Books and Documents

Islam and Pluralism (01 Dec 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Indian Muslim orthodoxy's response to demands of modernity: Can Muslims co-exist with other religious communities in plural societies?

Sultan Shahin, Founder-Editor, New Age Islam

16 November 2015

What kind of reform does modernity demand from the orthodoxy?  Essentially, it asks Muslims to come out of the insidious trap of supremacism, the dream of making Islam the sole religion of the world, ruling over the world through an Islamic caliph. It demands that Muslims coexist with other religious communities, respect other religions and cultures, grant equal rights to all citizens, practice gender equality and justice for all, in short, follow the UN human rights charter,  etc. Each one of these goals is supported by the foundational scripture of Islam, the Holy Quran, if only we Muslims were to go by the Qur'anic dictum of finding the best meaning of Qur'anic verses (as exhorted in Chapter 39: verse 55, 39: 18; 39: 55; 38: 29; 2: 121; 47: 24, etc). They would also do well to follow the recent advise of His Holiness Pope Francis to find an "adequate interpretation" of the Qur'anic verses. So the Quran and Pope Francis are both saying that Muslims should not follow the verses literally but seek to interpret it in the best or most adequate way possible.

Historically, Islam has produced a galaxy of thinkers, philosophers, mystics, theologians, Quran exegetes and experts in Hadith Studies. Debates and discussions called Kalam have been the norm rather than an exception in Islamic tradition, whether the rulers were intolerant tyrants or broadminded liberals. Even the rationalist Mu`tazila flourished for a time during the 8th - 10th centuries. Many of the greatest Islamic thinkers spent years in prison, went to the gallows, but never flinched from exercising their right to free thinking and expression.

 It's only Salafi-Wahhabi Islam that prohibits discussion and debates on theological issues. Saudi Arabia has been spending tens of billions of dollars to spread this rigid, desiccated, desert version of Islam, called "puritan" in the West. Islamism is a variation of this interpretation which calls for spreading Islam by force. Jihadism is another offshoot that actually seeks to implement it with the force of arms and terrorism.

Under Salafism's widespread impact, contemporary Indian Islam presents a rather dismal picture. There is an almost complete stagnation in conversation on issues of vital concern. The very mention of religion or theology in the context of Islamist terrorism, for instance, is frowned upon. Muslim societies around the world are producing armies of Islamist, Jihadi, suicide bombers wherever required by motivated groups, while suicide is considered one of the most heinous crimes in Islam. But Indian ulema are almost completely silent.  This silence became deafening when the self-declared Khalifa al-Baghdadi said on 13 May 2015 that "Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day, and that it has always been a religion of war." Not one alim (scholar) in India protested or condemned it.

A 2013 PEW poll conducted in eleven Muslim-majority countries showed that support for suicide bombing against civilians in defence of Islam has declined in recent years. Nevertheless, the numbers of people who still think that this form of violence against non-combatants is “often” or “sometimes” justified are sobering: Egypt (25 percent), Indonesia (6 percent), Jordan (12 percent), Lebanon (33 percent), Malaysia (27 percent), Nigeria (8 percent), Pakistan (3 percent), the Palestinian territories (62 percent), Senegal (18 percent), Tunisia (12 percent), and Turkey (16 percent). There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. If even 10 percent support suicide bombing against civilians in defence of the faith, that’s 160 million supporters of terrorism. (www.pewglobal.org)

Indian Muslim clerics or even intelligentsia do not seem bothered by such studies. An argument is made, even by our strategic thinkers, that no Indian Muslims joined al-Qaeda and few have gone to fight for ISIS, and so it can be concluded that Indian Islam is immune to the lure of Jihadism. But joining ISIS cannot be the measure of the extent of radicalisation. If anything, Indian Muslim society is even more conservative or fundamentalist than say, neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Before Partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, Indian Muslim community had an iniquitous Muslim personal law, promulgated by the British.  Thirteen years after Partition Pakistan reformed these Anglo-Mohammedan laws to make them more gender equitable. Promulgated by Gen. Ayyub Khan in 1961, these reforms are working in Pakistan and Bangladesh for half a century, acceptable to all schools of thought. But no government in India has had the guts to bring about similar changes in India's Muslim Personal Law due to determined opposition from our fundamentalist ulema, silently supported by the Muslim intelligentsia. Indeed, if anything, these laws have been made more stringent and iniquitous.

A recent study indicates that 92.1 percent of Muslim women in India want a total ban on instant oral divorce, also known as triple talaq. But our governments are unable to do even this much, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi laws ensure that divorce is effective only after it has been approved by the court, marriages and divorces are registered, permission is sought from the court for second and subsequent marriage(s), etc. Our courts have tried to intervene and provide justice to Muslim women on the premise that Islam is a religion of compassion, but our scholars reject that proposition, just as they reject the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace by remaining silent when self-declared Khalifa Baghdadi says that Islam is a religion of war and strife.

Some fatwas do occasionally come making a general claim that Islam is a religion of peace, which, of course, it is. But the ulema's claim is absolutely suspect and hypocritical in the absence of any disavowal of the theology of violence, supremacism, exclusivism and xenophobia on the basis of which terrorism is pursued.  Is it any wonder that the country is faced today with an unprecedented challenge. Radicalisation among Muslim youth is deepening by the day. Faced with a fierce onslaught of Wahhabi-Salafi-Ahl-e-Hadeesi campaign of what they call real, true, pure Islam, many Muslims, particularly educated youth are succumbing to the lure. While hundreds of Salafi-Jihadi websites, blogs, television channels, newspapers, magazines, etc  promote an extremist interpretation of Islam, there is hardly any counter-narrative other than on New Age Islam that consistently, systematically refutes this ideology.

The reason for the Jihadi ideology's success in attracting Muslim youth is simple. For hundreds of years now, Muslim theologians have been engaged in creating a coherent theology of xenophobia and violence in order to expand the Islamic reach. Classical luminaries of Islam such as Imam Ghazali, Ibn-e-Taimiya, Sheikh Sarhandi, Abdul Wahhab, and Shah Wali Allah to 20th century theologians such as Syed Qutb, Hasan Al-Banna and Maulana Maududi have worked out a theology which promotes the view that Islam must conquer the world. Genuine Sufis like Mansour al-Hallaj and Ibn-e-Arabi had a very different view, and looked at Islam as a spiritual path to salvation. But, in their times, Sufis did not feel the need to evolve a coherent theology of peace and pluralism. The Sufis who did engage in theology focussed on making Islam more acceptable and respectable to orthodoxy. The greatest Sufi theologian Imam Ghazali (died: December 19, 1111), for instance, said that Muslims should go for Jihad at least once a year. He was quoting from and outlining Imam Shafi's legal tradition. Another Sufi who engaged in theology, Imam Ibn-e-Taimiyya (died: September 26, 1328), the inspiration behind Mohammad Abdul Wahhab's eighteenth century Salafi movement, actually became the original founder of modern violent extremism.

The result is that today while a theology of violence, evolved over centuries, is being spread with all the impact that an investment of tens of billions of dollars can ensure, there is no parallel, comprehensive, coherent theology of peace and pluralism available to oppose it. This is because the so-called moderate theologians too swear by essentially the same core beliefs. For instance, the main basis of the theology of violence is contextual verses of Quran that appear to be militant and xenophobic and some narrations of Hadith concerning the wars waged during the Prophet's time, even though these were collected hundreds of years after the Prophet's demise.  But no alim is prepared to say in clear terms that these militant, contextual verses of Quran and narrations of hadith do not apply to Muslims today. Indeed, they all swear even by the divinity of Shariah, though it was first codified 120 years after God declared in Surah 5 verse 3 that the religion of Islam had been completed.

Let me give you a concrete example. Among the Indian ulema, the most important campaigner for moderate, peaceful Islam is Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. As a commentator on the Islamic website New Age Islam pointed out, in his book, “Islam – creator of the modern world," the Maulana says (on p.17-18), “It was God’s decree that he ( Prophet Muhammad) be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.” Then he goes on to buttress his view with a  verse from the Holy Quran which in my view does not  in any way support his conclusion. Then he quotes a Hadith, which he considers akin to revelation. He says: "One hadith in particular is quite direct in its wording, 'I am the eradicator through whom God will obliterate unbelief.' Thus the prophet was not just a dai, but also a mahi. He was the caller to the faith but he had also to compel people to answer his call. The Quran clearly states that besides human beings God's angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission." 

If this is the position of a moderate Indian Muslim cleric, justly renowned for his tireless efforts at building peace and pluralism, what is stopping Jihadis from saying that since that false system still exists, it is the duty of the Muslim Ummah to pursue Prophet Muhammad's unfinished mission and use military means to enforce what they consider to be the only correct system. Why should they not claim that God's angels are also with them, supporting their cause, as they were with the Prophet, since they are only carrying forward the Prophet's unfinished mission of eradicating superstition, idolatry, unbelief?  It is such erroneous interpretations of Quran and misplaced faith in concocted ahadith, that have justified throughout Islamic history, episodes of compulsion and coercion, leading to violence, starting from the ridda (apostasy) wars, immediately after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), led by the first caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr (r.a), to the present-day violence and mayhem caused by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the Deobandi madrasa products called the Taliban, the Wahhabi-Salafi Boko Haram and the so-called Islamic State led by self-declared Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, etc.

The response of moderate Muslim scholars, the ulema, representing the global Muslim community is no different. As many as 120 ulema from around the world belonging to most schools of thought sent an Open Letter to self-declared Khalifa Al-Baghdadi’, of the ‘Islamic State’ in August 2015. Written in over 14, 000 words, this is a valuable document. It shows what is wrong with self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi's rulings. But, more importantly, it also shows what is wrong with moderate Islam at the present juncture; why this refutation will not work, why other such refutations do not work; and why our children will keep running away to ISIS and other terror centres. In fact, read between the lines, this moderate fatwa does not leave any leg for moderate Islam to stand on. In one place it says:

"... everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired."

This is confirmation from moderate ulema that what terrorist ideologues have been telling their pupils is correct. This is precisely the Jihadi argument. No difference between Quran and Hadees; they are both divinely inspired. All immutable, universal, eternal guidance for all time to come. Similarly on many other issues moderate ulema from around the world show their ideological compatibility with the terrorist ideologues.

The same thread runs through the entire 14,000 word-fatwa. The moderate fatwa puts into question whether even the well-known Qur'anic verse (La Ikraha fid Deen: There is no compulsion in religion) has been abrogated. It accepts the basic premise of terrorist ideologues that peaceful Meccan verses revealed in Mecca have been abrogated, and it is the militant verses relating to war that should now prevail. 

In point 16 of the Open Letter. moderate ulema accept that "Hudud punishments (codified in Sharia) are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law." Having accepted the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe it goes on to criticise its cruel implementation in the so-called Islamic State. But once the ulema have accepted the basic premise of  Hudud (Punishment) based on 7th century Bedouin tribal Arab mores being "unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law" what difference does actually remain between moderation and extremism. Then in point 20, moderate ulema seem to be justifying the destruction of idols and are merely critical of destruction of "the graves of Prophets or Companions," of Prophet Mohammad.
 In point 22 of the Open Letter, titled, The Caliphate, the moderate ulema again concur with the basic proposition of the Baghdadi clique: "There is agreement (Ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE." Then it goes on to criticise Bghdadi for  lack of consensus from Muslims, etc. and accusing him of sedition, fitna, etc in fairly strong language. But the problem is the same. Moderate ulema agree with Baghdadi on the basic premise of the so-called obligation of the umma to have a Caliphate. This is absurd in this day and age. Clearly both Baghdadi group and moderate ulema are equally outdated, seemingly continuing to live in the 7th century CE. 

Many of us have been placing great hope in the ability of Sufi institutions to take us out of this quagmire of Islamism and growing radicalisation. But there has been a deep Wahhabisation of Indian Sufism too. Most Sufi shrines across the country are now practising gender segregation and discrimination. They have started issuing fatwas of apostasy against musicians like A R Rahman. Sufi literature has been gradually removed from Sufi madrasas and even replaced by literary books of Syed Qutb, the father of modern terrorism in the Middle East. They no longer teach books by Rumi, Ibn ul Arabi, Shaikh Saadi, Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti, Baba Fareed, Ameer Khusro, etc. Even Sufism's basic spiritual philosophy, Wahdatul Wujood (unity of existence, advaita), has been practically replaced by Wahdatul Shuhud (unity of appearance, apparentism), to make it acceptable in the present Salafi-Wahhabi milieu and to distinguish Islam from Advaita Vedanta.

The concept of Islam as a spiritual path is clearly giving way in India to the totalitarianism of political Islam.

How can we retrieve the situation and maintain peace and social harmony? The first requirement in my view is to evolve a theology of peace and pluralism, rationality and modernity, on the basis of values that are now considered universal and which Muslim-majority countries have already accepted by signing The UN Charter and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Muslims do have the resources to evolve this theology, both in terms of classical literature and contemporary scholarship. All that needs to be done is to mobilise these resources in a systematic, organised manner.

While the evolution of this comprehensive and coherent theology of peace and pluralism will remain a continuing process, the already available essential elements of this theology should be brought to the Muslim masses. Since support for such a venture cannot be expected from clerics, of any hue,  popular acceptance of this theology should be gained through the use of media as well as genuine grassroots movements.

Essentially, Jihadism is a Muslim problem and Muslims must tackle it. But the societies in non-Muslim majority countries can help kick-start the debate.  It must be understood that a madrasa graduate who has been brainwashed into believing, as most are, that "life begins in the grave," is a ticking time bomb that should be defused with the same urgency as other bombs are. A secular government should not allow anyone to spread the poison of intolerance and xenophobia either in mosques or in madrasas. A study of what is taught in Indian madrasas, and the content of sermons delivered in mosques, is urgently required. If found intolerant, supremacist, exclusivist and xenophobic, the ulema, madrasas and imams should be confronted with them and asked to change.

Also, the least the government of India can do to ameliorate the plight of Muslim women today is to promulgate a law similar to Pakistan's  Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961, with just one difference, fixing the age of marriage of girls at 18, instead of 14, as in the Ordinance. This should have been done along with reforms in Hindu personal laws in the 1950s, or at least immediately after reforms in Muslim laws in Pakistan. But better half a century late than never. Male chauvinist Indian Muslim ulema will still howl in protest. But they will not have much to say as these reforms have been acceptable to their counterparts in Pakistan and Bangladesh for over half a century. Even President General Zia's Nizam-e-Mustafa accepted these reforms. Reforms that bring Indian Muslim Personal law akin to Muslim personal laws in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh will bring a lot of solace to Muslim women and sensible Muslim men. Moreover, this will breach the stagnation in Islamic theological discourse. Muslims have to start reclaiming the Islam that the Prophet had brought and rethinking how it can be lived and practised in the vastly changed circumstances of the 21st century.

[An abridged version of this essay was presented at India Ideas Conclave organised by India Foundation at Goa (Nov. 15--17, 2015)

URL: http://newageislam.com/islam-and-pluralism/sultan-shahin,-editor,-new-age-islam/indian-muslim-orthodoxy-s-response-to-demands-of-modernity--can-muslims-co-exist-with-other-religious-communities-in-plural-societies?/d/105480


  • Looking at the globally connected world one can see that Muslim countries are in a state of upheaval, especially in the Middle-East.  I agree with Sultan Shaheen that change of thought must come from common people.  Ulemas or Ayatollahs cannot bring the reforms that are badly needed.  We in USA are also doing the same thing.  We have stopped hiring Imams from our home countries who come with baggage.

    Iftekhar Hai

    By Iftekhar Hai - 2/12/2016 10:26:01 AM

  • Federica Mogherini is an Italian politician and the current High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission in the Juncker Commission since 1 November 2014.

    Mogherini claims that aversion against Islam and Muslim immigrations comes from “fear” and is a sign of “weakness”. And she openly admits that EU “fights” to give space to Islam, political Islam and Muslim immigration not just in European but in the whole world. Bad idea.

    “Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.

    As Europeans, we should be proud of our diversity. The fear of diversity comes from weakness, not from a strong culture.

    I shall be even more clear on that: the very idea of a clash of civilisations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union – let alone with reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilisation through openness and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us.

    Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe – that is my core message – they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are. …

    This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and beyond Europe.

    For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project. … Da’esh is Islam’s worst enemy in today’s world. Its victims are first and foremost Muslim people. Islam is a victim itself.

    We need to show some humble respect for diversity. Diversity is the core feature of our European history, and it is our strength. But we should also show respect for diversity when we look outside our borders. We need to understand diversity, understand complexity. This is difficult, but maybe a bit less difficult for us Europeans. We know diversity and complexity – especially here in Brussels – from our own experience.

    For this reason I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.“

    West must learn to respect those who are different. Muslim community needs Masajid, halal meat, state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers and grave yards.

    Terrorism and sexual grooming is nothing to do with Masajid, Imams and Muslim schools. Those Muslim youths who have been involved in terrorism and sexual grooming are the product of western education system which makes a man stupid, selfish and corrupt. They find themselves cut off from their cultural heritage, literature and poetry. They suffer from identity crises and I blame British schooling.

    A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit. The whole world belongs to Muslims. He/she must learn and be well versed in Standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time, he/she must learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural heritage and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry. For a Muslim English is an economic language and Arabic is a religious while Urdu and other community languages are social and emotional.

    In Islam there is no commandment to kill people by making such allegations against them. The cartoonists had exercised their freedom of expression, and freedom of expression is totally allowed in Islam. Even during the Prophet’s time there were several instances of ridicule, however the Prophet and his Companions neither punished such persons nor asked anyone to do so. On every occasion of this kind, the Prophet’s Companions always tried to positively disseminate the message of Islam. They never tried to punish these people. The killing of those people who had published the cartoons is a gravely un-Islamic act in the name of Islam. What did killing Saddam Husain do. What did killing Osama Bin laden do? NOTHING!!!. There is a long line of replacements. I don’t know the answers. He was asked by MI5 to join them…so you know he is working for them.


    By Iftikhar Ahmad - 2/7/2016 2:45:34 PM

  • Excellent article. Modernity demands good relationship with ‘others’ At the heart of life lie the relationships we have with other people. And how these relationships flow and grow has huge impact on the happiness both in our life and in the lives of the people we care about. It has spiritual values too. In heaven we cannot say to Allah “I won’t talk with the ‘other’” Son of Mary reject our vertical relationship with Allah.if our horizontal relationship with the ‘other’ is bad. He says boldly “keep your offerings at the altar, go back and shake hands with your enemy and come.” Loving the fellow man works at the national level also. Although the U.S nuked two cities and killed 200,000 Japanese instantaniously, Gen. Mcarthur of the Pacific Command did a good job and made Japan a strong ally of U.S. Nelson Mandela had forgiven the notorious minority White people and created the famous “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” There was no violence when Mehamet Agca shot four times at Pope John Paul, or when when Idi Amin shot through the mouth of the Arch Bishop of Uganda. If we truly believe that man is the best creation of Allah then loving man is important as much as loving Allah
    By Royalj - 1/29/2016 4:25:16 AM


    By qaseem39us - 1/6/2016 5:07:47 AM

  • To
    Sultan shahin 

    Your suggestion to change the marriage age of women should come through Indian government is wrong. It should be protested by Muslim themselves or stop marrying their girls before age of 18.

    If it is done by Indian government(dose not matter BJP) it will be seen as Majority Hindu is imposesing their views.

    What if Pakistan change to age of 6 so do India have to?Pakistan can or any Muslim country(Yamenis are already doing)can change law to marry to age of 6 as it can come under sunnah.

    Perception and view point of Indian Muslim shloud not live in shadow of Pakistan or other Muslims world perception and law.

    If Indian Muslim is affected by other Muslim world than their minds are weak, look at Indian Christians they are not influenced at all on the contary they are creating their own unique culture which matches with lots of Indian tradition, even though majority of ruling world is Christian, they never take and don't care damm about them. Yes respect them but not get. Influenced by them.

    By Aayina - 1/2/2016 1:14:34 PM

  • In a system which glorifies the image of holy book in one hand and sword in the other as the way to achieving their divinely ordained mission to bring the world to their viewpoint, dissent is a perilous pursuit.
    The basic issue is can Islam and modernity coexist ?

    By Ranjeet Singh Chordia - 1/1/2016 10:32:57 AM

  • My salute to the writer. If such articles do ignite a debate, what may be one small step for the writer, has the potential of becoming one giant step for mankind. I, a devout Hindu, would love to be friends with everyone, of any faith, who subscribes to the views of this enlightened writer.
    By Ravindra Prasher - 12/11/2015 11:23:30 PM

  • No where in the world any one talks about Hinduism vs modernity, Christianity vs modernity, Buddhism vs modernity, Judaism vs modernity. How come it is only people talk about Islam and modernity.
    Is it an effort to propose Muslims to reconstruct their thought towards new impending requirements with a wish to accommodate their role in the body politics of any social configuration with pro active role for scienticism . liberation from traditional or orthodox life style is necessary accomplish with highest moral code and mutual respect. Allama Iqbal, sir Syed , Jamal din Afgani and also scholars from Iran, Egypt were confronted with same problem. My earlier post also is an effort the Muslims should find compatibility with modern era with highest moral code and harmony among mankind to flourish life on planet earth with ultimate relation with the Lord of Universe.

    By Aftab Khan - 12/11/2015 7:22:53 AM

  • I am in 100% agreement with Sultan Shahin Sahab's following preamble his the article:

    "What kind of reform does modernity demand from the orthodoxy?  Essentially, it asks Muslims to come out of the insidious trap of supremacism, the dream of making Islam the sole religion of the world, ruling over the world through an Islamic caliph. It demands that Muslims coexist with other religious communities, respect other religions and cultures, grant equal rights to all citizens, practice gender equality and justice for all, in short, follow the UN human rights charter,  etc. Each one of these goals is supported by the foundational scripture of Islam, the Holy Quran, if only we Muslims were to go by the Qur'anic dictum of finding the best meaning of Qur'anic verses (as exhorted in Chapter 39: verse 55, 39: 18; 39: 55; 38: 29; 2: 121; 47: 24, etc). They would also do well to follow the recent advise of His Holiness Pope Francis to find an "adequate interpretation" of the Qur'anic verses. So the Quran and Pope Francis are both saying that Muslims should not follow the verses literally but seek to interpret it in the best or most adequate way possible."

    As regards his reference to Pope Francis's suggestion, I fully endorse it and have done an article pre-dating this essay by almost two months referenced below which concludes as follows: 

     "So, let the Muslims and their ulama bite the bullet and follow the suggestion of Pope Francis to interpreting the Qur’anic message to get the best mileage out of this Noble Discourse – God’s greatest gift to humanity that the Ulama subjugate to their secondary sources. ....

    By clinging tenaciously to the secondary sources – the Hadith, the Sira, the Classical Sharia Law, the opinions and consensus of past scholars dating from the 4th century of Islam, the Islamic religious scholarship fails to offer a cohesive code for this era, spawns conflict on political, educational, economic, juristic and myriad other day to day issues of life, accentuates Sectarian and takfirism, blocks integration of the Muslims with the mainstream societies, stalls advancement of universal knowledge, and among other things, reduces Islam to a cult of violence and sets its ideals backwards in history – to the ways and achievements of its scholars of the Medieval ages – thus indoctrinating the Muslim Umma to relive their past rather than go forward in the track of civilization. It is time they heeded the Pope’s call."

    Pope Francis touches the soul of the Qur’an by seeking an “adequate Interpretation” and Muslims and their Ulama and scholars across the world must follow his suggestion to avoid growing confusion in religion.




    By muhammad yunus - 12/11/2015 6:18:14 AM

  • New words added in dictionary---
    Islam- religion that foments treachery, barbarism and intolerance.
    Muslim-- butcher or terrorist that does haivaniat in the name of God.

    By Anshumali Tiwari - 12/11/2015 1:31:35 AM

  • @Deepak bro...... Firstly, pakistan does not represent islam. secondly, quote a single incident in the history of pakistan when any communal killings like muzafanagar and gujrat had happened.

    By Amin Shah - 12/11/2015 1:16:03 AM

  • @Parvez Ahmed
    Dont go far brother.. Go and see pakistan... How much hindus were there when it was created and how many hindus are there now... Just compare that to india how many muslims were there after independence and how many are there now... Need any more example.. Tell me..

    By Deepak Mishra - 12/11/2015 1:03:53 AM

  • Covilakam It is for sustainability that nature became so diverse. Systems that do not support diversity are un-natural and nature will make sure that it is reduced to the minimum, eventhough it may grow initially in quantity exploiting undue advantages. Islam deserve to exist only if it understands and accommodate diversity as a fundamental need.

    By Madhuraj Patinhare - 12/11/2015 12:58:48 AM

  • Why polygamy prevalent in modern world is not prevalent in Hindus? We have imitate their culture such as dresses, habits, thinking powers, language, education system, even their bar culture, nude culture, vulgar fashion, open society each and everything adopted but whats the problem in adopting their polygamy? Obiously the religion does not permit and being a good and religious Hindu you would not like to tolerate interference in your religion. So we as muslims are neither extremists nor terrorists but cannot tolerate interference in our religion and religious matters because in Islam we believe that its Allah's Command and that no one even the muslims have the right to interfere the basic tenets enshrined in The Holy Quran and Hadees which is our base in our religion.

    By Pervez Ahmed - 12/11/2015 12:26:33 AM

  • Dear brothers, what you have highlighted above are because of socio economic problems. it has to do nothing with islam. Look at the statistics of government, they say that the conditions of muslims are worse than Dalits. polygamy, number of issues are not the monopoly of Muslims. it is rampant among the poor Hindus as well. Now dont blame Muslims for global problems. we muslims feel great sense of injustice. Look at palestine, iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and mayanmar. Anyway, polygamy is much better than live in relationship and extra merital affairs.

    By Amin Shah - 12/10/2015 4:27:31 AM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.