By Mushtaq Ul Haq Ahmad Sikander
9 October 2021
Eminent Scholar, Writer, Academic and Interfaith Dialogue
Activist Prof. (Dr.) Hamid Naseem Rafiabadi in conversation with Mushtaq
Ul Haq Ahmad Sikander about the essence of Interfaith, Intra-faith and
Civilization Dialogue
Tell us something about your inter faith initiatives?
It all started in year 1991, when I was deputed to attend
the, World Fellowship of Inter -Religious Councils (WFIRC) Kerala meeting and I
presented my paper.
We have witnessed an upsurge in the Interfaith Dialogues
after 9/11 attacks. Do you believe in the same?
Yes, those who held the reins of power thought that we need
to talk now. United States the lone superpower had been targeted and its
hegemony challenged. Before 9/11 it ignored the genuine Muslim voices and only
dealt with its Muslim stooges and called it as Inter Faith Dialogue and used it
as a strategy to suppress the genuine voices.
It was also necessary to engage people who could be a source
of trouble in future. 9/11 in this way proved to be a blessing in disguise, as
these Inter-faith Dialogues helped dispel the myths and misperceptions
prevalent about Islam, despite the fact that the present Christian Pope
Benedict had called for a proselytizing mission to convert whole Asian
community to Christianity in current century.
Then these Dialogues even helped Muslims to shun their
conspiracy theory approach and defeatist mentality, that Inter Faith Dialogues
are meant for proselytizing Muslims, I believe that truth (Haqq) has its
impact, Moses spoke in front of Pharaoh and Ja’far ibn Abu Talib before the
king Negus, hence even if some dialogues have some clandestine designs we
shouldn’t shun our participation in them.
Eminent Scholar, Writer, Academic and Interfaith
Dialogue Activist Prof. (Dr.) Hamid Naseem Rafiabadi
-----
Can’t we Challenge the hegemonic Uncle Sam on Political
and Military front?
Engaging in military and political endeavors to me is
strengthening and providing a justification to Uncle Sam to plunder more.
Muslims in general and Muslim countries in particular can’t afford these
adventures, plus they will result in a dead lock not in dialogue. They will
certainly lead to co-destruction rather than co-existence. Only through
dialogue we can understand each other better. Prophets and Saints were always
in minority but they used this minority character to get engaged with the
majority.
But the Inter-Faith Dialogues are still an elite
endeavor; they have yet failed to percolate down on the common masses level?
Engagement in Inter faith Dialogues should be an elite engagement
as only Intellectuals, can dialogue, common people can’t understand its
niceties as they can only see the differences, but yes Dialogue in action must
percolate down to the masses. The hearts of the people should be won through
philanthropic activities. The Prophets are sent to show humankind the path
towards salvation and they are the best people though not elite, they set the
trend which the common masses should follow, but the problem with us is that
common masses are at peace with each other but elites fight among themselves
which then manifests itself in the sectarian or inter religious violence.
Then are the elites a hurdle towards interfaith
cooperation?
Yes to a certain extent they surely are
What more hurdles do we encounter when engaging in Inter
Faith cooperation?
We are not desirous to know what real Islam is, to know what
Allah means by La, Quran explains the way of transgressors. Islam requires us
to know what Islam is not. The grave worship, new innovations, Shirk and its
modern versions have been condemned by Quran, but we label the same as Islamic.
It is the biggest hurdle towards engaging in interfaith dialogues because first
we have to be aware of the pristine Islam only then we can go for a Dialogue.
2. We are not confident about our religious truth and
fundamentals as our access to Islam is based on secondary sources of knowledge,
we try to understand Islam as developed by theologians, Fiqh(jurisprudence) or
Ulema, which was developed centuries later. If we had enough knowledge to access
the direct sources of knowledge and know Islam in its pristine beauty from
Quran and Sunnah, then we would be confident enough to engage in Dialogue with
people of other religions like Imam Ghazali, Imam Taimiyah, Ismail Raja Al
Faruqi used to engage in with no threat to their faith.
3. Our Ulema are not aware about the trends of the modern
world and what it demands from them. The scholars of other religions have
upgraded themselves with the changing times but Muslim Ulema lag far behind
than rest of their compatriots.
4. When religion becomes institutionalized and used for
attaining certain political and economic benefits and a vested interest gets
developed among the Ulema they would be least concerned about Inter Faith
dialogues but would use religion for self aggrandizement and vested interest.
They have divided Muslim Ummah into different sects and with each sect they
have certain interests and can never afford to loose their authority and
influence on people by accepting other person’s stance, which is an essential
ingredient for Inter Faith Dialogue, hence sect has become important not creed,
the doors of Ijtihad have been closed as defending sects has become ‘real’
Islam, hence none among them is open for Dialogue.
Why there have been rare or no initiatives towards Intra
Faith Dialogues?
Due to sectarian and factionalism regimentation, no intra
–Faith dialogue has had been taking place! When Muslim ulema are not ready to
open up the doors of Ijtihad closed centuries before, how can they open up their
minds to tolerate views of others religious views than their sectarian ones?
What is your stance regarding the Clash of Civilization
doctrine as propounded by Samuel P Huntington?
Huntington believed in posing one group against other, but
history contradicts his theory as never civilizations have clashed with each
other, but they interacted with one another. There is a clash of interests not
civilizations, cultures may clash with each other not civilizations. As the
norm with West is that they first act then legitimize their acts by providing
theories, similar has been the case with this theory, which tries to justify
the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Like philosophers try to justify all
fallacies, Huntington too opts for the same, but the Clash of Civilizations
theory is a mere speculation as civilizations work in tandem and they will
never clash, Civilizations take their own recourse. Islam is for reconciliation
not for clash.
Even some Muslim scholars like Akbar S Ahmad have been
surmising a clash between Muslim exclusivists and inclusivist? Do you witness
any such clash too?
Intellectuals live in their own world, and have their own
shortcomings. Akbar S Ahmad lives in the West, hence consciously or sub
consciously West has its impact on him and he has even imbibed certain impact
too. He too has become a victim of this Clash of Civilizations theory, though
there is no clash prevalent. Islam has a dynamic theology, Quran and Hadith
provide guidelines and Islamic approach is above Time and Space limits while as
Akbar S Ahmad’s approach has these constraints. Muslims are reactionary people;
we have no vision for action. We still have no theory of our own, hence the
predicament. Some of our scholars support Islamic Democracy, Communism, believe
in Evolutionary theory, use science as a yardstick to approve Quranic facts as
there is absence of Civilisational Ijtihad among Muslims.
Some Muslim groups have been calling for the
establishment of Khilafah and Islamic State; don’t you think that claims like
these hamper the Inter Faith cooperation?
These claims are utopian. Islam stands for pluralism where
all communities interact with each other. Prophets Sufis and Saints have lived
and preached in multicultural societies. In the Globalized world the message of
Islam has become more relevant and presence of a Muslim government doesn’t have
much impact regarding the spread of Islam, plus the circumstances don’t allow
for establishment of such an Islamic State. The enemies of Islam know our
weakness; they try to make non issues sound as real Islamic activism, because
of our myopic vision. The real facet of Islam, its moral and spiritual aspects
are ignored and kept in oblivion.
Don’t you think that the use of religion in Politics has
led Islam to get a bad label as a religion of terrorism?
Islam is a complete way of life, but we don’t follow it. The
rights of the Muslims have been usurped by various forces but when they fight
for the restoration of their rights they are dubbed as terrorists. Yes use of
Islam in political disputes has led it to become a scapegoat but it is also a
fact that Islam is the greatest source of motivation for Muslims and they
consider Islam to be a solution to all problems baffling them, hence try to
link Islam to every issue which has its shortcomings. The West is following the
dictum of killing a dog and giving it a bad name, people of Palestine,
Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan are fighting for a justified cause, but still they
are being dubbed as terrorists. Muslim world is at the receiving end, and the
world owes responsibilities towards them, but it only dubs them and plays blame
game. When Muslims were in power they never indulged in the savagery or usurped
other countries first by robbing them and if they resist to this plunder then
dubbing them as Terrorists. World powers need to learn form the Muslim history.
What do you think about the murders carried out by
certain Muslim groups against those who don’t adhere to their brand or
interpretation of Islam?
These murders can’t
be justified from an Islamic point of view and need to be condemned in harshest
terms. Muslims have been put in dubious situations, the occupiers want a
reaction from Muslims for their aggression and many a times Muslims don’t
understand their nefarious designs and lose balance of mind and indulge in
wanton killing though on a small scale as compared to the Western powers, and
with Corporate Media in their hands they veil their crimes and exaggerate those
of Muslims, but still the actions of these Muslim groups can’t be justified.
Muslim scholars and Ulema usually don’t condemn these
acts nor speak against the atrocities West is perpetuating on Muslims?
The reality and truth of these acts and crimes remain
shrouded in mystery, hence when the reality is blurred they are afraid to
condemn the same. Plus the Muslim nations are so weak that they aren’t able to
control the activities of the Non State actors, which in many cases are
foreigners. Thus there are many factors working in tandem in the Muslim
countries and ulema are incapacitated to understand the same, though Nahi Anil
Munkar (forbidding people from what is wrong) is an important duty enjoined by
Islam and Muslim ulema have a role in calling a spade a spade.
-------
Dr Hamid Naseem Rafiabadi is Dean Social Science and Head
Department of Comparative Religions, Central University of Kashmir, Youth
Convener WFIRC, Core Group Member of International Center for Dialogue and
Diplomacy (ICRD) Washington, Convener Academic Committee for Philosophy IOS New
Delhi, Governing Council Member All India Milli Council and Honorary director
of Shama Foundation, Kashmir
----
Mushtaq Ul Haq Ahmad Sikander is Writer-Activist based in
Srinagar,
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/interview/truth-haqq-hamid-rafiabadi-inter-faith/d/125540