The Prophet was already known as the most reliable, the most truthful and the most just among all in Makkah, even before he started preaching the teachings. Whose teachings was he following until Gabriel came with the revelations? Were they not profound truths, preached from the earliest times by the Messengers of God? The Prophet felt no real need to repeat those profound truths in detail, as he was already the greatest adherent to these truths. Need for spiritual elevation and submission to the Almighty was one such profound truth that he preached through practice.
The Prophet fixed certain obligatory rituals, like namaz, roza, etc. so as to reach those ends. Later day Muslims started considering the teachings of earlier Messengers as those of others and not their own teachings. Thus the profound truths that were taught by earlier Messengers and practiced by Prophet Mohammad were forgotten. They took the teachings of namaz, roza, etc. as Islamic dictates and not the need for self-elevation and thus started the drift which made namaz and roza as mere rituals.
As said, namaz, roza and other such obligations prescribed were meant for spiritual elevation of the soul and self-purity. A fast (roza) means not only abstinence from food and water but abstinence from all those acts that are considered immoral and/or illegal. A real practitioner won’t even speak a lie, will endeavour to control his anger, lust, greed, etc., has to essentially control his organs of action and senses from going wayward and will try to do as many good deeds as possible, so as to please his Creator.
Compare this to the present state of Indian Muslims. In a roza iftar organized by the elected representative to Lok Sabha from Rampur, plates were thrown in air, dishes were overturned and this made front page headlines in several of the newspapers the next day.
Over and above the self-control that the 20 days’ previous rozas should have brought about, there are specific guidelines in Islam talking about how to sit on a dastarkhan for dining, the do’s and don’ts of a mehman (guest), how to deal with the host, how to take care of the sensibilities of humans, leave alone the sensibilities of the one who has invited you to iftaar. No whimper was heard from even one maulvi that such an act (like that of throwing of dishes at an iftaar organized by someone who has taken pains to invite you) was far removed from the teachings of Islam.
The humanitarian teachings of Prophet Mohammad were of such high order that the world had to look up to him and his teachings. His Ahlul-bayt (People of the House) and some of his trusted colleagues tried to carry the baton forward after the Prophet’s death. As time passed, it became apparent to all that the true followers of the teachings were few and the rest gradually involved them self into reaping the benefits that the vibrant religion presented by Mohammad had in store for them.
All the conversions that took place during the early period of Islam were due to the lofty humanitarian values that Islam wanted to inculcate and their visual presence in the character of Muslims. In stark contrast to this spiritual and humane character of Islam taught by Prophet Mohammad, the world also got to see an altogether different face of Islam, when self-proclaimed leaders and rulers distorted the teachings to their advantage and went on territory-annexing spree, all in the name of Islam. Later day Muslim scholars’ reluctance to disown these rulers resulted in building of a militant and cruel image of Islam, altogether different from the original teachings.
The true teachings of Islam started getting distorted in no time after the passing away of the Prophet. There is no doubt that by the time of second Caliph itself, annexation of territories began. Iran and Egypt fell during this period. By the time of the third Caliph, the materialistic tendencies started coming up in contrast to the spiritual development and total subjugation to God that Islam preached. In no time, the name of Mohammad was remembered but his teachings forgotten. Ali tried to check these negative tendencies during a brief period of four and a half years but immediately after his death, Umayyad rulers turned Caliphate into personal fiefdom and ruled over the Islamic world, which had now become an empire, with utter disregard to the teachings of Islam.
The situation was similar to the distortions brought about by the followers of Lord Buddha immediately after his death. It is a well-known fact that Lord Buddha had announced and presented Ananda, during his lifetime, as his successor. Evidently Buddha was confident that Ananda was the one who would not allow distortions and changes to encroach his true teachings. His over-zealous followers, bent upon carving out a religion out of Buddha’s teachings in their own self-interests, discarded the righteous Ananda and we find Kasyapa presiding over the first congregation after Buddha’s death. In book ‘God Rediscovered’, SAHNi Bharati has highlighted the true character of Kasyapa and shown how Buddha’s teachings got derailed the very day he died. As soon as the leadership went into the hands of self-seeking material-minded persons, the true impact of Buddha’s lofty teachings began to wane away. Consequently, Buddhism in the subsequent years was to give more warriors and conquerors than monks. Result is for all to see; as soon as the Buddhist empire collapsed, there was nobody to save the Buddhists from their own infighting and from the enemies that they had created locally.
Same with Islam! After the Prophet, things continued to go from bad to worse. Deceit and treachery became rampant. Hoarding of wealth, blatant misuse of power, annexation of properties, large sized harems, luxury, pomp and show, entertainment, murder and plunder became the order of the day. Hindus who claim that they were wrongly treated by the Muslim rulers have not been told of the utmost miseries inflicted on their own subjects – the Muslims – by the rulers within the Islamic world. Truly speaking, India either saw moderate rulers or rulers who were afraid that if they go overboard, this would unite the local masses against them. In the Muslim heartland, these rulers also had the title of Caliphs; majority of Muslims remained mute witness to their misrule perhaps because of this. Not entirely so, because even today a good many learned scholars of Islam prefer to look the other way or even justify the misdeeds that these rulers committed while enjoying the titles of Caliphs.
The contrast between the true and pseudo teachings was truly visible at Karbala, where the most righteous followers of the true teachings of Islam were butchered to death merely 50 years after Prophet’s death. Those who butchered Mohammad’s grandson, his family members and colleagues too called themselves Muslims. Husain and his colleagues, through their martyrdom and steadfastness, showed that they were the true followers of Mohammad’s legacy. Yet, the distortion and growing distance from Mohammad’s teachings was evident from the fact that there were merely about a 100 people who came to Husain’s aid, against the hundreds of thousands of forces that the embodiment of evil - Yazid (acting as the Caliph) – mustered, to fight and kill Husain and his companions.
Yet, it remains a sad story that Islam has never been understood truly even by lot many of those proclaiming themselves to be experts on the subject. Several scholars of Islam fail to see the tyranny of Yazid and still hold him in great esteem. They are also the same people who fail to see the terrorism of Osama and Al-Qaida and, at times, have been found to give moral and all other kinds of support to these self-proclaimed ‘fighters for Islam’. Yet, they are considered champions and most learned scholars of Islam and even the various political parties in India have been found to buttress them during elections, unmindful of the fact that their support to such people is further deepening the wedge between Islam and rest of Indian citizens. The growing clout of these people further reveal the mindset of the general Muslim, who has been kept illiterate and has been made to understand Islam through filters deliberately induced by these self-created custodians of faith. This Muslim mass is far away from reason and logic and sees Islam not as a joining force, as propagated by Mohammad, but as a tool to create divisions within the community and within the country.
MUSLIMS GOT DERAILED FROM PROPHET'S TEACHINGS
When Prophet Mohammad came to Yathrib (later renamed Medina) in A.D. 622, there were two Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, and three Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa’a, Nadhir and Qurayza, living in that city.
The two Arab tribes accepted Islam, and they became the proud hosts and supporters (Ansar) of the Prophet and the Immigrants (Muhajireen). To the Jews, however, the ideology of Islam was not acceptable. But no pressure, direct or indirect, was applied on them to accept it. Mohammad granted them the famous “Charter of Medina”. This Charter guaranteed their civil and religious rights, and recognized their right to live – with other Muslims – as members of autonomous tribes.
In return, the Jews acknowledged Prophet Mohammad as the political sovereign of Medina, and they agreed to defend the city with the Muslims in the event of an invasion by an external enemy. They also agreed not to give aid, moral and/or material, to the enemies of Islam, especially to the Quraysh – the idolators of Makkah.
During the Umayyad period (that commenced about 30 years after the Prophet), no heed was paid to the Prophet’s dictat: live and let live. Various writers were hired to write books of traditions that suited the Umayyads. Court ulemas interpreted the religion to their advantage. Lot many colleagues of the Prophet, who resented the changes were hacked to death. In particular, the well-wishers and friends of Ali and his son, Hasan, were killed relentlessly. Wars were waged and territories annexed merely for the booty that it would bring. Pomp and show and a life of grandeur became inevitable consequence of the hordes of wealth which arrived on camel back from one battle front or other.
Soon it was forgotten that Mohammad spent all his life in a small house, with no comforts. He ate and wore simple. Ali, even when he was the Caliph of Islam, is known to eat bread that was so hard that others refrained from taking a share in it. He also wore garments with patches and at times sewed his footwear himself.
During Ali’s Caliphate, when Salman – the Persian – was appointed the Governor of Madaen, he not only discarded all the pomp and pageantry which had accompanied his predecessors, but built a frail ‘frame house’ of thatch with his own hands, which was to be his home, court and guest-house for as long as he was going to be the governor of Madaen. He tried hard to change the character of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Not his subjects, but it was he who showed eagerness to ingratiate himself with them, especially, with those who were the chronically ‘under-privileged’ among them. He tried to evolve a system where the weak, the humble, and the oppressed would have absolutely no fear of the governmental apparatus, and that they would have absolutely no hesitation in coming to see him, addressing him as an equal, and demanding redress of their grievances. He also wished to put an end to ‘private imperialism’ by extirpating the ‘sharks’ that lived by preying upon simple and gullible people. He turned his hands, his head and his heart to anything that promised to yield safety, comfort, hope, cheer and security to them.
One of the aims of Salman as governor of Madaen was to insinuate the egalitarian mechanism of Islam into every detail of the life of the Muslims. Any distinction, among them, on grounds of economic and/or social privilege, smacked to him of treason to Islam.
Salman also considered it his duty, as governor, to be as close to the poor, the weak and the humble, in terms of shared values and heritage, as possible. He was, in fact, most anxious to convince them that they were far more important than he – Salman, the governor of Madaen – was! He firmly believed that his pleasure was not important for them but that their pleasure was absolutely indispensable for his own salvation on the day of the final reckoning when he would be standing in the Tribunal of the Creator.
This was baseline knowledge for Salman, the governor of Madaen. This knowledge owed its base in the teachings of Prophet Mohammad. Have you seen Muslims talking of Salman or giving examples from his life? If no, try to find ‘why’? And we find the Muslims boasting of the Umayyad rule and even the learned from amongst them still continue to praise unarguably the worst of Umayyad rulers. Why?
All such acts of piety and austerity were to change for the worse during Umayyad rule. Islam, which in the strict sense means “Surrender to God” and a Muslim is “one who has surrendered” was misinterpreted to the levels where the only thing that the Muslims cherished was the people of other territories surrendering to them. Since the booty was coming in hordes and thus benefiting all the people who mattered, there were only few voices of dissent. Those who resented this escape from the Prophet’s way of life were silenced, through the mode found most suitable. Had it not been for Karbala and the bold martyrdom of Husain (Prophet’s grandson, also Ali’s son and Hasan’s younger brother) and his companions, it would have become impossible for even the latter age Muslims to find the real face of Islam. It was only because of this martyrdom that the Muslims got to realize that the Islam being propagated by Muawiya and later by his son, Yazid, was far different from the Islam of Prophet Mohammad that Husain and his companions adhered to. Karbala saw even children as young as 6-month old martyred at the hands of the army sent by Yazid. The fact that Prophet Mohammad’s beloved grandson, who was referred to as the leader of the youths in heaven by none else but Prophet himself, was killed so ruthlessly within 50 years of Prophet’s death, speaks of the changes that occurred during this half century and how the lofty teachings of Islam were hijacked in such a short period.
The great revolution in minds that Prophet Mohammad had brought can be understood from the fact that despite such adverse circumstances, its after-effects kept resonating for a while and established Arabs’ undisputed supremacy and leadership in knowledge of various sciences for about 200 years or so. Stagnation and reverse movement had already begun by the time the Arabs were acknowledged by the world as excellent in various realms of knowledge.
Attempt by Muawiya to control what was to be written in history books, what was to be addressed in Friday sermons at more than 70,000 pulpits all across the Muslim world and what shall be the face of Islam in future, jeopardized the progress of Islam despite the fact that the new frontiers being created were farther and farther from the Muslim capital. Eventually, while the Muslim dominion continued to spread in all four directions, Islam got paralyzed. The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads proved to be even greater conquerors but worst followers of the tenets of Islam. Muslims, who would have reached faster into the jet age, had they adhered to the true spiritual and social teachings of Islam, were led back into camel age, by none else but those calling themselves as Muslims.
Most unfortunately, the world got to know of Islam during this period when the conquering armies of Muslims marched past their lands. If they built a ferocious image of Islam with sword in one hand, they are not to be blamed!
IF THIS IS THE SITUATION, DOES ISLAM HAS ANY SOLUTIONS TO OFFER TO THE PRESENT DAY MUSLIMS?
We are faced with a very delicate situation. Independent thinkers desirous of finding a solution get entangled in a mesh. If they read the history of the progress of Muslims during the initial 200 years, they see a much distorted image of Islam. Howsoever much the Muslims continue to deny that their count did not spread through sword, the historical facts are telling much the opposite. Several contradictions are evident; several impracticable solutions are visible; and the Islamic injunctions, the way they were interpreted or practiced during that period, are found unsuitable for present times.
There is no denying the fact that Islamic teachings were sabotaged in the initial 200 years. The (mis)rule of the likes of Umayyad and Abbasids can not be treated as Islamic. Yet, this is the period of greatest conquests carried out by the Muslims. There is no doubt whatsoever that these conquests and the evils that they brought along didn’t allow the real Islam to penetrate the minds of a lot many materialistic-minded neo-converts to Islam. A lot many of them succumbed to the feeling of grandeur and pomp that these rulers created around the religion so as to strengthen their seat of power. Since these rulers were being branded as ‘Caliph’, the Muslims in general tried to digest and/or ignore the misdeeds that they committed. There are a lot many Muslim maulvis who would shudder even today to think ill of a ruler like Muawiya, Haroon Rashid or Mamoon Rashid. Several supposedly learned scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik shower praises on even the worst of all rulers, Yazid, for this reason only.
But what these people do not know is that in their attempts to show these worldly rulers in good light and by portraying them as torchbearers of Islam, they are in fact harming the cause of Islam and are making it impossible for a student and pursuer of Islam to understand the real and true face of Islam.
Such is the confusion due to this that some writers like Baig, Fyzee or Professor Mujib (former Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia) even go the extent of challenging “the permanent validity of Quran”.
In “The Status of the Individual Conscience in Islam”, Professor Mujib writes:
“…right or wrong in matters of religious belief and practices are determined by social opinion and established habits of thoughts. The conscience of individual Muslim has had to find satisfaction in adherence to one of the accepted systems of interpretation of the Quran and the Traditions.
The Quran does not prescribe any such adherence. It recognized both the community of believers and the individual believer and does not ignore the possibility of the community being in the wrong as well as the individual member:
O believers, be you securers of justice, witnesses of God, even though it be against yourself or your parents and kinsmen, whether it concerns rich or poor, for God is nearer to you than both. And do not follow caprice, so as to swerve from the truth.
(4.134)
Mujeeb then goes on boldly to challenge the permanent validity of the Quran:
“Historical situations in which certain attitudes prescribed in the Quran, or deductions made from these prescriptions, are no longer relevant . . . Are we in this situation to look for some theological authority to guide us, and to wait passively till this authority is found? Or, are we to act according to our conscience and continuously remind ourselves that we must be ‘securers of justice, witnesses for God’ not only for ourselves but the whole political community of Muslims and non-Muslims to which we belong?
There remains the question of Islam’s practicability or impracticability. It depends on whether Muslims are in a majority or minority. The moral-social system that in its totality is Islam was developed by Muslims for Muslims, and a situation such as exists in India was never envisaged by Muhammad, the Caliphs, or the great jurist-theologians in the Muslim countries of West Asia. As a result, whereas Muhammad having to deal with Jewish and Christian minorities made allowances for them, subject to jaziya, there is absolutely no guidance anywhere or by anybody on how Muslims in a minority should conform to the laws of a non-Muslim majority.
This task therefore Muslims will have to undertake themselves, keeping in mind the self-evident fact that Islam in India must be reoriented through the necessary reforms in the light of the conditions prevailing in India.
As far as Islam in general is concerned, if one looks round the Muslim world today one finds that if being a Muslim means one who has “surrendered to God,” then the overwhelming majority of them are escaped prisoners. But if being a Muslim means belonging to the Umma Muslima, then only an infinitesimal minority has found its way out of the enclosure the gates of which stand open. The reasons for this inconsistEnce, if hypocrisy is too strong a word, deserve deep social study. It could be, perhaps, because since Muslims, ideologically, should have no country, they have in compensation an excessive sense of community. This characteristic effectively bars assimilation in non-Muslim countries, and inhibits a practicing Muslim being an internationalist, nationalist, or humanist. The Muslim Islam makes is a transnational communalist, at home only in Muslim majority countries.”
This quoted passage reveals the extent to which various writers go while trying to find an answer to the Muslim dilemma. While their understanding of the problems afflicting the Muslims in India is correct, they have failed to analyze the true reasons why such problems arose. These writers go to the extent of saying that Muhammad’s teachings have no solutions to give to the adherents regarding how to live in non-Muslim majority countries. However, fact remains that a Muslim continues to remain a problem child even in the countries where they are in majority. While these writers have truly analyzed the present state of Muslims in general, they have failed to reach to the reasons behind this because they too saw Islam through the curtain that the 200 years of misrule drew over the Prophet’s true teachings. Had they confined themselves to the true Prophet’s teachings and Quran alone they would have seen a truly different picture of Islam? The most unfortunate part is that the Muslim maulvis keep their eyes close to the unIslamic rule that we were witnessed to in the name of Islam and Caliphate during most of the initial 200 years after the Prophet. They do not speak out owing to the apparent grandeur and physical strength that these rulers gave to Islam. But they forgot that Islam was never the religion that preached all this. These people will have to decide whether they want to continue their ‘protection’ of these pseudo-caliphs at the cost of Islam and Prophet’s image or whether they want the true face of Islam to come out of the mesh that presently overshadows it. Until we learn to do it, people will continue to cast aspersions on the contemporary relevance of several Islamic teachings and various other aspects like Islamic law and teachings.
IS THERE A SOLUTION?
The problem of nearly all religions in contemporary times is that spirituality has died a silent death on the pyre of materialistic religiosity. Spirituality is something within, where the person continuously endeavours to elevate his inner self and the after effects of the person’s inner endeavour is visible outwardly in his character; in his supplications and prayers and in his dealings with all the rest of God’s creations.
Religiosity is altogether opposite of spirituality where the person gets involved in outward rituals and customs in vain hope that this would elevate his inner self. The religiosity today is out there on the streets, even leading to traffic jams on roads, long serpentine queues outside mandirs and mazaars, big religious congregations and processions and the immediate aftermath of such frenzied religiosity is attempt to trample other religions, demolishing their places of worship and even riots and acts of terrorism against members of other religious community, who are themselves only immersed in outward religiosity, thereby aggravating the wedge so created, further.
There is a need to rescue spirituality from religiosity which, in the final analysis, is an amalgam of myths, fetishes, superstitions, and anachronistic customs and rituals. If, therefore, religion is to have any meaning to the rising and future generations, it must rid itself of obscurantism, harmonize with modern science and human reason, and be what inquiry will strengthen, not destroy.
The religious customs like a foot-march to get Ganges water back home, a trek uphill, a procession on Moharram or even weekly or daily assembly of worshippers at temples, churches and mosques were designed as the first lessons towards initiation into the deeper and spiritual aspects of religion. At the same time, such get-togethers were designed so that the masses will get to interact with those who have climbed on the ladder of austerity and spirituality and learn a lesson or two from them. This has ceased to happen any more! These rituals and customs alone have been understood as religion by nearly the entire masses.
God is supreme as per all religions and all religions emanated through God’s avatars (prophets) have kept inner elevation as the prime quest of life. Salvation (nijaat or shahadat) is only for a person who dies with his soul pure. The level of degradation that has entered our lives today can be gauged from the fact that even the religious heads have ceased to lay emphasis on the need for spiritual elevation and their prime concern is limited to initiating a devout into customs and rituals.
Those who desire to serve God can best do so through strict self-molding of their organs of action and senses, as per the likings of their Creator and then through service to mankind which, surely, is the scheme of nature, at all times doing this only for development and elevation of soul rather than seeking other material benefits from the service. The real purpose of religion is to develop to the utmost our capabilities and qualities, to strive to wipe the tear from every eye, to work for the deprived and the downtrodden, to love thy neighbour, to care for children, to fight discrimination and obscurantism, and even to pay our taxes and not cheat each other. Religion, in short, is to be faithful to the intellect we have, to develop the powers which have been entrusted to our charge, and to employ them either in worship of God or in the service of humanity, which itself becomes worship if done keeping the God and no self-interest in mind. This is true religion.
The Prophet fixed certain obligatory rituals, like namaz, roza, etc. so as to reach those ends. Later day Muslims started considering the teachings of earlier Messengers as those of others and not their own teachings. Thus the profound truths that were taught by earlier Messengers and practiced by Prophet Mohammad were forgotten. They took the teachings of namaz, roza, etc. as Islamic dictates and not the need for self-elevation and thus started the drift which made namaz and roza as mere rituals.
As said, namaz, roza and other such obligations prescribed were meant for spiritual elevation of the soul and self-purity. A fast (roza) means not only abstinence from food and water but abstinence from all those acts that are considered immoral and/or illegal. A real practitioner won’t even speak a lie, will endeavour to control his anger, lust, greed, etc., has to essentially control his organs of action and senses from going wayward and will try to do as many good deeds as possible, so as to please his Creator.
Compare this to the present state of Indian Muslims. In a roza iftar organized by the elected representative to Lok Sabha from Rampur, plates were thrown in air, dishes were overturned and this made front page headlines in several of the newspapers the next day.
Over and above the self-control that the 20 days’ previous rozas should have brought about, there are specific guidelines in Islam talking about how to sit on a dastarkhan for dining, the do’s and don’ts of a mehman (guest), how to deal with the host, how to take care of the sensibilities of humans, leave alone the sensibilities of the one who has invited you to iftaar. No whimper was heard from even one maulvi that such an act (like that of throwing of dishes at an iftaar organized by someone who has taken pains to invite you) was far removed from the teachings of Islam.
The humanitarian teachings of Prophet Mohammad were of such high order that the world had to look up to him and his teachings. His Ahlul-bayt (People of the House) and some of his trusted colleagues tried to carry the baton forward after the Prophet’s death. As time passed, it became apparent to all that the true followers of the teachings were few and the rest gradually involved them self into reaping the benefits that the vibrant religion presented by Mohammad had in store for them.
All the conversions that took place during the early period of Islam were due to the lofty humanitarian values that Islam wanted to inculcate and their visual presence in the character of Muslims. In stark contrast to this spiritual and humane character of Islam taught by Prophet Mohammad, the world also got to see an altogether different face of Islam, when self-proclaimed leaders and rulers distorted the teachings to their advantage and went on territory-annexing spree, all in the name of Islam. Later day Muslim scholars’ reluctance to disown these rulers resulted in building of a militant and cruel image of Islam, altogether different from the original teachings.
The true teachings of Islam started getting distorted in no time after the passing away of the Prophet. There is no doubt that by the time of second Caliph itself, annexation of territories began. Iran and Egypt fell during this period. By the time of the third Caliph, the materialistic tendencies started coming up in contrast to the spiritual development and total subjugation to God that Islam preached. In no time, the name of Mohammad was remembered but his teachings forgotten. Ali tried to check these negative tendencies during a brief period of four and a half years but immediately after his death, Umayyad rulers turned Caliphate into personal fiefdom and ruled over the Islamic world, which had now become an empire, with utter disregard to the teachings of Islam.
The situation was similar to the distortions brought about by the followers of Lord Buddha immediately after his death. It is a well-known fact that Lord Buddha had announced and presented Ananda, during his lifetime, as his successor. Evidently Buddha was confident that Ananda was the one who would not allow distortions and changes to encroach his true teachings. His over-zealous followers, bent upon carving out a religion out of Buddha’s teachings in their own self-interests, discarded the righteous Ananda and we find Kasyapa presiding over the first congregation after Buddha’s death. In book ‘God Rediscovered’, SAHNi Bharati has highlighted the true character of Kasyapa and shown how Buddha’s teachings got derailed the very day he died. As soon as the leadership went into the hands of self-seeking material-minded persons, the true impact of Buddha’s lofty teachings began to wane away. Consequently, Buddhism in the subsequent years was to give more warriors and conquerors than monks. Result is for all to see; as soon as the Buddhist empire collapsed, there was nobody to save the Buddhists from their own infighting and from the enemies that they had created locally.
Same with Islam! After the Prophet, things continued to go from bad to worse. Deceit and treachery became rampant. Hoarding of wealth, blatant misuse of power, annexation of properties, large sized harems, luxury, pomp and show, entertainment, murder and plunder became the order of the day. Hindus who claim that they were wrongly treated by the Muslim rulers have not been told of the utmost miseries inflicted on their own subjects – the Muslims – by the rulers within the Islamic world. Truly speaking, India either saw moderate rulers or rulers who were afraid that if they go overboard, this would unite the local masses against them. In the Muslim heartland, these rulers also had the title of Caliphs; majority of Muslims remained mute witness to their misrule perhaps because of this. Not entirely so, because even today a good many learned scholars of Islam prefer to look the other way or even justify the misdeeds that these rulers committed while enjoying the titles of Caliphs.
The contrast between the true and pseudo teachings was truly visible at Karbala, where the most righteous followers of the true teachings of Islam were butchered to death merely 50 years after Prophet’s death. Those who butchered Mohammad’s grandson, his family members and colleagues too called themselves Muslims. Husain and his colleagues, through their martyrdom and steadfastness, showed that they were the true followers of Mohammad’s legacy. Yet, the distortion and growing distance from Mohammad’s teachings was evident from the fact that there were merely about a 100 people who came to Husain’s aid, against the hundreds of thousands of forces that the embodiment of evil - Yazid (acting as the Caliph) – mustered, to fight and kill Husain and his companions.
Yet, it remains a sad story that Islam has never been understood truly even by lot many of those proclaiming themselves to be experts on the subject. Several scholars of Islam fail to see the tyranny of Yazid and still hold him in great esteem. They are also the same people who fail to see the terrorism of Osama and Al-Qaida and, at times, have been found to give moral and all other kinds of support to these self-proclaimed ‘fighters for Islam’. Yet, they are considered champions and most learned scholars of Islam and even the various political parties in India have been found to buttress them during elections, unmindful of the fact that their support to such people is further deepening the wedge between Islam and rest of Indian citizens. The growing clout of these people further reveal the mindset of the general Muslim, who has been kept illiterate and has been made to understand Islam through filters deliberately induced by these self-created custodians of faith. This Muslim mass is far away from reason and logic and sees Islam not as a joining force, as propagated by Mohammad, but as a tool to create divisions within the community and within the country.
MUSLIMS GOT DERAILED FROM PROPHET'S TEACHINGS
When Prophet Mohammad came to Yathrib (later renamed Medina) in A.D. 622, there were two Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, and three Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa’a, Nadhir and Qurayza, living in that city.
The two Arab tribes accepted Islam, and they became the proud hosts and supporters (Ansar) of the Prophet and the Immigrants (Muhajireen). To the Jews, however, the ideology of Islam was not acceptable. But no pressure, direct or indirect, was applied on them to accept it. Mohammad granted them the famous “Charter of Medina”. This Charter guaranteed their civil and religious rights, and recognized their right to live – with other Muslims – as members of autonomous tribes.
In return, the Jews acknowledged Prophet Mohammad as the political sovereign of Medina, and they agreed to defend the city with the Muslims in the event of an invasion by an external enemy. They also agreed not to give aid, moral and/or material, to the enemies of Islam, especially to the Quraysh – the idolators of Makkah.
During the Umayyad period (that commenced about 30 years after the Prophet), no heed was paid to the Prophet’s dictat: live and let live. Various writers were hired to write books of traditions that suited the Umayyads. Court ulemas interpreted the religion to their advantage. Lot many colleagues of the Prophet, who resented the changes were hacked to death. In particular, the well-wishers and friends of Ali and his son, Hasan, were killed relentlessly. Wars were waged and territories annexed merely for the booty that it would bring. Pomp and show and a life of grandeur became inevitable consequence of the hordes of wealth which arrived on camel back from one battle front or other.
Soon it was forgotten that Mohammad spent all his life in a small house, with no comforts. He ate and wore simple. Ali, even when he was the Caliph of Islam, is known to eat bread that was so hard that others refrained from taking a share in it. He also wore garments with patches and at times sewed his footwear himself.
During Ali’s Caliphate, when Salman – the Persian – was appointed the Governor of Madaen, he not only discarded all the pomp and pageantry which had accompanied his predecessors, but built a frail ‘frame house’ of thatch with his own hands, which was to be his home, court and guest-house for as long as he was going to be the governor of Madaen. He tried hard to change the character of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Not his subjects, but it was he who showed eagerness to ingratiate himself with them, especially, with those who were the chronically ‘under-privileged’ among them. He tried to evolve a system where the weak, the humble, and the oppressed would have absolutely no fear of the governmental apparatus, and that they would have absolutely no hesitation in coming to see him, addressing him as an equal, and demanding redress of their grievances. He also wished to put an end to ‘private imperialism’ by extirpating the ‘sharks’ that lived by preying upon simple and gullible people. He turned his hands, his head and his heart to anything that promised to yield safety, comfort, hope, cheer and security to them.
One of the aims of Salman as governor of Madaen was to insinuate the egalitarian mechanism of Islam into every detail of the life of the Muslims. Any distinction, among them, on grounds of economic and/or social privilege, smacked to him of treason to Islam.
Salman also considered it his duty, as governor, to be as close to the poor, the weak and the humble, in terms of shared values and heritage, as possible. He was, in fact, most anxious to convince them that they were far more important than he – Salman, the governor of Madaen – was! He firmly believed that his pleasure was not important for them but that their pleasure was absolutely indispensable for his own salvation on the day of the final reckoning when he would be standing in the Tribunal of the Creator.
This was baseline knowledge for Salman, the governor of Madaen. This knowledge owed its base in the teachings of Prophet Mohammad. Have you seen Muslims talking of Salman or giving examples from his life? If no, try to find ‘why’? And we find the Muslims boasting of the Umayyad rule and even the learned from amongst them still continue to praise unarguably the worst of Umayyad rulers. Why?
All such acts of piety and austerity were to change for the worse during Umayyad rule. Islam, which in the strict sense means “Surrender to God” and a Muslim is “one who has surrendered” was misinterpreted to the levels where the only thing that the Muslims cherished was the people of other territories surrendering to them. Since the booty was coming in hordes and thus benefiting all the people who mattered, there were only few voices of dissent. Those who resented this escape from the Prophet’s way of life were silenced, through the mode found most suitable. Had it not been for Karbala and the bold martyrdom of Husain (Prophet’s grandson, also Ali’s son and Hasan’s younger brother) and his companions, it would have become impossible for even the latter age Muslims to find the real face of Islam. It was only because of this martyrdom that the Muslims got to realize that the Islam being propagated by Muawiya and later by his son, Yazid, was far different from the Islam of Prophet Mohammad that Husain and his companions adhered to. Karbala saw even children as young as 6-month old martyred at the hands of the army sent by Yazid. The fact that Prophet Mohammad’s beloved grandson, who was referred to as the leader of the youths in heaven by none else but Prophet himself, was killed so ruthlessly within 50 years of Prophet’s death, speaks of the changes that occurred during this half century and how the lofty teachings of Islam were hijacked in such a short period.
The great revolution in minds that Prophet Mohammad had brought can be understood from the fact that despite such adverse circumstances, its after-effects kept resonating for a while and established Arabs’ undisputed supremacy and leadership in knowledge of various sciences for about 200 years or so. Stagnation and reverse movement had already begun by the time the Arabs were acknowledged by the world as excellent in various realms of knowledge.
Attempt by Muawiya to control what was to be written in history books, what was to be addressed in Friday sermons at more than 70,000 pulpits all across the Muslim world and what shall be the face of Islam in future, jeopardized the progress of Islam despite the fact that the new frontiers being created were farther and farther from the Muslim capital. Eventually, while the Muslim dominion continued to spread in all four directions, Islam got paralyzed. The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads proved to be even greater conquerors but worst followers of the tenets of Islam. Muslims, who would have reached faster into the jet age, had they adhered to the true spiritual and social teachings of Islam, were led back into camel age, by none else but those calling themselves as Muslims.
Most unfortunately, the world got to know of Islam during this period when the conquering armies of Muslims marched past their lands. If they built a ferocious image of Islam with sword in one hand, they are not to be blamed!
IF THIS IS THE SITUATION, DOES ISLAM HAS ANY SOLUTIONS TO OFFER TO THE PRESENT DAY MUSLIMS?
We are faced with a very delicate situation. Independent thinkers desirous of finding a solution get entangled in a mesh. If they read the history of the progress of Muslims during the initial 200 years, they see a much distorted image of Islam. Howsoever much the Muslims continue to deny that their count did not spread through sword, the historical facts are telling much the opposite. Several contradictions are evident; several impracticable solutions are visible; and the Islamic injunctions, the way they were interpreted or practiced during that period, are found unsuitable for present times.
There is no denying the fact that Islamic teachings were sabotaged in the initial 200 years. The (mis)rule of the likes of Umayyad and Abbasids can not be treated as Islamic. Yet, this is the period of greatest conquests carried out by the Muslims. There is no doubt whatsoever that these conquests and the evils that they brought along didn’t allow the real Islam to penetrate the minds of a lot many materialistic-minded neo-converts to Islam. A lot many of them succumbed to the feeling of grandeur and pomp that these rulers created around the religion so as to strengthen their seat of power. Since these rulers were being branded as ‘Caliph’, the Muslims in general tried to digest and/or ignore the misdeeds that they committed. There are a lot many Muslim maulvis who would shudder even today to think ill of a ruler like Muawiya, Haroon Rashid or Mamoon Rashid. Several supposedly learned scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik shower praises on even the worst of all rulers, Yazid, for this reason only.
But what these people do not know is that in their attempts to show these worldly rulers in good light and by portraying them as torchbearers of Islam, they are in fact harming the cause of Islam and are making it impossible for a student and pursuer of Islam to understand the real and true face of Islam.
Such is the confusion due to this that some writers like Baig, Fyzee or Professor Mujib (former Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia) even go the extent of challenging “the permanent validity of Quran”.
In “The Status of the Individual Conscience in Islam”, Professor Mujib writes:
“…right or wrong in matters of religious belief and practices are determined by social opinion and established habits of thoughts. The conscience of individual Muslim has had to find satisfaction in adherence to one of the accepted systems of interpretation of the Quran and the Traditions.
The Quran does not prescribe any such adherence. It recognized both the community of believers and the individual believer and does not ignore the possibility of the community being in the wrong as well as the individual member:
O believers, be you securers of justice, witnesses of God, even though it be against yourself or your parents and kinsmen, whether it concerns rich or poor, for God is nearer to you than both. And do not follow caprice, so as to swerve from the truth.
(4.134)
Mujeeb then goes on boldly to challenge the permanent validity of the Quran:
“Historical situations in which certain attitudes prescribed in the Quran, or deductions made from these prescriptions, are no longer relevant . . . Are we in this situation to look for some theological authority to guide us, and to wait passively till this authority is found? Or, are we to act according to our conscience and continuously remind ourselves that we must be ‘securers of justice, witnesses for God’ not only for ourselves but the whole political community of Muslims and non-Muslims to which we belong?
There remains the question of Islam’s practicability or impracticability. It depends on whether Muslims are in a majority or minority. The moral-social system that in its totality is Islam was developed by Muslims for Muslims, and a situation such as exists in India was never envisaged by Muhammad, the Caliphs, or the great jurist-theologians in the Muslim countries of West Asia. As a result, whereas Muhammad having to deal with Jewish and Christian minorities made allowances for them, subject to jaziya, there is absolutely no guidance anywhere or by anybody on how Muslims in a minority should conform to the laws of a non-Muslim majority.
This task therefore Muslims will have to undertake themselves, keeping in mind the self-evident fact that Islam in India must be reoriented through the necessary reforms in the light of the conditions prevailing in India.
As far as Islam in general is concerned, if one looks round the Muslim world today one finds that if being a Muslim means one who has “surrendered to God,” then the overwhelming majority of them are escaped prisoners. But if being a Muslim means belonging to the Umma Muslima, then only an infinitesimal minority has found its way out of the enclosure the gates of which stand open. The reasons for this inconsistEnce, if hypocrisy is too strong a word, deserve deep social study. It could be, perhaps, because since Muslims, ideologically, should have no country, they have in compensation an excessive sense of community. This characteristic effectively bars assimilation in non-Muslim countries, and inhibits a practicing Muslim being an internationalist, nationalist, or humanist. The Muslim Islam makes is a transnational communalist, at home only in Muslim majority countries.”
This quoted passage reveals the extent to which various writers go while trying to find an answer to the Muslim dilemma. While their understanding of the problems afflicting the Muslims in India is correct, they have failed to analyze the true reasons why such problems arose. These writers go to the extent of saying that Muhammad’s teachings have no solutions to give to the adherents regarding how to live in non-Muslim majority countries. However, fact remains that a Muslim continues to remain a problem child even in the countries where they are in majority. While these writers have truly analyzed the present state of Muslims in general, they have failed to reach to the reasons behind this because they too saw Islam through the curtain that the 200 years of misrule drew over the Prophet’s true teachings. Had they confined themselves to the true Prophet’s teachings and Quran alone they would have seen a truly different picture of Islam? The most unfortunate part is that the Muslim maulvis keep their eyes close to the unIslamic rule that we were witnessed to in the name of Islam and Caliphate during most of the initial 200 years after the Prophet. They do not speak out owing to the apparent grandeur and physical strength that these rulers gave to Islam. But they forgot that Islam was never the religion that preached all this. These people will have to decide whether they want to continue their ‘protection’ of these pseudo-caliphs at the cost of Islam and Prophet’s image or whether they want the true face of Islam to come out of the mesh that presently overshadows it. Until we learn to do it, people will continue to cast aspersions on the contemporary relevance of several Islamic teachings and various other aspects like Islamic law and teachings.
IS THERE A SOLUTION?
The problem of nearly all religions in contemporary times is that spirituality has died a silent death on the pyre of materialistic religiosity. Spirituality is something within, where the person continuously endeavours to elevate his inner self and the after effects of the person’s inner endeavour is visible outwardly in his character; in his supplications and prayers and in his dealings with all the rest of God’s creations.
Religiosity is altogether opposite of spirituality where the person gets involved in outward rituals and customs in vain hope that this would elevate his inner self. The religiosity today is out there on the streets, even leading to traffic jams on roads, long serpentine queues outside mandirs and mazaars, big religious congregations and processions and the immediate aftermath of such frenzied religiosity is attempt to trample other religions, demolishing their places of worship and even riots and acts of terrorism against members of other religious community, who are themselves only immersed in outward religiosity, thereby aggravating the wedge so created, further.
There is a need to rescue spirituality from religiosity which, in the final analysis, is an amalgam of myths, fetishes, superstitions, and anachronistic customs and rituals. If, therefore, religion is to have any meaning to the rising and future generations, it must rid itself of obscurantism, harmonize with modern science and human reason, and be what inquiry will strengthen, not destroy.
The religious customs like a foot-march to get Ganges water back home, a trek uphill, a procession on Moharram or even weekly or daily assembly of worshippers at temples, churches and mosques were designed as the first lessons towards initiation into the deeper and spiritual aspects of religion. At the same time, such get-togethers were designed so that the masses will get to interact with those who have climbed on the ladder of austerity and spirituality and learn a lesson or two from them. This has ceased to happen any more! These rituals and customs alone have been understood as religion by nearly the entire masses.
God is supreme as per all religions and all religions emanated through God’s avatars (prophets) have kept inner elevation as the prime quest of life. Salvation (nijaat or shahadat) is only for a person who dies with his soul pure. The level of degradation that has entered our lives today can be gauged from the fact that even the religious heads have ceased to lay emphasis on the need for spiritual elevation and their prime concern is limited to initiating a devout into customs and rituals.
Those who desire to serve God can best do so through strict self-molding of their organs of action and senses, as per the likings of their Creator and then through service to mankind which, surely, is the scheme of nature, at all times doing this only for development and elevation of soul rather than seeking other material benefits from the service. The real purpose of religion is to develop to the utmost our capabilities and qualities, to strive to wipe the tear from every eye, to work for the deprived and the downtrodden, to love thy neighbour, to care for children, to fight discrimination and obscurantism, and even to pay our taxes and not cheat each other. Religion, in short, is to be faithful to the intellect we have, to develop the powers which have been entrusted to our charge, and to employ them either in worship of God or in the service of humanity, which itself becomes worship if done keeping the God and no self-interest in mind. This is true religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment