyas Akbar Khan

As against power, the Sufis for ages carried on a dialogue with the people of other religious groups, with Jews, Christians, and Hindus in India. While kings and sultans grabbed power causing so much bloodshed, the Sufis followed the Islamic civilisation’s values and pursued the unity of people — Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Ibn Arabi even went to the extent of saying “My Sharia and din is love”.

The Quran also lays emphasis on pluralism. According to the Quran, Allah could have created one people but He created diversity and plurality so that He can test us and it is better to cooperate with each other in good deeds (5:48). Thus, rather than fighting, one should cooperate for good deeds the basis on which all civilisations are built. -- Asghar Ali Engineer

On the front page of Syed Shahabuddin’s weekly The Milli Gazette there was a news item written by its editor Zafarul Islam Khan which I felt should have made headline news of every national daily in all our languages and the top news item of our TV channels. I did not see it appear in any other journal and felt saddened that our media had failed to perform its duty. The article was headlined ‘Sikhs rebuild mosque demolished in 1947’. I give a short summary of its contents. There is a village called Sarwarpur around ten kilometres from Samrala town in Punjab. It had a sizeable Muslim population and a mosque with a dome and minarets. In the communal civil strife which accompanied the partition of Punjab in August 1947 most of the Muslim population fled to Pakistan and the mosque was demolished by rampaging mobs of Hindus and Sikhs. -- Khushwant Singh

The earliest usage of the term dhimma is in the Constitution of Medina. Dating from around 622 CE, it regulates the status of the Jewish clans of Medina (in modern Saudi Arabia) after its conquest by the Prophet Muhammad and states that “The dhimma [the pact guaranteeing security and protection] of God is one”. This implies that all the people of Medina - Jews and Muslims alike - were protected by the new Muslim rulers of the city. The document also acknowledges that Jews and Muslims each have their own religion.

On the whole, the document regulates the status of non-Muslims quite vaguely but in a spirit of equality. As such, it echoes the sura (chapters) in the Qur’an in which reference is made to the status of non-Muslims. These sura are also imprecise and general in formulation, though there is one sura which later became the basis for the legal regulation of the status of non-Muslims. According to sura 9:29, Muslims should fight the People of the Book until they willingly pay a special tax (jizya). -- Nushin Arbabzadah

Dargah Naugazi, an impressive grave 18 yards (16.2 metres) long, named after a pir (saint) called Nuh Aleihi Salaam, is located in a narrow lane. Interestingly, Nuh is believed to be Noah and the grave the famous Ark. Another interpretation is that the mound perhaps was built over the remains of the Ark. The shrine, visited by scores of devotees, has no independent custodian. Ram Milan, a devotee who makes an offering every day, says that for him the dargah is no less than a temple. He experiences a lot of mental peace when he visits the dargah. Ram Milan, like most of Ayodhya's residents, is not interested in the background of the pir. And like the rest, he is not the kind who would willingly desecrate a place of worship. -- T.K. Rajalakshmi    

Photo: Dargah of Sheesh Paigambar

The Prophet was keen on establishing relations based on respect, equality and justice with non-Muslims, and recommended that they be treated well. He said: "He who hurts [non-Muslims] is my enemy until Judgment Day" and "He who killed a person under a treaty shall never go to heaven." This respect is also reinforced in the hadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad) by the Prophet's companion Jaber Ibn Abdellah: "A funeral passed by, and the Prophet stood up in respect. We said to him, 'It is a Jewish man's funeral.' He said: 'If you see a funeral, you shall stand up. Is it not a soul?'" -- Hind Al-Subai Al-Idrisi

The Mughal period, particularly the reign of Akbar (1556-1605), was perhaps a more enlightened one in terms of state policies vis-à-vis the Hindus. This period saw increasing interaction between Hindus and Muslims at various levels. Following in the footsteps of the Abbasid Caliph al-Mamoon (786-833), Akbar arranged for the translation of numerous books on the religion, culture and history of the Hindus. This proved to be a major milestone in promoting a more objective understanding of the Hindus among Muslims, and a significant step in facilitating dialogue between the two.

The Revolt of 1857 that marked the formal end of the Mughal Empire witnessed impressive efforts to unite Hindus and Muslims to combat the encroaching British. Were it not for the tragic Partition of India, it is possible that major progress could have been made to improve Hindu-Muslim relations through dialogue. It should have been among the topmost priorities of our leaders after Independence to bring Hindus and Muslims closer together, but this did not happen. On the contrary, the gulf between them only further widened and the conflicts between them are becoming ever more deadly. -- Maulana Waris Mazhari

Exclusive to NewAgeIslam.com

It is no one’s business to question the taboo on the idea of representation in Islam, but Husain’s appropriation and celebration of the freedom to represent within the Hindu traditions, classical and folk, is a way also of intervening and questioning the hijacking of Islam by those who represent the al- Qaeda’s brand of intolerant Islam, which prohibits all forms of creativity, whether it is art, music or cinema. Questioning Husain’s right to interpret and represent Hindu gods and goddesses is symptomatic of the confusion that has existed within Hindu nationalism since the nineteenth century.

The Hindu nationalist attempt to paint the entity called Hinduism in monochromatic colours and to compel compliance on the basis of a distorted version of a unified faith makes its family resemblance to more fanatical versions of Islam more evident than it realises or is ready to admit. Husain on the other hand has the best of both worlds.

State

He remains a Muslim in the sense that would make every civilised and reasonable Muslim proud, and he has fashioned himself also as an illustrious pauranik in the best sense that can be conveyed by that term. The sangh parivar, on the other hand, lives in this vast sea of confusion, mouthing platitudes that are foreign, colonial and, worst still, Victorian. – Jyotirmaya Sharma

The Swiss ban on minarets is having an echo in India. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society is reported to have said: “The extremely provocative decision undermines the freedom of religion and principle of co- existence. The referendum is akin to tyranny of the majority. It will only encourage fundamentalism. The ban should be immediately lifted as it would serve the purpose of jihadis who misinterpret Islam.”

Though I won’t use such strong words, I fully agree with the sentiments and thoughts expressed in the above sentiment. The analysis that “it will only encourage fundamentalism” is also correct. It is actually happening. The fundamentalists are taking advantage of the situation created by the Swiss ban on minarets and the French ban on burqas (veils).  But then the question arises in my mind, how come we get agitated only when our own religious freedom is at stake in non-Muslim societies. We do not worry when Muslims themselves, not to speak of non-Muslims, are not allowed religious freedom in Islamic societies.

We were permitted to defend ourselves with arms (a form of Jihad, albeit a lesser form) because if we had not done so, people may not have been able to worship in temples, monasteries, churches, synagogues, etc., all those places of worship were God is remembered and God’s praises are sung.

Renowned Pakistani scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes: “The Qur’ān asserts that if the use of force would not have been allowed in such cases, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations could have reached the extent that the places of worship – where the Almighty is kept in constant remembrance – would have become deserted and forsaken, not to mention the disruption of the society itself:

وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا (٤٠:٢٢)

And had it not been that Allah checks one set of people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would have been utterly destroyed. (22:40) ...

Not only that. We have scholars who claim that while non-Muslims have perfect freedom to practice their religion in an Islamic state, (though in practice they are not mostly allowed that freedom), Muslims do not have that freedom. Once born to a Muslim parent, you are doomed for ever to be a Muslim or else. Well, your throat will be slit, no less. Indeed, there are “revered” ulema (scholars of Islam) in various schools of thought who say that if someone is seen so much as not attending Friday prayers, his throat should be slit.

Sample the following:

Those who do not attend Friday prayers “should simply be killed. Slit their throats!”: Deoband  

“A person greatly admires Hazrat Maulana Rashid Gangohi, the outstanding scholar who was one of the founders of the Deoband madrasa. The gentleman to whom I refer is a kindly soul, who can be depended upon for help by others. However, when in the course of conversation I chanced to remark that the most basic virtue lay in kindness towards others, he contradicted me. Kindness, he contended, was reserved for “pious, practicing Muslims”. As for others, they should be given a chance to mend their ways, after which “they would be Wajibul Qatal (liable to be killed)”. Another person I chanced to meet — a finance man, no less — feels that people who do not attend Friday prayers “should simply be killed. Slit their throats!”

“Now, this kind of sanguinary verbal ferocity is very different from the traditions of quiet piety and gentle acceptance in which most Muslims were brought up.” -- Salman Tarik Kureshi

http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1795

Also, sample the following from a supposedly enlightened scholar of Islam:

“Freedom is a neutral word. Accordingly, affixing it with religion would mean a liberty of a  person either to have or not to have a religion, either to practice or not to practise, either to propagate or not to propagate, either to embrace or not to embrace, either to change or not change one’s own religion. If he decides to do so he has the freedom to do it without any interference of others. This is the meaning of freedom as it appeared in the above examples.

“Is a Muslim allowed to enjoy such freedom? As a matter of fact, under Shariah law, a Muslim is not free to do so, no matter whether he is under Muslim rule or non-Muslim rule except with dire necessity. In fact the meaning of Islam itself, that is submission and surrender to the will of Almighty Allah (swt), is inimical to the vague meaning of freedom (cf.hurriah) in its absolute sense. Thus, a Muslim cannot enjoy freedom in respect of articles of belief (Iman) and practicing of pillars of Islam, (arkan al Islam) and observance of codes of life, because, these are essential of keep him a believer and a Muslim. He may enjoy a guided freedom with regards to those matters that do not fall under the basic and obligatory tenets and pillars of region.” – Freedom Of Religion in Shariah by Dr. ABM Mahboobul Islam of the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

...

I hope Mr. Abdul Sami Bubere of the Mumbai- based Sahyog Cultural Society and other people who are bothered about the Swiss ban on minarets or the French ban on burqa or India’s Hindu Right demanding the abolition of Muslim Personal Law will also express their disgust, if they feel it, over the lack of religious freedoms to non-Muslims and more so Muslims in so-called Islamic societies. So-called Islamic scholars go to great lengths to prove that Quranic dictates like “La Ikraha fid Deen” (There can be no compulsion in religion) or Lakum Deenakum waleya Deen (For you your religion and for me mine) have no meaning and relevance for the Muslims today and should be banished from our consciousness. Shame on such scholars!!!

Until we start fighting for religious freedom in our own societies (of both Muslims and non-Muslims), our struggle for religious freedom in non-Muslim societies will be rightly treated as just an instance of Muslim hypocrisy. -- Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam

Indian Muslims must give up their minority mindset and reach out to the larger India around them… Muslim ulema have made a beginning by urging the community to shun terrorism as not just un- Islamic but anti- Islamic. They must also go a step further by calling upon Muslims to eschew their insularity and proactively engage with the India around them. Only then will they conquer communal discrimination, says analyst Saif Shahin.

Let’s take a broom with us to church next Sunday. Let's dare to walk to the podium in the middle of one more stale sermon and say "Excuse me. Why don't we practice what we preach, cancel today's repetitive lifeless nonsense and go across the street and worship with our black sisters and brothers? And after church, let's throw a get-acquainted picnic for the Muslims who go to that mosque on the corner. "And tonight, instead of the usual blah, blah, blah, let's have a real, all-American meeting and talk about a many-coloured God, a multi-coloured society, and the sheer joy of living in a free society that affords us the delight of differences - to learn from, to embrace and to enjoy,” writes Elizabeth T. Andrews, American Reporter Correspondent, Cartersville, Ga, USA.

Dialogue is the best way to move forward, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah said yesterday as Muslim scholars led by Saudi Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh endorsed his call for opening a dialogue with people of other faiths at the start of a historic three-day summit at the Royal Al-Safa Palace, report Siraj Wahab & Badea Abu Al-Naja of Arab News