Hameed Chennamangalur’s recent article in the Mathrubhoomi Weekly (16 May) in Malayalam seems to have set alight a new round of fears about the ‘hidden agenda’ of Muslim extremism . Over the past weeks many friends, mostly left-liberals, have been urging me to take heed of the warning issued by Chennamangalur, a well-known, long-time critic of Muslim identity politics.
The article that has sparked off such worries takes a line that is quite familiar: it accuses the Jamaat-e-Islami in Kerala of pursuing their ‘hidden agenda’ of establishing the dominance of radical Islam through secular means. Chennamangalur argues that the Jamaat has ‘penetrated’ the space of radical activism through its all-male youth organizations such as the Solidarity Youth Movement, and through setting the terms of radical activist debate through its popular weekly magazine, the Madhyamam. Its recent efforts at discussing such ideas as Muslim feminism, and Muslim feminist thinkers such as Amina Wadood and Fatima Mernissi can only be regarded as cover-ups for a strategy through which it seeks to displace the more liberal and plural Muslim League — something he finds worrying in the present context in which the Jamaat is making a bid to enter local governance through contesting the forthcoming panchayat elections in Kerala. He laments that the radical intellectuals in Kerala are becoming mere pawns of this strategy; they do not see, for instance, that despite all the support that the Madhyamam offers dalit intellectuals, it remains biased heavily towards upper-caste Muslims, unlike the Communist Party in Kerala, which, he claims, offered upward mobility and political presence to dalit leaders in its fold.
Now, much of the article is eminently dismissible. To start with, Chennamangalur’s rhetoric is utterly irresponsible. His coinages are so close to that of Hindu fundamentalists that I find it difficult to take him seriously. The term ‘intellectual jihad’ that he coins to describe the ‘hidden conspiracy’ clearly draws upon both the cognitive and the emotional charges of the Hindu fanatic coinage, ‘love jihad’, which has put young Muslim men in Kerala, irrespective of whether they are practicing Muslims or not, in danger. This attitude which does not care whether it reinforces harm already done to Muslims can only be reflective of a particular violent and virulent state of mind described by the Malayalam adage which says: ‘Daughter-in-law is weeping, how wonderful — doesn’t matter that my son is dead!’ No wonder the Hindu right-wing has embraced this article with open arms, such is the rhetorical kinship.
Secondly,some of the underlying logic of his article is pretty unsound. Chennamangalur assumes that ‘radical intellectuals'(by which he means, it seems, writers who are not slavishly bound to the dominant left) who write in the Madhyamam are thereby strengthening the ‘hidden agenda’ of the Jamaat. Now,certainly,it is not true that ‘radical intellectuals’ writing in the Madhyamam are thereby reinforcing a conservative agenda which this author associates with the Jamaat. Many ‘radical intellectuals’ write in the Mathrubhumi Weekly, which has a nationalist past which was certainly hegemonized by a softer, secularized version of ‘Hindu culture’– that surely does not mean that they have thereby strengthened ‘Hindu culture’.
It is also not valid to argue that they are helping the Jamaat ‘cover up’ their hidden agenda. The fact that intellectuals, radicals and others, do utilize the spaces set up by the Jamaat or nationalists, or left radicals does not mean that they are unaware of or necessarily agree with whatever agendas these groups may have. To do so it is to deny the them agency. In fact, Chennamangalur’s respectful address of ‘radical intellectuals’ is nothing but a rhetorical ploy to reduce the blame that he places on them’ by saying that they are misled by their ‘innocence’. This is also a cunning way of denying them agency. Many of us who have written in the Madhyamam have also been openly critical of its completely undemocratic attacks on the ‘abjects’ of Kerala’s ‘enlightened society’, people marked (or branded) by their sexuality. A couple of years back, when this magazine mobilized an entire array of ‘enlightened’ intellectuals to attack the sex-worker activist and author Nalini Jameela, many of us who qualify as ‘radical intellectuals’ in Chennamangalur’s terms had voiced strong protest; until very recently, I myself refused to write in Madhyamam in protest against the despicably casteist tone of some articles they had published that rubbished Nalini’s work and fought hard to push her back into the state of abjection from which she had escaped. And I do not think that the radical leftists and the feminists who wrote in the Madhyamam attacking Nalini, and even those within that group who did not find it wrong to deploy casteist slurs in their pious mission, were unaware that they were contributing to a conservative agenda — or at least that there was nothing liberal about their response. When such inadvertent alliances do exist between section of the ‘radical intellectuals’ and the conservative Muslim agenda, how can just the latter be blamed?
I began to write in Madhyamam after the venomous ‘love jihad’ propaganda, shocked by the role played by the so-called liberal press in uncritically promoting it. In sum, Chennamangalur’s ammavan-like (maternal uncle-like) stance blinds him to the fact we who write in the Madhyamam indeed have different degrees of awareness, which influences our decisions to write or withdraw. Please do not reduce us to little lambs who need a political and intellectual shepherd.
Cunning is also evident in Chennamangalur’s attack on the work of a young Muslim woman researcher and intellectual from north Kerala, Shamshad Husain, who has been producing pioneering work on the history of Muslim women in Kerala.Violent reactions against criticisms by researchers who seek more rigorous standards in writing are not uncommon in Kerala and Chennamangalur is certainly not the only entrenched intellectual who breaks into infantile tantrums at the slightest demand for intellectual rigour and connection between intellectuals. In this article, however, his attack on Shamshad’s work neglects even the minimum requirement of fairness, of representing her arguments at some length.The attribution of reasonable agency to the woman who chooses to represent herself as a ‘Muslim woman’ is pounced upon as evidence for Shamshad’s capitulation to the ‘hidden agenda’! Interestingly, his long digression favoring Muslim feminism as if it were diametrically opposed to the positions taken by those who have written on this but have apparently ‘capitulated’ to the Jamaat’s ‘hidden agenda’is nothing but bad faith. The idea of Muslim feminism has been around for some time now — it was certainly not introduced by liberal Muslim intellectuals (though some did show an interest in it).It is Muslim women intellectuals like Shamshad who have taken an interest in it and used it as an enabling tool to produce fresh perspectives on Muslim women in Kerala, unlike entrenched male Muslim liberals who have used it, at best, as a good luck charm or as a talisman to ward off evil spirits.
But most glaring is Chennamangalur’s apparent non-comprehension of the political crisis of contemporary Malayalee society in which the distinctions between the Left and the Right have all but disappeared. That such blindness persists even as the latest episode of state-and-party bullying in favor of neo-liberal predators unfolds in Kinaloor in north Kerala makes one doubt the very intention behind this article. Chennamangalur makes much of the fact that ‘radical intellectuals’ have allowed organizations like the Solidarity a role in the anti- neo-liberal growth struggles; well, what are we expected to do when the Left (its upper echelons, actually) has transmogrified into the Right with a vengeance, imbued with hitherto-unprecedented egregiousness? Are we expected to wait patiently until the dominant Left in Kerala is cured of its megalomaniac trip, carefully guarding our political chastity until we are absorbed into our true Master’s bosom? Worse, he constructs a completely mythical ‘Left’ which allowed political upward mobility to dalits — a claim that would fly in the face of simple statistics. It may be true that the Jamaat is upper-caste dominated, but so are the CPM, the CPI, the Congress and so on. Each of these of course groans audibly about the plight of the lower castes and seeks to be their protector, but this does not deter Chennamangalur. In other words, not the ‘liberal’ Muslim League but the patently non-liberal dominant left receives an implicit caress.
I think, however, there is hidden missile in his article, which is perhaps the most poisonous, aimed at those of us who are in conversation about Islam with people close to the Jamaat. In his frame,engaging with the newer generation of Jamaat supporters would be the worst crime one can commit towards secular Kerala. Again, we have been reduced to little lambs who have wandered off the safe, sunny, verdant pastures of religious and cultural liberalism into murky realms where the Big Bad Wolf of Islamic fundamentalism lurks.
Well, to begin with, as a woman born and raised in Kerala, I am yet to find these safe and sunny liberal pastures. Where is the liberal in Kerala, tell me, where the ‘progressives’ have most often tended to be politically left-wing and socially right-wing since the mid-19th century? It is well-known that the left parties do have a silent and unwritten dress-code for their women activists which supposedly signifies ‘simplicity’ and ‘Malayalee rootedness’; it is well-known that women located on all sides of the political spectrum continue to require ‘good and valid reasons’ to claim freedom, and this applies even to women who have emerged into the public as panchayat members and residents. Besides, hypocrisy is how we left-liberals in Kerala have survived: preaching loudly about gender injustice but happily carrying on with dowry and dowry violence at home. This permits for a great deal of subversion on both sides as nothing less than a survival strategy. But the question of gender justice will never be seriously addressed as an issues to be resolved publicly as long as we hang on to hyprocrisy.
We know very well that the dominant Left’s official ideology is not exactly committed to liberal democracy or the pluralism of political perspectives; we know very well that a secularized hindu vision coloured the United Kerala movement of the 1950s and after; we do know well that the question of women’s rights is instrumentalized to class struggle or social development in the dominant left. Many of us who continue to carry on a conversation with the left are fully aware of this! As a feminist, I have no illusions that the current regime of ‘women’s empowerment’ is not what feminists meant when they spoke of ‘women’s liberation’; I have also no illusions that Thomas Isaac, that Messiah of governmentalised feminism in Kerala, will liberate us all. Yet I continue to be in conversation with many on the left. I do not see any reason why I should not converse with the new generation of Jamaat supporters,differing with them on many things,remaining aware of their limitations, and with no exaggerated expectations.Just as I do not think that the CPM, despite all its centralism, cadre system, and secrecy, is a completely homogenous body, there is no reason why I should view the Jamaat, which has many of these features as well, as totally homogenized.
But more crucially, I think this article is dangerous because it gives us no ideas on how to look at emergent realities in the face and instead dishes out an escapism which makes us feel very gratified but is essentially clueless and insecure about new developments. It does not consider seriously the manner in which globalization has changed local identities, national and religious. We all know, the elimination of abject poverty and the rise of consumer aspirations in and through globalization has changed the image of the ‘ideal comrade’ into the more consumption-savvy, civil society-oriented activist; we also see that the ‘Hindu’ in Kerala is thoroughly globalized, adapting more and more of globalized hindu practices, and this holds a number of new threats to religious peace.
Chennamangalur (and many others) argue that the Muslim in Kerala ought to stay intact as the culturally- and politically- secure ‘Kerala Muslim’ ,but this is an impossible demand. In the first place the question whether the much-celebrated secular public sphere in Kerala was not hegemonized by the secularised upper caste hindu culture cannot be simply ignored: it must be truthfully answered and efforts to change positively must be initiated. As long as that does not happen, the distrust of Muslims is bound to grow. And the fact is that the ‘Kerala muslim’ is under constant threat under globalization, and that even the experience of passing though an international airport is (harrowing) enough to radicalise a Muslim believer now. Like globalized consumer culture and globalized hinduism, globalized Islam brings with it its own set of problems and dangers — again,whatever Chennamangalur thinks, it is not as if I, as someone who would like to engage with young muslim believers in times of globalisation, am blind to these. All identities constituted in contexts of extreme belligerence carry serious dangers, and in any case, global Islam is not free of racism, sexism and the violence these engender. But these cannot be critiqued by simple wholesale condemnation and the rhetorical, nostalgic evocation of a pristine, unspoilt ‘Kerala Muslim’.
In fact, I would argue that failing to engage with these new interlocutors would only push them out of the public sphere and indeed, ensure that the dangers of globalized pan-Islamic identity remain completely uncritiqued and intact. Within the Muslim fold there are many who feel concerned about the Jamaat’s attempt to redo or retool itself; such people are not gagged,they do voice their concerns and many of us would be willing to engage with them. Also, the Jamaat’s plans to fight the elections raises several key issues that need to be debated seriously and with unflinching honesty, but without turning paranoid. And to equate the new generation of muslim believers with the RSS is facile and irresponsible. ‘Radical intellectuals’do not engage with the globalized hindu right-wing precisely because they have no questions to raise about their religion and more importantly because they are implicated in horrendous violence for which they are still unpunished.
In other words, what we need in the public sphere,as far as the ‘Muslim question in Kerala’ is concerned, is not paranoid warnings shot through with self-serving cunning but the courage to look at emerging realities in the eye, the determination to analyse and engage critically with emerging cultural and political phenomena, and the grit to look upon difference as the fundamental human condition, as Hannah Arendt reminds us.
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Intellectual cretins, wake up to the challenge of intellectual jehad and keep singing the secular fantasias against it!Never mind that 2 out of 9 Keralites may be Muslims, one of 9 Malayalees may be a Muslim woman. Rest assured that Hameed Chennamangalur, is there to wean you away from the dangers of intellectual jehad, irrespective of howsoever ways 9 million Kerala Muslims be affected by one or other form of COMMUNAL PROFILING!
LikeLike
The kind of gopalans thinks that they also can be in main stream discussion by propagating the ideas in the same direction of Moududism, Moulana moududi created one own hadees saying that if you fight against India you will go to paradise! Please be reminded that in the name of gopalan, thomas , santhosh you cannot enter to paradise by demoralizing the most read and respected individuals like chennamangaloor or Karassery. Both stand firmly against religious fanatism and fundementalism regardless of the issues. They are not like KEN or Pokker who betryas the party by bringing moududism to 60 year old communist ideological society and state!
LikeLike
It is most preposterous to see a deceitful sangh-parivar friendly anti-muslim Hamid Chennamagalor, is representing the “liberal/moderate muslim” in the public sphere of Kerala… Disgusting…
LikeLike
Hamid Chennamangaloor surely represents the liberal/ moderate muslims in Kerala.His writings are not at all anti-muslims,it is against the fringe elements.Using hackneyed terms like sangh parivar friendly shows Afthab’s reluctance for a discourse with Hamid. About Devikas piece as usual pure prolix.What a waste!
LikeLike
Last many years Chendamangallur’s prime target is JI an organisation which has a clean work record of more than 50 years in India with proven certificate from Supreme Court., and he finds no hazards in any fascist organisations who wrote histories of Muslim killing in riots, come on guys open up your eyes!
LikeLike
The context of the publication of Mr. Hamid Chennamangalur’s article is also very important. It came in the next week edition of a popular periodical after an agitation of local residents against land acquisition for a 4-lane path to an industrial park meant for footwear industry in a place called Kinaloor in Kozhikode district. This agitation of the local people is supported by Solidarity-Jamaath -e-Islami organization.
One can argue that this article was written much earlier and when to publish is the prerogative of the editor. Quite true. But even then one cannot erase the context of its publication.
In the aftermath of police brutality against the protesters, the ruling CPM party accused jamaath of being a religious extremist organization blocking state’s development. Some minister’s even urged the union govt to inquire into the source of funds for jamaath organizations. Incidentally, in the last Loksabha election, jamaath had openly supported LDF candidates. At no point in that time, anyone in the ldf had accused the organization for any “extremism”.
As pointed out in other responses, Mr Hamid Chennamangalur wanted to market his idea of “intellectual J” making it idiomatic
like right wing coinage, Love Jihad. This is all done in the name of some secularism, of which he is the only custodian…..
LikeLike
Can he be called Kerala’s Praveen Swami? Seems only MN Karasseri can be the only possible threat to him for this post.
LikeLike
Santhosh, if Praveen Swami is not a joke, I believe people like Hameed Chennamangalur are also not just jokers.
H’s writing represents the ugliest face of facelessness and thought policing .
Recently Hameed wrote a book review in Malayalam Wkly on my translation of Fatema Mernissi’s Women and Islam; in Malayalam it is titled as ‘Islamum Sthreekalum’-
While he made lot of citations of Mernissi’s ideas from my book , in the concluding part of the review he bluntly accused that the translator had either subverted or tampered with Mernissi’s ideas! And this, without any attempt toward substantiating the charge, except that on one occasion I had used the word ‘Muslim’ whereas the English version had it as ‘Islam’.
Actually Mernissi herself had used the word “Muslim God”where one could have equally expected a phrase “the God in Islam”, or like that.
But the total effect is thought policing and he tries to get it done! Look, this professor thinks that he has only to suggest to his readers that the Mernissi translation is a distortion of original ideas possibly done with some ulterior motives;
fortunately ,the book got fairer reviews!
LikeLike
Dear Mr.Gopal,
Unfortunately your translation was unethical in much sense. I went through the original context many times and found your book is far below than an average translation a 10th grader can make. You are using this to rebut on a person like Hameed who is in the media for last 35 years, pity on you man! Grow up and read more moulana books which are now even banned in Bangladesh! So hurry up before we get a ban here in our gods own country
LikeLike
Those who want to hail Hamid a s the Muslim Luther of Kerala have to inspect how he echoed and thus strengthened the propoganda against Muslims including most reprehensible Love Jihad accusations… Give a single instance where Hamid stood by persecuted Muslims in dicursive wars during his “career” as a liberal muslim…
LikeLike
Ask hameed’s wife to know more about his feminist ideas. its well known in his neighbourhood how he treats his wife. whenever he goes out for a programe- may b a lecture on women liberation’- he locks the telefone and make his wife safe from unwanted calls! !
LikeLike
such personal abuses are disgusting. the kind of responses should not be published
LikeLike
Protecting Secularism to Remain Communal?
Shajahan Madampat
Reading J. Devika’s rebuttal of Hameed Chendamangalloor’s Mathrubhumi article, I was struck by the way she turned a blind eye to his primary thesis: while promoting itself as a paragon of secular democratic politics, progressive ideas and anti-imperialist activism, Jamaathe Islami (JMI) continues to believe in and promote the retrogressive ideology of Maulana Maududi. There is no evidence to suggest that JMI has ever rejected the original thesis of Maududi, a thinker comparable in many ways to Golvalkar in terms of substance and rhetoric.
I agree with most of Devika’s arguments in regard to Hameed’s outrageous generalizations about a host of writers and thinkers. I have no sympathy for his uncompromising secular fundamentalism, just as I have no sympathy for other forms of fundamentalisms. It is indeed preposterous for him to cast aspersions on the integrity of a disparate host of writers and intellectuals just because they either write in Madhyamam or engage JMI in a dialogue. Some of the writers that he mentioned may well be complicit in JMI ‘s attempts at gaining secular credibility without disengaging from any of its original political-Islamist positions, but that does not entitle him to paint all with the same brush. In any case, no writer in today’s world will be able to publish anything if he or she has to wait for publications with the right secular-democratic credentials. All one can do is to publish wherever one can, provided you don’t end up articulating somebody else’s views.
However, I think it is a bit too impulsive to say much of his article is dismissible. I would argue that a part of the article is eminently dismissible, while the rest make some very pertinent arguments that call for a nuanced engagement. It is only at great peril to our fragile socio-political fabric that we can eternally postpone debates about the internal dynamics within contemporary Islam on the pretext of Islamophobia. In fact; I would argue that an informed public debate on what is ailing the Muslim society will only help fight Islamophobia. The last thing Islam and Muslims need today is patronizing intellectual protection!
If JMI genuinely feels it is unfairly attacked, it should waste no more time and set the record straight on the core issues on which it is singled out for attack by critics, from both within and outside Islam. So far, Jamaathe Islami offered only pious platitudes and rhetorical flourishes in response to criticisms. Let me try to outline below the issues on which JMI needs to come out clean. It is actually in its own interest to articulate in unambiguous terms what its current positions are in regard to the following points. The charge of intellectual dishonesty against the Jamaath is all based on the organization’s rather duplicitous double-standards on these issues.
1. The core idea around which Maududism is built is the argument that the first priority of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of Islamic rule on earth. Islam without political rule is, to quote Maududi, a house half-built. Does Jamaathe Islami continue to subscribe to the idea that establishing Islamic rule on earth (I grant they consider it to be a heaven of justice and fairness for all) is a religious duty binding on all Muslims? Is still committed to the completion of the house that is presently only half-built?
2. In much of Jamaath literature, obedience to any political system other than that of Islam is termed polytheistic. Obedience in this context is the Jamaath translation of the Arabic word Ibadath, which all the other Muslims translate as Worship. A Muslim is the one who worships none other than Allah. When you use the Jamaath translation, obedience to all forms of government other than an Islamic one renders a Muslim a polytheist. This in effect makes the Muslims of the world, with a few exceptions, guilty of shirk (polytheism), the ultimate sin in Islam. Does the Jamaath still hold on to this position? Is their support for Indian constitution a tactical position or one that springs from conviction? I am willing to get deeper into the theological foundations of this argument if this debate is taken forward.
3. As Hameed pointed out, Jamaathe Islami needs to come out and explain the dichotomy in their position on some of the following issues:
a) While being vociferous supporters of the Dalit cause, Jamaath is silent on Dalit and backward class political movements that are now a dynamic part of North Indian Muslim life. Is it that they want to save only Hindu Dalits and backwards, to the exclusion of their counterparts among the Muslims? Or do they think there is no social stratification among Muslims and that the Muslim community is innocent of these ‘Hindu evils’, such as class, caste, gender injustice etc? What is Jamaath’s position on women’s participation in public life alongside the men? Do they believe in gender segregation in these areas? If not, why should solidarity remain a male-only organization?
b) Secularism and democracy are explicitly termed antithetical to Islam by Maududi. Has JMI ever distanced itself from this position? Has JMI ever unequivocally articulated its position viz a viz Maududi’s unqualified condemnation and ‘excommunication’ of democracy and secularism? Why this dichotomy? A friend of mine once said JMI would like to unite all the secular forces of India in order to remain communal!
c) Does JMI agree/disagree/partly agree/partly disagree/ dismiss Maududi’s outrageous arguments in his books on Purdah and on the punishment for apostasy? Does the Jamaath have a position different from that of the founder on these issues? If not, how can it explain the dichotomy in espousing such progressive ideas on the one hand and keep publishing and promoting Maudid’s books on the other?
d) To bring the first pont to a clearer context, does JMI believe that the best political system suited for India is Hukumat-e-Elahi (divine rule)? If yes, how can it explain its current espousal of secular democracy? If not, why did it not reject Maududi’s ideas outright and come clean? To put it in a different context, Jamaath believes that Egypt, which has a Christian population almost similar in size (in percentage terms) to the Muslims in India, should become an Islamic state. Jamaath’s counterpart in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, has been waging a protracted struggle to that end since 1928. How can they logically explain their Islamist position in the context of Egypt and secularist position in the context of India? Or is that wherever Muslims are a majority, they will establish an Islamic state, while they will fight for secularism so long as they are in minority? If Muslims become majority in India (a wild imagination), would the Jamaath then like to continue with secular democracy?
e) If Jamathe Islami does not agree with Maududi’s ideas on Islamic rule, secularism, democracy etc, what is the rationale for Jamaath to exist as an organization separate from other Muslim groups? What is it that sets them apart from others? As of now, the only difference between JM and other Muslim religious organizations is the former’s espousal of the primacy of the establishment of an Islamic state. Once that is gone, why should they remain a distinct group?
f) JMI is supposedly anti-imperialist and highly critical of the US. Saudi Arabia is one of the staunchest allies of the US in the Muslim world. No other Muslim country has capitulated to American machinations so thoroughly to this day. Even in countries like Pakistan, you had dissenting groups or individuals who openly castigated the governments for sucking up to the Americans, but no such dissent is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Is JMI willing to criticize Saudi Arabia on this count? Will any of its publications carry articles that lay bare the Saudi complicity in America’s crimes in the world? Will JMI decide to distance itself from Saudi Arabia on these grounds?
I think the whole debate on the issue can come to an end once JM comes out clean on the issues raised above. It is nobody’s case that JM is comparable to the RSS in terms of communal violence or communal propaganda against other communities. To the best of our knowledge, JMI has never been implicated in any communal violence in independent India. But that said, the ideology of JMI bears striking resemblance with that of the RSS and no amount of platitudinous rhetoric is going to reduce that. Both organizations stand for majoritarian rule that does not accept the idea of equal citizenship regardless of caste and creed, both divides the world neatly into ‘we’ and ‘they,’ and both turn their respective faiths into ideologies. JMI is more crypto-modern than RSS makes it all the more worrisome from an intra-Muslim perspective.
I have no biases or prejudices. The points above are based on my limited understanding of Islamic movements and I will be glad to correct myself if proven wrong.
LikeLike
shajahan@
Being a party to the secular pretensions of brahmnic state is onething, but guinuine aspirations of secularism is different. Hameed belongs to the former. The fundamentlaist intentionof multicultural soft religious believers like shajhahan comes out in their ire against secularism.Their hedonistic indulgence in multi cultural religiosity presupposes the denial of philosophically fascistic supernaturalism manifest in the persona of anti female male god. otherwise why do they brand secularism perse as fundamentalist since it is a negation of supernatural intervention in polity to ward off inequality. If proselytising on behalf of secularism is a sin so is right to religious propaganda.
LikeLike
It was your comment that had caught my attention. I do respect with your comments and hold it in high even though I may agree to disagree with many of it. I think the problem with Hamid and Karasseri like intellectuals, let me say it with all due respect I do have towards them, is that they seem to be losing or lacking intellectual objectivism when they write on JI and its off-shoots. For me, it smells a smack even of some personal feud.
Like JDevika, I am also used to engage with JI and its workers. For decades I am accustomed to read their periodicals and publications and from time to time I do contribute by writing in their periodicals as well. I don’t hesitate to share with many others the great respect I do have towards JI and its off-shoots as a dynamic and evolving movement.
I am not an erudite on Islam or JI. However, I can say proudly and with enough confidence that I am a humble learner of Islam and JI for decades. I have gone through the latest interview that Mathrubhoomi has published in its latest edition also. So, I will try to give my input on your queries leaving enough space that I could also be wrong in my understanding. I will be eager to correct myself first before going to correct anybody else. I am kind a of a person who undergoes for a kind of incessant introspection.
First let me analyze some of the apparent labeling you have made. I think you seems to be becoming more of judgmental than analytical when you say “Jamaathe Islami (JMI) continues to believe in and promote the retrogressive ideology of Maulana Maududi.”. Here the word “retrogressive” is a kind of labeling and you seems to be giving a judgment on it rather than analyzing it and leaving it for readers to make decision on it. Moreover, as far as I know, JI never has mentioned what they propagate is an ideology of Maudoodi. What I do understand from their literatures is they are the people who are the proponents and exponents of Islam as an ideology. Here, may I bring into your notice that you seems to be concocting and fabricating something and imposing on others.
“There is no evidence to suggest that JMI has ever rejected the original thesis of Maududi, a thinker comparable in many ways to Golvalkar in terms of substance and rhetoric.”
I have gone though the constitution of JI as part of my study. I have not seen anywhere in the constitution the name of Maudoodi. As per their constitution, thesis comes from Koran and Prophets Tradition and not from Maudoodi. Secondly, I do feel, having gone though the books written by both, your comparison between Golvalkar and Maudoodi like that of cabbage and king. Golvalkar is a proponent of Nationalism while Maudoodi is harsh critique of it and espouses Humanitarianism. Secondly, Golvalkar does not have any ideology and does not postulate Hinduism as an Ideology while Maudoodi postulates Islam as an Ideology. Thirdly, Golvalkar espouses hatred towards others and you cannot see even a sentence espousing hatred in Maudoodi’s books. If there was such a sentence anywhere in any of hundreds of books Maudoodi has written, I am sure Hamid an Karasseri like people would have quoted it scores of time in their article. We may disagree with what Maudoodi says with intellectual honesty. However, it is not fair to blame a person, leave along a thinker, for what he has not done at all. Now let me shed some light on your queries one by one in the same order :
1st Query:
You wrote:
“The core idea around which Maududism is built is the argument that the first priority of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of Islamic rule on earth. Islam without political rule is, to quote Maududi, a house half-built. Does Jamaathe Islami continue to subscribe to the idea that establishing Islamic rule on earth (I grant they consider it to be a heaven of justice and fairness for all) is a religious duty binding on all Muslims? Is still committed to the completion of the house that is presently only half-built?”
First of all, you labeled it again as “Maudoodism”. A query has to be first of all intellectually objective. First I started studying of Islam from the books written by Orientalists. In the middle ages they tried to label Islam as “ Mohammadanism”. It is not fair or just to call a sect, whoever they may be, with a misrepresenting terminology that they never have agreed with it. You can call JI as JI and not Maudoodism.
As an Ideology Islam has got a vision on everything. This actually is not from JI, rather it is from Islam. So it has got vision on politics and state. State is the highest form of social setup. Any person who pays perseverance for a goal will have and should have an end in his sight. In Islam, it is two dimensional. Mundane and Hereafter. You will achieve your Hereafter goal based on the perseverance you pay. That does not necessarily mean that you will be always able to achieve your mundane goals. That neither does mean that you should not strive for your mundane goals. Rather, you need to strive to achieve the goal through peaceful means until you realize and sustain it. The final goal can have within itself other supporting an corroborating sub-goals that will help them to reach the final goal. It is not a sin to have such a vision as long as it does not upset the apple cart of peaceful co-existence of pluralistic society. Until you achieve your final goal, you cannot say you achieved it. That does not mean you or anybody striving for it has failed. Rather, you will reap your reward in your hereafter life. What a Muslim is required compulsorily is to strive for establishment of anything of which absence is impeding you to do your basic obligations arising out of it. So, as I understand from JI’s literature and the interview with Arif Ali that Mathrubhoomi has published in its latest edition is that JI is committed to its goal as mentioned in its Constitution. For any revolutionary movement, Principles and Goals will remain constant and only policy and programmes will change.
Second Query:
You wrote:
“In much of Jamaath literature, obedience to any political system other than that of Islam is termed polytheistic. Obedience in this context is the Jamaath translation of the Arabic word Ibadath, which all the other Muslims translate as Worship. A Muslim is the one who worships none other than Allah. When you use the Jamaath translation, obedience to all forms of government other than an Islamic one renders a Muslim a polytheist. This in effect makes the Muslims of the world, with a few exceptions, guilty of shirk (polytheism), the ultimate sin in Islam. Does the Jamaath still hold on to this position? Is their support for Indian constitution a tactical position or one that springs from conviction? I am willing to get deeper into the theological foundations of this argument if this debate is taken forward”.
I also wanted to study this subject more deeply and profoundly. The foundation of Sovereignty is obedience. Any political philosophy is defined on the ground to whom the sovereignty belongs. If it is to an indfividual, we call it dictatorship. If it belongs to a group, we call it oligarchy. If it belongs to a King, we call it monarchy. If it belongs to prelitariate, we call it communism. If it belongs to people, we call it democracy. Koran unequivocally and explicityly says sovereignty is for Allah, the creator and Sustainer of the world including that of human beings who like other creatures live in His earth enjoying the provisions bestowed by him.
Since meaning of Ibaadat encompasses everything in JI’s vision, their realm of work encompasses every aspect of life. Even if other Muslim organizations follow JI in this relam in certain areas (as KN Shaji mentioned in his last article written in Mathrubhoomi last week when he said Islam is a comprehensive way of Iife and when he wrongly quoted Madina Charter of Prophet Mohammad to justify ML’s position) that also is not with a vision since they don’t have it. For your question on Ibaadat, let me explain it as below as I understood it recently:
Regarding the meaning of Ibadat, I do look into it from a holistic perspective. I take into consideration of cosmological aspect of Islam and underlying principle of obedience to Natural Laws set by Allah behind it. Please remember, Islam is presented and postulated by Koran from a cosmological perspective. Koran presents it as if Islam is human face of nature and/or as natural visage of human being. I do read it from the perspective of meaning of ‘Islam’ itself. then I look into the meaning of Deen, Rabb and Ilaah from linquistic, literary and scriptural perspective. I do understand the test given to Iblis was on obedience. The first test given to Adam while he was in paradise also was on obedience. The test, much bigger than the above two, that Abraham had undergone when he was commanded to slaughter his only son Ishamel (really a capital crime from the time of Cain and Habel) also was on obedience. While Obedience encompasses everything including worship, the concept of worship does not encompass everything. Shirk is not the opposite of obedience. Violation/disobedience is the opposite of Obedience. Shirk is opposite of Thouheed. As per Logic, Shirk and Thouheed is Concrete Contradictions like death and life, light and darkness which cannot have a third state/condition between them and not absolute contradictions like first and last which might have other conditions/ states like second, third ect between them, or white and black which also can have other conditions/states like red, rose ect. This means any belief or creed or ideology that is not built on the ideological basis of Islam is theoretically shirk, regardless of it is material and/or spiritual. Violation/disobedience will not necessarily become shirk. Maudoodi’s book which I have completed reading also does not say so. Violation/disobedience will become shirk, if it is violated with a belief that Allah does not have right to command in the realm where a person violates/disobeys. Having said its principled stand unequivocally, JI treads into the realm of policy as to how to relate it in the contemporary Indian social life. Unfortunately, as far as I know, other Muslim organizations does not seems to have a crystal clear vision on this like JI. So, as far as I know, JI’s position in Ibaadat has not changed and it will not change. Moreover, it cannot change since it is solely related to Arabic language and Koranic Usage.
In the process of my reading of Books written both by JI activists and other brothers belonging to other Keralite Muslim orgnaizationons on Ibaadat, I came to see a proposal that was put forward by JI in terms of publishing the books written by other Keralite Muslim or and JI on Ibaadat in a single volume and propagating it both by JI and other Keralite Muslim organizations among their workers and other people. ( I feel it as a novel, respectful and healthy way of debate and discussion).
Since this going to be so long, I will write on other queries separately at a later stage.
LikeLike
This is continuation of previous posting commenting on Shajahan’s article
Your queries related to JI’s position on Dalits and other backward communities: I think JI is not a major organization in India. They are definitely growing. In the current state, they will have to prioritize their options taking into consideration of the resources they do have. Now, they are trying to expand their reach. So, we cannot say they are silent or eloquent on any issue. One thing I have noted. They are the only organization that tries to give enough space for others even though they belong to a backward community. Just think of Malayala Manorama or Mathrubhoomi which are owned, managed and run by forward classes or kerala Kaumudi.. How people from other religions or castes are working in it? And compare it with Madhyamam for eg. I had an opportunity to visit many of JI’s educational institutions. I saw in them a pluralistic staff. I had visited many educational institutions run by Christian management and NSS. You will find their staff monolithic. May be this is because of JI’s confidence level compared to other religious and political organizations. In India even the so-called secular organizations do not give space to the down-trodden people. I am sure you will feel the difference when you compare it with institutions owned, managed and run by JI or trusts that affiliate to it. I don’t say all of JI’s institutions have got same level of representation. On raising the level and standards of backward Muslims, I think you will come to know about it when you compare JI’s work in these realms with other Muslim organizations like ML and when you compare the support extended to ML & JI by Keralite Muslims. JI was not fortunate to get enough support from the Muslims in comparison to ML and other Muslim organizations. (rather I think it is getting much better support from non-Muslims. Muslims in Kerala and around the world seem to have lost the capability to differentiate good from bad. All Muslim organizations were in the forefront to adore Jinnah and Liaqat and pray for them who had nothing to do with Islam just because they had the label of “Muslim” League, while they were castigating Maudoodi who is considered to be one of the great thinkers Islam has contributed to the world ).
a) JI’s position on status of women in Islam: I think as long as a person or organization believes that Koran is revealed from Allah, he/they cannot deviate from what Koran has said explicitly. Then, there is a room for interpretation. Woman is woman and man is man. Both have got their own rights and responsibilities which are balanced but cannot be equal or equivalent. JI is not bound on Maudoodi’s stand on Purdah or on the issues like that of Music. Maudoodi himself had made it clear. It is a matter of Jurisprudential difference. Each and every person in JI can differ on such issues while they belong to JI. JI looks into the issues related to woman from humanitarian perspective. However, as I understand, JI believes womanhood is exploited more cruelly by capitalism in the name of liberalism and JI cannot condone it. Woman became morally bankrupt, and sexually socially exploited. She got double burdened when nature did not change. Capitalism tries to liberate woman from the womanhood and converts her into commercial object which JI and its offshoots do resist vehemently . At the same time, JI is the only organization which has given enough representation for women in its organizational structure from top to bottom. I think the triggering point of all this fuss and ado regarding JI was the conference conducted solely by its women wing. Solidarity is only 7 years old and has not passed its childhood. Tracking and tracing the history of JI, I am sure they also will evolve to give enough space for women within the limits of womanhood . Everything cannot be done overnight.
b) You wrote: ” Secularism and democracy are explicitly termed antithetical to Islam by Maududi. Has JMI ever distanced itself from this position?”
I have gone through the book written by Maudoodi on the subject. It is a wonderful book and it approaches the subject logically, scripturally and analytically. The book was written by Maudoodi before India’s independence. The locale and context is that of British and western concepts regarding Democracy and Secularism. It cannot be about Indian secularism which had evolved after independence. However, he makes out the message very clear from Islamic perspective. Have you pondered over the subject from Islamic perspective? Afterall, what is democracy. If it is government of the people, by the people and for the people, I think the term democracy is just a misnomer. Where in this world you can see such a government. I could not see even a ‘democratic’ government all over the world that represent even 51% of complete population when it was elected. Leave alone how it was elected and the influence of media and money in the election process. This is all about election. Sometimes, a defeated candidate will have garnered more votes than the victorious as we see in the case of Gore Vs. Bush Junior. Sometimes, the party that has got more votes all over a country will be sitting in the opposition taking into consideration of nos. of seats. Sometimes, a party which has got roots all over the country will not have representation in the parliament while a regional party may become the largest opposition bloc in the parliament as we see 1984 election in India in which BJP has only 2 seats while the regional party TD as the major opposition party This is all about election. After the election, what role the voters have got in the decision making process. Government forgets the people and remember only their party whenever required. 90% of the people in UK was against sending military to Iraq along with US. Sill Toney Blair, the democratically elected PM of UK took part actively in the Iraq war. Is democracy implemented in the HQ of democracy, i.e, UN? IF so, why there is Security Council? Why the Veto Power? Why presidents in all so called ‘democratic’countries including India and US are given the power to return the bill passed by democratically elected governments? Democracy has no belief in itself. Because it counts the heads and does not weigh what is inside it. In our day to day life we don’t consider each and every person’s opinion on a subject equally even though we may give everybody equal opportunity to express himself.
I think, if anything has to be blamed in this respect, it is Koran. Maudoodi was just an exponent of Koran in this respect. Koran says: “Say! Not equal are the evil and good and even though excess and abundance of evil may impress you” (5:90). If democracy is a process of finding out the right people to assign the right duty, Koran does not object to it. Rather Koran commands it. “ Indeed Allah commands you to assign the duties and responsibilities to the right people, and when you rule among the people, to rule with justice”. This verse clearly speaks about the need of very transparent process for finding out the right people to assign the duties and responsibilities in different levels and layers. Moreover, it commands the elected people to rule among the people with justice regardless of party, caste and religion. (Islamic concept of secularism). You can see democratic process of election in the election of Abu Bakr ( direct election) and Othman (Parliamentary election). You can see the glimpses of participatory democracy in the governance of Omar. However, Muslims failed to build from it since Khilafat deteriorated into kind of monarchy. If democracy is process of decision making involving people and process of prioritizing among options of good, Koran commands it also . “So, pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter” (3:159). “The affair needs to be determined by and through consultation with them” (42:38). Islam doesn’t give sovereignty to people which is only for Allah. It gives the state represented by people the rights and responsibilities of guardianship. I do consider it as beautiful as the relationship between of father and children. In all other political systems, there is an element of fascism since all other political system asserts a kind of supremacy on people in different names. Islam does not believe in any kind of “cracy” with sovereignty given to or taken by any creations. It believes in a kind of vicegerency with the power, rights and responsibilities of a guardian.
With regard to Secularism, Maudoodi was criticizing western secularism which postulates total detachment socio-political life from religion and limits religion into man’s personal relationship to God. JI still stick with it as explained by Arif Ali since any normal Muslim who has heck of Islam in him cannot agree with it. JI’s approach towards Indian Secularism as explained in our constitution is totally different since Indian secularism means non-discrimination among religions and equal treatment of different religions by the state. According to JI and as per the Koranic verse quoted above, it is an Islamic concept.
I think all your further queries except about JI’s stand towards America and Saudi Arabia has been addressed since those queries are from an assumption that JI changed its stand towards democracy and secularism.
I think JI and other leftist organizations are vocal against America since it interferes in the civil affairs of other nations and it is an imperial power that threatens even the integrity of India. If US was not so, JI and likeminded organizations would have been silent on America also just like they are silent Sweden or Brazil. This does not mean there is no cultural or social issues in Sweden and Brazil as there are in Saudi Arabia also. Saudi Arabia does not interfere in India’s socio-political affairs. JI and likeminded organizations are working in India and are concerned about Indian issues. They are not working in Saudi Arabia. They don’t want get involved in all issues all over the world and they need not and they will not have enough resources for it also. This question can be extended and stretched to any length to any organizations and will not have any end at all.
LikeLike
ആശയപരമായി സ്വത്വരാഷ്ട്രീയത്തില് നില്ക്കുകയും ആമാശയപരമായി വര്ഗരാഷ്ട്രീയത്തെ പിന്തുണയ്ക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്ന പോക്കറെയും കെഇഎന്നിനെയുംപോലുള്ള പാര്ട്ടി വെള്ളവും വളവുമിട്ടു വളര്ത്തിയ താത്വികാചാര്യന്മാരെ എന്തു വിളിക്കും ?
LikeLike
felt like agreeing completely with devika. but shajahan gave a completely different picture. now i am confused. a good sign of a stimulating debate…
kerala is confused state where offical left inspite of anti postmodern pretnesion implement neoliberal agenda. on the other hand, the postmodern identity crowds negate by default their philosphical affinity to neo liberalism and is forced to practice anti imperilaist class struggle.
LikeLike
@ KM Venu Gopal
I never said Praveen Swami and Hameed are jokers.
It is interesting why Hameed and Shajhan thinking deep about Jamaathe Islami ‘s ideology now. Just because of the fear of losing the “progressive Muslim, muslim buji” space they have been trying to create through their articles and autobiographies in Mathrubhoomi and Kalakaumudhi over the years? Is it mandatory that all parties should have “faith” in the existing Indian democracy to participate in political activities? Shjahan wants JM to “come out clean”. Shudi/ Ashudi???
LikeLike
@ Santhosh
I thought you were comparing Praveen Swami and Hameed Chennamangalur, in their apparent exclusivity in defining what is to be accepted as secular and what is to be rejected as leading to terrorist links.
My intention was just to point out what I thought as common in these two- that is , kind of actively engaging in thought policing in defence of secularism, whereas actually they seem to be either enjoying propagating the suspicious social profile of devout Muslim created by the Christian/Hindu/Zionist state agencies, or flatly refusing to listen to what others have to say on the question of discriminatory social profiling.
Will these self proclaimed secularists care to listen?
” ..[A]ttached to the Union Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, NSSO, in its report titled Education in India,
2007-08: Participation and Expenditure, says that of 100 Muslims in
the education system, just 10 are enrolled in high school and above.
Similar ratio for STs is 11, Scheduled Castes (SCs) 12 and Other
Backward Classes (OBCs) 14.
The report also says that higher education among urban Muslims is
lower than their counterparts in rural areas. This despite the fact
that urban areas have better educational facilities. According to the
NSSO report published on May 19, just seven out of 100 urban Muslims
in the education system were enrolled in high school or above as
compared to 12 in rural areas..”
http://kafila.org/2010/06/13/social-profiling-indian-style/
LikeLike
@santhosh
ok indian constitution may be though written by ambedkar practiced by brahminc state and therefore problematic. onthis count jm need not prove their credentials. but what is JM stand on Saudi state. How do they view the dominance of fair skinned thnagal isalm and uppercaste muslims?they should come out clear on that. or is it that patronising nair intellectuals like you would never allow a muslim to be an atheist or an agnost. according to your stand even a pakistanborn tariqali would be a bjp guy. a classical case of excellent practice of nauseating postmodernism
LikeLike
Blending all his clichés Hamid’s unwarranted haul to malign JMI is not just the result of his ‘secular mind’ but it’s all about his personal feuds with some JMI leaders in Chendhamangalur. Some times Hamid himself reduced to a mere translator of Praveen swami’s articles appeared in Hindu or Front line. That he is promoted by some anti-secular, anti-Muslim elements with copious means including money and space in ‘Secular’ Mathrubhumi is quite unequivocal now. No wonder, if his articles are categorized, one can perceive that the lion share of them is just absurd outcry against JMI and its moves. One of the unambiguous facts is that all of them are just repetition upon repetition, though the pseudo secular pundit tries had to find out new theories against JMI.
With his ‘outstanding intellectual pursuit’, often, he speaks about Islamic jurisprudents and other matters to metamorphose himself as an avatar of Salman Rushdie! If J Devika feels what she wrote above, who can else deny the fact that Hamid does not have any space in the intellectual dialogs with unbiased minds?
LikeLike
raoof@
point taken. Hameed is psuedo.But why do you think that JMI is beyond any criticism and all should praise it. That is outright fascism.What is your view on Maudidi’s world view. How do you JMIeites look at gays, queer sex, feminists, and ahmediyas. do they have a right to live.
LikeLike
@ Iqbal
I am not a spoke person of JMI…
I am a keen onlooker of Hmid’s articles
I wrote my observations…
if they are proven wrong I am ready to accept …
LikeLike
@Santhosh..
I dont think to identify the Anti-Mulsim and Anti-Islamic bais of Hamid one need to read much crap writtent by him…
But to equate this what Shajahan wrote here is a closure of dialogue and uncritical acceptance of what JMI is saying now… Though not fully, I am in agreement with many of the points that Shajahan wrote on JMI…
Though I feel that JMI has learned from the post-independence politics of India, especially the post-babri muslim experiece, I find many JMI ideologues are still strck with Maudidi in the sense that they find it difficult to disapprove him islamic intellectual though it is not dificult to find that they think his ideas on Islamic State and Democracy (Secularism is a different thing altogether) are highly problematic… How can one understand JMI’s decision to the electoral process, if they still believe that it is polytheistic following Maududi?
I think the most unaddressed question that JMI will find difficult to adress is the comtemporary debates on women’s rights, not because of the highly migynistic ideas of Maududi put forwarded not only in Parda, but his Qur’an exegesis, but because of the dominance of certain versions of theological positions that gained prominance in the post-colonial Islamic sociaties that is further strengthened by the islamophobic global context…
LikeLike
I am also interested to know whether posts/responses from everyone is moderated in thi blog?
LikeLike
Can one support feudal Ayotollas just for being anti American on everything when they trample the democratic rights of minority sex. What is the postmodernist’s take on the rationalistic scientific stream within Islam. Who can deny the contradictions within Islam. Reductionist views of reducing all human affairs to religion is incorrect. Papering over intra religious ethnic, religious, linguistic, class ,caste tensions will be like playing into the hands of imperialism. The Savarna Feyerabendian identity politicians of Kerala vary from official Marxist fanatics like Gp ramachandran to pkpoker to subalternist jdevika. These guardians of islam think of islam as immature which needs protection from their own naivety. (They are equally fallacious like Hameed of Praveen swami school. Hameed is limited by the secularism of official Marxism which translates into soft hindutva .)They deny the agency for islam to think own its own. And deem it as static. If you apply the same standard of minority protection you may deny the agency for Christian minority to address their problems, which is also another form of the nefarious vote bank politics. Thus you deny a kerala christian the right to question the patriarchal feudal church and clergy, brakcet the internally discriminated dalit Christians with feudal achayan gentry and project them all as the persecuted lot .Thus you deny the right to question even a paedophile infested anti gay church and help to regain its authority. Welldone foucoldians!.No one can forget the jeevan text book episode a few years back in kearla when multicultural religious crowds from kunjalikutty’s muslim league to KM.mani’s christian fundamentalists to savarna hindu bjp indulged in violence against promoting inter religious Marriage and secular life. Thepostmodern hired intellgentsia like viju vnair of madhyamam cheered up.
LikeLike
IF Hameed even support hindu officials version of love jihad itspeaks volumes of the mainstream mallu society which through official Marxism has become a literal extension of praveen swami. Having said so no one should keep mum on the atrocities happening within muslim community. There are cases where muslim superstitious have attacked and killed dalits suspected to have practiced witchcraft in malapuram . They have even ostracised and physically attacked couples who denied their social norms to marry .The JM kept silence.The jm brand of muslims pretend as champions of progress but they attack even syncretic shrine worship as superstitious only to preserve their own fanatic beliefs.the jm faction within cpm like ken and poker maintained with an eye on appeasement of minority vote kept brutal mum when noted environmental activist c.r.neelakandan was beaten to pulp by comunist goons a few weeks back. They even consider him as a mere hindu and never raised a finger on the heinous caste practice, polygamy and child marriages within islam.The reecent identiy crisis controversy generated by the brillance of capitalist communit pinarai is to appease the uppercasste hindu vote for coming elections
LikeLike
@ Aftab,
Yes, all comments on kafila are held for moderation, this is not a special distinction reserved for you. As one of the moderators let me also say that while I have passed your last comment, I shall not do so the next time. This is because it is not in fact a comment by you at all. Rather, it is a re-pasting of a long commentary on Islam by someone else. While we are always happy to be pointed towards new reading materials, the comment space on kafila is for conversationalists to engage each other in discussion. Next time, please post a few lines and a link to the whole text for interested readers to follow if they so desire.
LikeLike
I wonder why Mamdani’s orinal article itself posted here by somebody else rather than a link to the original article? is this right reserved for the privileged?
LikeLike
lets see what they(JMI) saying about themselves on Secularism, democracy, etc in their on words. it may give something to this thread of topic.
http://www.jihkerala.org/htm/malayalam/jamaat/viewpoints.htm
LikeLike
Am quite amazed by how much of the anti-Jamaat rhetoric in Kerala is based on “conspiracy theories” and “hidden agendas”. Scholars like M.N. Karassery evoke the Shia theological concept of “taqiyya” (dissimulation; the roots of which are often traced back to an exegesis of Q3:28) to argue that beneath the Jamaat’s “veneer” of secularism lurks the “despicable beasts” of Islamic extremism and anti-democratic/secular beliefs. My question is quite simple, how exactly does one prove a “hidden agenda”/”conspiracy”/taqiyya? Even if one comes up with supposedly credible examples such as Hameed Chennamangaloor’s reference to the Jamaat position vis-a-vis Muslim Dalits and “Islamic imperialism”, how many such examples, and of what nature, would suffice to prove the case of taqiyya? Why do similar examples in the case of other organisations (there are plenty like the question of Dalits, women etc. related to the CPI-M, for example) become instances of mere “opportunism”/”double speak” and does not point to a deeper “hidden agenda”? I find arguments based on “conspiracy theories” quite meaningless, intellectually irresponsible and, most importantly, an easy excuse to avoid a serious engagement with the current politics of the Jamaat. Perhaps nothing lies beyond “performance”; we will have to take the Jamaat at its word and study that “performance” rigorously.
Secondly, the strategy of invoking Mawdudi at every point to nail the Jamaat seems to me to be inspired by a narrow and unproductive idea of textual determinism. The critics appear to be more worried than the Jamaat itself that the latter is not following Mawdudi word for word. One is reminded of neo-con claims that Islamic extremist violence is inspired by certain verses in the Qur’an. So Muslims are left with only two choices – disown or accept such verses in toto. The other end of the spectrum is represented by the “Islam is peace” cliche. This camp comes up with qur’anic verses that speak of peace, say that the very word Islam is derived from the Arabic word salam, which means peace etc. and hence “Islam” is anything but violence. I call this the clash of stereotypes. The point, again, is straightfoward, almost a truism – no text or etymology directly and simply determines the way people or an organisation thinks and functions. This approach leaves room for nuances. How is Mawdudi read by the Jamaat in contemporary India? How does it compare to the organisation’s past interpretations and applications of his thought? Which socio-political conditions have played a role in such reinterpretations, if indeed there are any? If the aim is to understand the Jamaat in the current conjuncture, then this may be a useful path to pursue.
LikeLike
@al-mutallim
This is neoliberal identity politics danger. If you apply same criterion even brahmanism can be defended. no one can then criticise it. barhamnaism or european christian feudalism would have had internal contradictions and dissent. but blanket defence of religion deny absolutley the space for critical engagemnt with any religious dogma. moreover in any historical juncture the predominant philosphci core of any idology need to be critically examined as an academic practice despite the contradictions in its practice.if you sideline completely mnkarasheri or other liberalin kerla you will be left with no nonreligious perosns which is a democratic right. what ever be the secularists political limitations it is providing a democratic space and utilising the right to critique which is hallmark of domocracy. mutallim demand in a very sophisticated way the feudal previlege of religion to remain without any remote criticism.Even when one accept JM s positive critical interventions in the polity what is wrong in taking a critical look at it. why are they scared and inovke scriptural authority in defence. Communism to capitalism has been ideologically denconstructed in academia
LikeLike
@Al-Mutallim, very interesting points…
LikeLike
none of the jm defenders here are addressing the basic questions raised by the “‘sinful, pro-american.sionist'” hameed che .they are racism practiced within JMmuslims and their inability to denounce openly mawdudi s world view .If you criticise clergy’s authority within any relgion how much ever anti imperilaist you are , you are a gone case
LikeLike
how can one say that M.N. karasheri and hamid are dangerous and the Jm groups which does not believe in peace as progressive.Jm is a closed non democratic violent male only fringe group.madhyamam is notorious for branding anybody who criticise anything within muslim society as savarna. Thus noted literatteur Anand too is Hindu fascist for them.
Recently indiavision, the muslim league’s chaneel telecasted a highly crtical programme , vastavam,on maudidism. still thejm is genuflecting before league for an electoral understanding. leagues leader the notorious kunjalikutty trapped in the icecream fleshtrade scandal case is a xavier for identity politicians like vtrajashekar.may be for them exalite/feminist ajitha is just a brahmin for fighting him.when the mulsimfeudal lords’ childmarriage topolygamy was problematised by congress guy aryadan shoukath in films, the patronising nairs of jm school in cpm like g.p.ramachandran and intellectual brahmin k.e.n deemed it as minority bashing. hameed answered it rightly that islam is not a monolithic entity freezed in time without developments/contradictions .islam doesnot needs patronsing messiahs of the’progressive’uppercaste nair left school. devika too should understand it.
LikeLike
MN karahsherril is ridiculed as a secular fanatic by the jamat advocates here for raising pertinent issues. He criticised madhyamam jm advt. for muslim kidneys only for transplantation which reveals their bigotry and belief in the notion of muslims as ablood pure race.if this is not communalism, then what is.is minority communalism only colonial construct and its critique necessarily eurocentric. does opposing majoritarianism means nurturing or glossing over minorit communalism. despite jamats pretensions as progressive for the intelligentsia, when itcomes to practice they are anti liberal to the extent that they oppose even watching movies. KEN kunhahamd ,the jamat sympathiser within cpm, equated homosexuality to unnatural beastiality a couple of years back.
LikeLike
The discussion has focusd on JIH and Maududi. It is better to sahre with you some of recent article and interview from Jamaat side
O. Abdurahman’s – (Editor Madyamam) article on Maududi
Click to access ar.pdf
T. Arif Ali, JIH Kerala Ameer’s interview in Jai Hind TV
http://www.dharmadhara.com/Hira/5.6.2010.html
LikeLike
Anybody who knows Islam and goes through the articles written by Hamid for last somany years can easly understand that he is not agaist JMI but simply against Islam.
He is a person who has understood very well that what is the easiest way get space in the so called secular media in todays world and that is to be a pet of Anti Islam elements.
One should realy appreciate his shamelesness for repeating all the same allegations against JMI after replying to him in all the meening by the leeders of JMI.
Only onething to remind the so called ‘sucular’ readers of Hamid, If you read only Hamid you can become another anti Islam (Hamid Chenamagallur) only. Try to read others also with a neutral mind.
LikeLike
@ Shajahan
Shajahan wrote:
” Some of the writers that he mentioned may well be complicit in JMI ‘s attempts at gaining secular credibility without disengaging from any of its original political-Islamist positions, but that does not entitle him to paint all with the same brush.”
Having a political view and positions to an ideology is an impediment to be secular?
Shajahan Wrote,
“In any case, no writer in today’s world will be able to publish anything if he or she has to wait for publications with the right secular-democratic credentials.”
Can you please clarify what you mean by right secular-democratic credentials? What are the credentials required for an organization or publication to be a right secular – democratic?
LikeLike
@Shajahan
Shajahan wrote:
“The core idea around which Maududism is built is the argument that the first priority of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of Islamic rule on earth. Islam without political rule is, to quote Maududi, a house half-built. Does Jamaathe Islami continue to subscribe to the idea that establishing Islamic rule on earth (I grant they consider it to be a heaven of justice and fairness for all) is a religious duty binding on all Muslims? Is still committed to the completion of the house that is presently only half-built?”
It is the crookedness of Madambattism to confine the JIH view of Islam as Maududism thus he want to represent Islam. Shajahan repeating same blames of Kerala based Mujahid and Sunni organizations raised but not Maududi’s. It is known that Islamic rule is not a requirement to be a Muslim. JIH is very clear that Islam is not mere prayers and moral teachings. Islam as an Ideology that has clear position on life, death, hereafter, ownership and distribution of wealth, social justice, social relations, economics and politics as well. Neglecting and crossing out any of these parts from the ideology will make Islam incomplete. If a supporter of this ideology (not just born Muslims) believes and trusts that this ideology can achieve welfare, social justice and success than it is his intellectual honesty to strive for that in a democratic way, save as it is Shajahan’s intellectual honesty to protest the Islamic ideology and JIH if he is not supporter of the Islamic ideology.
I was supposed to comment to other points raised by Shajahan. Fortunately I saw latest Matrubhumi Weekly with a long interview of T. Arif Ali, JIH Kerala Ameer. Hope you will read it and comment on that.
LikeLike
some guys in violent defence of JM here are irrational.if any one who criticises
JM is anti islamic then what about kanthapuram sunni faction and muslim league who are virulent critics of JM. Are they nonislamic.Who has given them the right to judge who si islam?JM shamelessly supported the savarna brigade cpm in many elections. now they are conspring for electoral understanding with muulsim league whose mp e.ahmed supported manmohan’s proisraeli foreign policy and american nuclear deal.jm has even the history of publishing the biographies of brutal police heroes of emergency era praising them in madhyamam.They even don’t acept shajahan madampattu who was an islamic fanatic of his own kind who in his kalakaumudhi days wrote article denigrating the matryr chekannur mauulavi. Chekannur maulavi was a muslim theologian and was for religiou harmony but killed by islamic fanatics. but shajahn branded him as prohindumythology and therefore deserved his fate by default.some jm defenders here may even claim that in islam texts you could even find a theory of labour , exploitation, rent and environment.
LikeLike
@Shinov
It is not claim but reality. You can find not only “theory of labour, exploitation, rent and environment” and more.
LikeLike
See the standard of jm activists.Leave the harsh Hameed, they canot even accept ardent muslim beliver ‘liberals’ like shajahan and ridicule him as madambattism. mind, shajahan was one of the pioneers of muslim identity politics in kerala, even ridiculing the great backward caste writer o.v.vijayan as anti-muslim.Even this acheivemnts is not enough for Jm.whether shajahan or karshari, any born muslim daring to criticise any tenets or practice of islam is doomed by JM.
Howintolerant these people are.? Has only the saudi king the right to define the horizons of islamic life.Only jm and its advocates has th rights to decide what is Islam.This is their democracy.probably they are conspiring to prepare the prospective hit list which may include samiramin, aijazahmad,tariqali and irfanhabib.Ironically kamalramsajeev the former editor of madhyamam who started this trend of identity politicsof vilification has crossed sides and is the head of mathrubhumi.Ultimatley marx you are right!money+economics matters!
LikeLike
He himself used the word Maududisam, then I can’t I use Madambattisam??
LikeLike
Dear Shajahan,
It was your comment that had caught my attention. I do respect with your comments and hold it in high even though I may agree to disagree with many of it. I think the problem with Hamid and Karasseri like intellectuals, let me say it with all due respect I do have towards them, is that they seem to be losing or lacking intellectual objectivism when they write on JI and its off-shoots. For me, it smells a smack even of some personal feud.
Like JDevika, I am also used to engage with JI and its workers. For decades I am accustomed to read their periodicals and publications and from time to time I do contribute by writing in their periodicals as well. I don’t hesitate to share with many others the great respect I do have towards JI and its off-shoots as a dynamic and evolving movement.
I am not an erudite on Islam or JI. However, I can say proudly and with enough confidence that I am a humble learner of Islam and JI for decades. I have gone through the latest interview that Mathrubhoomi has published in its latest edition also. So, I will try to give my input on your queries leaving enough space that I could also be wrong in my understanding. I will be eager to correct myself first before going to correct anybody else. I am kind a of a person who undergoes for a kind of incessant introspection.
First let me analyze some of the apparent labeling you have made. I think you seems to be becoming more of judgmental than analytical when you say “Jamaathe Islami (JMI) continues to believe in and promote the retrogressive ideology of Maulana Maududi.”. Here the word “retrogressive” is a kind of labeling and you seems to be giving a judgment on it rather than analyzing it and leaving it for readers to make decision on it. Moreover, as far as I know, JI never has mentioned what they propagate is an ideology of Maudoodi. What I do understand from their literatures is they are the people who are the proponents and exponents of Islam as an ideology. Here, may I bring into your notice that you seems to be concocting and fabricating something and imposing on others.
“There is no evidence to suggest that JMI has ever rejected the original thesis of Maududi, a thinker comparable in many ways to Golvalkar in terms of substance and rhetoric.”
I have gone though the constitution of JI as part of my study. I have not seen anywhere in the constitution the name of Maudoodi. As per their constitution, thesis comes from Koran and Prophets Tradition and not from Maudoodi. Secondly, I do feel, having gone though the books written by both, your comparison between Golvalkar and Maudoodi like that of cabbage and king. Golvalkar is a proponent of Nationalism while Maudoodi is harsh critique of it and espouses Humanitarianism. Secondly, Golvalkar does not have any ideology and does not postulate Hinduism as an Ideology while Maudoodi postulates Islam as an Ideology. Thirdly, Golvalkar espouses hatred towards others and you cannot see even a sentence espousing hatred in Maudoodi’s books. If there was such a sentence anywhere in any of hundreds of books Maudoodi has written, I am sure Hamid an Karasseri like people would have quoted it scores of time in their article. We may disagree with what Maudoodi says with intellectual honesty. However, it is not fair to blame a person, leave along a thinker, for what he has not done at all. Now let me shed some light on your queries one by one in the same order :
1st Query:
You wrote:
“The core idea around which Maududism is built is the argument that the first priority of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of Islamic rule on earth. Islam without political rule is, to quote Maududi, a house half-built. Does Jamaathe Islami continue to subscribe to the idea that establishing Islamic rule on earth (I grant they consider it to be a heaven of justice and fairness for all) is a religious duty binding on all Muslims? Is still committed to the completion of the house that is presently only half-built?”
First of all, you labeled it again as “Maudoodism”. A query has to be first of all intellectually objective. First I started studying of Islam from the books written by Orientalists. In the middle ages they tried to label Islam as “ Mohammadanism”. It is not fair or just to call a sect, whoever they may be, with a misrepresenting terminology that they never have agreed with it. You can call JI as JI and not Maudoodism.
As an Ideology Islam has got a vision on everything. This actually is not from JI, rather it is from Islam. So it has got vision on politics and state. State is the highest form of social setup. Any person who pays perseverance for a goal will have and should have an end in his sight. In Islam, it is two dimensional. Mundane and Hereafter. You will achieve your Hereafter goal based on the perseverance you pay. That does not necessarily mean that you will be always able to achieve your mundane goals. That neither does mean that you should not strive for your mundane goals. Rather, you need to strive to achieve the goal through peaceful means until you realize and sustain it. The final goal can have within itself other supporting an corroborating sub-goals that will help them to reach the final goal. It is not a sin to have such a vision as long as it does not upset the apple cart of peaceful co-existence of pluralistic society. Until you achieve your final goal, you cannot say you achieved it. That does not mean you or anybody striving for it has failed. Rather, you will reap your reward in your hereafter life. What a Muslim is required compulsorily is to strive for establishment of anything of which absence is impeding you to do your basic obligations arising out of it. So, as I understand from JI’s literature and the interview with Arif Ali that Mathrubhoomi has published in its latest edition is that JI is committed to its goal as mentioned in its Constitution. For any revolutionary movement, Principles and Goals will remain constant and only policy and programmes will change.
Second Query:
You wrote:
“In much of Jamaath literature, obedience to any political system other than that of Islam is termed polytheistic. Obedience in this context is the Jamaath translation of the Arabic word Ibadath, which all the other Muslims translate as Worship. A Muslim is the one who worships none other than Allah. When you use the Jamaath translation, obedience to all forms of government other than an Islamic one renders a Muslim a polytheist. This in effect makes the Muslims of the world, with a few exceptions, guilty of shirk (polytheism), the ultimate sin in Islam. Does the Jamaath still hold on to this position? Is their support for Indian constitution a tactical position or one that springs from conviction? I am willing to get deeper into the theological foundations of this argument if this debate is taken forward”.
I also wanted to study this subject more deeply and profoundly. The foundation of Sovereignty is obedience. Any political philosophy is defined on the ground to whom the sovereignty belongs. If it is to an indfividual, we call it dictatorship. If it belongs to a group, we call it oligarchy. If it belongs to a King, we call it monarchy. If it belongs to prelitariate, we call it communism. If it belongs to people, we call it democracy. Koran unequivocally and explicityly says sovereignty is for Allah, the creator and Sustainer of the world including that of human beings who like other creatures live in His earth enjoying the provisions bestowed by him.
Since meaning of Ibaadat encompasses everything in JI’s vision, their realm of work encompasses every aspect of life. Even if other Muslim organizations follow JI in this relam in certain areas (as KN Shaji mentioned in his last article written in Mathrubhoomi last week when he said Islam is a comprehensive way of Iife and when he wrongly quoted Madina Charter of Prophet Mohammad to justify ML’s position) that also is not with a vision since they don’t have it. For your question on Ibaadat, let me explain it as below as I understood it recently:
Regarding the meaning of Ibadat, I do look into it from a holistic perspective. I take into consideration of cosmological aspect of Islam and underlying principle of obedience to Natural Laws set by Allah behind it. Please remember, Islam is presented and postulated by Koran from a cosmological perspective. Koran presents it as if Islam is human face of nature and/or as natural visage of human being. I do read it from the perspective of meaning of ‘Islam’ itself. then I look into the meaning of Deen, Rabb and Ilaah from linquistic, literary and scriptural perspective. I do understand the test given to Iblis was on obedience. The first test given to Adam while he was in paradise also was on obedience. The test, much bigger than the above two, that Abraham had undergone when he was commanded to slaughter his only son Ishamel (really a capital crime from the time of Cain and Habel) also was on obedience. While Obedience encompasses everything including worship, the concept of worship does not encompass everything. Shirk is not the opposite of obedience. Violation/disobedience is the opposite of Obedience. Shirk is opposite of Thouheed. As per Logic, Shirk and Thouheed is Concrete Contradictions like death and life, light and darkness which cannot have a third state/condition between them and not absolute contradictions like first and last which might have other conditions/ states like second, third ect between them, or white and black which also can have other conditions/states like red, rose ect. This means any belief or creed or ideology that is not built on the ideological basis of Islam is theoretically shirk, regardless of it is material and/or spiritual. Violation/disobedience will not necessarily become shirk. Maudoodi’s book which I have completed reading also does not say so. Violation/disobedience will become shirk, if it is violated with a belief that Allah does not have right to command in the realm where a person violates/disobeys. Having said its principled stand unequivocally, JI treads into the realm of policy as to how to relate it in the contemporary Indian social life. Unfortunately, as far as I know, other Muslim organizations does not seems to have a crystal clear vision on this like JI. So, as far as I know, JI’s position in Ibaadat has not changed and it will not change. Moreover, it cannot change since it is solely related to Arabic language and Koranic Usage.
In the process of my reading of Books written both by JI activists and other brothers belonging to other Keralite Muslim orgnaizationons on Ibaadat, I came to see a proposal that was put forward by JI in terms of publishing the books written by other Keralite Muslim or and JI on Ibaadat in a single volume and propagating it both by JI and other Keralite Muslim organizations among their workers and other people. ( I feel it as a novel, respectful and healthy way of debate and discussion).
Since this going to be so long, I will write on other queries separately at a later stage.
LikeLike
johncivillo says islam which was found in 7th century AD. in its own peculiar socio cultural milieu has an answer for all the complexities of state- the one we now face is an advanced prroduct of capitalist social formation of 21st century, addressing the vagaries of which even marxism came a cropper. Civillo believes Islam and it alone could provide comprehensive answer. Beware of such a position, how so ever democratic it may seem,it is bellicose in its intolerance towards all other ideologies founded by humanity and deem itself as the celestial infallible.Great work brother!Keep your friends in good humour.
LikeLike
to understand the kerala scene just read the statement of of Muslim leader kanthapuram on jamaateislami.(malayalmanorama june9).
According to him jamat islami and solidarity does not have any popular support among muslims among kerala and is justa paper organisation.he even opined that JM politics doesnot suit india and that they deny their own leader’s exhortation to abstain from electoral politics.
LikeLike
johncivillo@
what to spaek of this commentator who does not even know that maududi is the founder of JM.Dear JM<please bring in some knwoledgeable defenders.
LikeLike
brother johncivill@
your nuanced interpretationof religion tickles a funny bone asit completley different from its understanding in popular parlance and even by the majority of religious heads. Moreover, JM is considered as fanatic and Maudidi dangerous by many noted religous scholars from Islam community.How can you hide it’s harsh physical intolerance to it’s opponents where it tries to cash in on majoritarian fascism as in Pakistan, and where minority sects like Ahmediyas knows what all these people are.
LikeLike
Why all religios and political leaders are very upset of this samll paper organisation?
LikeLike
Continuation of previous posting commenting on Shajahan’s observations
Dear Shahjahan,
Your queries related to JI’s position on Dalits and other backward communities: I think JI is not a major organization in India. They are definitely growing. In the current state, they will have to prioritize their options taking into consideration of the resources they do have. Now, they are trying to expand their reach. So, we cannot say they are silent or eloquent on any issue. One thing I have noted. They are the only organization that tries to give enough space for others even though they belong to a backward community. Just think of Malayala Manorama or Mathrubhoomi which are owned, managed and run by forward classes or kerala Kaumudi.. How people from other religions or castes are working in it? And compare it with Madhyamam for eg. I had an opportunity to visit many of JI’s educational institutions. I saw in them a pluralistic staff. I had visited many educational institutions run by Christian management and NSS. You will find their staff monolithic. May be this is because of JI’s confidence level compared to other religious and political organizations. In India even the so-called secular organizations do not give space to the down-trodden people. I am sure you will feel the difference when you compare it with institutions owned, managed and run by JI or trusts that affiliate to it. I don’t say all of JI’s institutions have got same level of representation. On raising the level and standards of backward Muslims, I think you will come to know about it when you compare JI’s work in these realms with other Muslim organizations like ML and when you compare the support extended to ML & JI by Keralite Muslims. JI was not fortunate to get enough support from the Muslims in comparison to ML and other Muslim organizations. (rather I think it is getting much better support from non-Muslims. Muslims in Kerala and around the world seem to have lost the capability to differentiate good from bad. All Muslim organizations were in the forefront to adore Jinnah and Liaqat and pray for them who had nothing to do with Islam just because they had the label of “Muslim” League, while they were castigating Maudoodi who is considered to be one of the great thinkers Islam has contributed to the world ).
a) JI’s position on status of women in Islam: I think as long as a person or organization believes that Koran is revealed from Allah, he/they cannot deviate from what Koran has said explicitly. Then, there is a room for interpretation. Woman is woman and man is man. Both have got their own rights and responsibilities which are balanced but cannot be equal or equivalent. JI is not bound on Maudoodi’s stand on Purdah or on the issues like that of Music. Maudoodi himself had made it clear. It is a matter of Jurisprudential difference. Each and every person in JI can differ on such issues while they belong to JI. JI looks into the issues related to woman from humanitarian perspective. However, as I understand, JI believes womanhood is exploited more cruelly by capitalism in the name of liberalism and JI cannot condone it. Woman became morally bankrupt, and sexually socially exploited. She got double burdened when nature did not change. Capitalism tries to liberate woman from the womanhood and converts her into commercial object which JI and its offshoots do resist vehemently . At the same time, JI is the only organization which has given enough representation for women in its organizational structure from top to bottom. I think the triggering point of all this fuss and ado regarding JI was the conference conducted solely by its women wing. Solidarity is only 7 years old and has not passed its childhood. Tracking and tracing the history of JI, I am sure they also will evolve to give enough space for women within the limits of womanhood . Everything cannot be done overnight.
b) You wrote: ” Secularism and democracy are explicitly termed antithetical to Islam by Maududi. Has JMI ever distanced itself from this position?”
I have gone through the book written by Maudoodi on the subject. It is a wonderful book and it approaches the subject logically, scripturally and analytically. The book was written by Maudoodi before India’s independence. The locale and context is that of British and western concepts regarding Democracy and Secularism. It cannot be about Indian secularism which had evolved after independence. However, he makes out the message very clear from Islamic perspective. Have you pondered over the subject from Islamic perspective? Afterall, what is democracy. If it is government of the people, by the people and for the people, I think the term democracy is just a misnomer. Where in this world you can see such a government. I could not see even a ‘democratic’ government all over the world that represent even 51% of complete population when it was elected. Leave alone how it was elected and the influence of media and money in the election process. This is all about election. Sometimes, a defeated candidate will have garnered more votes than the victorious as we see in the case of Gore Vs. Bush Junior. Sometimes, the party that has got more votes all over a country will be sitting in the opposition taking into consideration of nos. of seats. Sometimes, a party which has got roots all over the country will not have representation in the parliament while a regional party may become the largest opposition bloc in the parliament as we see 1984 election in India in which BJP has only 2 seats while the regional party TD as the major opposition party This is all about election. After the election, what role the voters have got in the decision making process. Government forgets the people and remember only their party whenever required. 90% of the people in UK was against sending military to Iraq along with US. Sill Toney Blair, the democratically elected PM of UK took part actively in the Iraq war. Is democracy implemented in the HQ of democracy, i.e, UN? IF so, why there is Security Council? Why the Veto Power? Why presidents in all so called ‘democratic’countries including India and US are given the power to return the bill passed by democratically elected governments? Democracy has no belief in itself. Because it counts the heads and does not weigh what is inside it. In our day to day life we don’t consider each and every person’s opinion on a subject equally even though we may give everybody equal opportunity to express himself.
I think, if anything has to be blamed in this respect, it is Koran. Maudoodi was just an exponent of Koran in this respect. Koran says: “Say! Not equal are the evil and good and even though excess and abundance of evil may impress you” (5:90). If democracy is a process of finding out the right people to assign the right duty, Koran does not object to it. Rather Koran commands it. “ Indeed Allah commands you to assign the duties and responsibilities to the right people, and when you rule among the people, to rule with justice”. This verse clearly speaks about the need of very transparent process for finding out the right people to assign the duties and responsibilities in different levels and layers. Moreover, it commands the elected people to rule among the people with justice regardless of party, caste and religion. (Islamic concept of secularism). You can see democratic process of election in the election of Abu Bakr ( direct election) and Othman (Parliamentary election). You can see the glimpses of participatory democracy in the governance of Omar. However, Muslims failed to build from it since Khilafat deteriorated into kind of monarchy. If democracy is process of decision making involving people and process of prioritizing among options of good, Koran commands it also . “So, pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter” (3:159). “The affair needs to be determined by and through consultation with them” (42:38). Islam doesn’t give sovereignty to people which is only for Allah. It gives the state represented by people the rights and responsibilities of guardianship. I do consider it as beautiful as the relationship between of father and children. In all other political systems, there is an element of fascism since all other political system asserts a kind of supremacy on people in different names. Islam does not believe in any kind of “cracy” with sovereignty given to or taken by any creations. It believes in a kind of vicegerency with the power, rights and responsibilities of a guardian.
With regard to Secularism, Maudoodi was criticizing western secularism which postulates total detachment socio-political life from religion and limits religion into man’s personal relationship to God. JI still stick with it as explained by Arif Ali since any normal Muslim who has heck of Islam in him cannot agree with it. JI’s approach towards Indian Secularism as explained in our constitution is totally different since Indian secularism means non-discrimination among religions and equal treatment of different religions by the state. According to JI and as per the Koranic verse quoted above, it is an Islamic concept.
I think all your further queries except about JI’s stand towards America and Saudi Arabia has been addressed since those queries are from an assumption that JI changed its stand towards democracy and secularism.
I think JI and other leftist organizations are vocal against America since it interferes in the civil affairs of other nations and it is an imperial power that threatens even the integrity of India. If US was not so, JI and likeminded organizations would have been silent on America also just like they are silent Sweden or Brazil. This does not mean there is no cultural or social issues in Sweden and Brazil as there are in Saudi Arabia also. Saudi Arabia does not interfere in India’s socio-political affairs. JI and likeminded organizations are working in India and are concerned about Indian issues. They are not working in Saudi Arabia. They don’t want get involved in all issues all over the world and they need not and they will not have enough resources for it also. This question can be extended and stretched to any length to any organizations and will not have any end at all.
LikeLike
John, Do you remember the ad which came in Madhyamam some years back ? Asking for a Muslim Kidney ??!!!
LikeLike
john civillo concludes that what ever happens , no body born in the world should crtcise anything on islam. what a pathetic pitiable state wherein islam is defended by such people forgetting the great rationalist stream within islam of the likes of ibnqaldun which provided light of scientific temper to a Europe in dark age.
LikeLike
Mr.johncivillo MR>Tariq Ali of pakistan, the noted left liberal political scholar and anti imperilaist crusader , has produced volumes of works crticising JM and Maudidi. he has literaly exposed the role played by their ideologues in conniving with imperialism and thier third rate horsetrading in pakistani politics.you please recommend to your wellwishers that he too is a potential danger who should be maligned soon. The ‘knowleddgable’ sources would start researching right away to that effect. Thankyou!
LikeLike
Devika’s pro-JMI writing reminds me of one malayalam phrase “enne thallenda vappa ,njan nannavoola”’!!!.Why are these so called intellectuals so oblivious to the obvious?-JMI is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Writers like Hameed Chennamangalore have been trying to rip JMI off its fake clothing,but writers like Devika are helping the wolf to get dressed up again so that they can carry on with their Al Taqiya agendas….. The questions raised by Mr Madampat are very valid,but will never be answered .
LikeLike
Poor Hamid chandamangaloor. He is only one of the few saner rational voices which raised disturbing questions on superstitions within Islam.It is sheer character assassination to equate him with praveen swami protected by powercentres.He is really fighting a lonely losing battle against economically and ideologically powerful orthdox foe.But that is made out to be a grave sin by the identity politics intellectuals who need the funding of one or the other religion for their career.benaeath this ‘veil’ an unnatural non malayali purdah centric pro arabic petrodollar induced islam was cultivated in 90’s which exorcised the kerala malayalee mulsim’s own great culture, language and lifestyle.May be days are counted when postmodernists will pass a resolution to deem atheism as warcrime, the practitioners of whom are to be banned.
LikeLike
Dear Mr. Civillo,
Glad to see your post. I think your post is an example of how people can disagree and still continue the conversation. My deep respects.
Let me respond to your points point by point in brief below.
1. I confess I am judgmental. I take positions on issues on the basis of my understanding and convictions. I arrive at judgments on the basis of my analysis. There is no contradiction between being judgmental and analytical. However, I do believe my understanding of things may turn out to be wrong and I am always ready to correct myself if proven wrong.
2. On JI’s current view on Maududi, JI itself has answered your question. Please read O.Abdurahman’s article in Prabodhanam pasted below.
Click to access ar.pdf
3. JI was founded by Maududi Sahib to promote and propagate his philosophy of Islam, not just to propagate a generic version of Islam. (There were many other Muslim organizations in India at the time of JI’s inception. The reason he founded a new one was obviously because his was different from all others and this difference was the primacy JI placed on the establishment if Islamic rule on earth). JI has never disowned the founder, as clearly stated by O.Abdurahman in his article in Prabodhanam. Therefore, I am not fabricating anything nor imposing my view on JI when I say JI believes in and continues to promote Maududism. (I use Maududism not as a pejorative, but just to denote the set of ideas that Maududi propounded, as we use words like Marxism).
4. I do not want to delve more into the comparison between Golwalkar and Maududi for I have no intension of playing into the hands of reactionary elements on the other side of the fence. I have already explained where I see similarities between them in my initial post: They both stand for majoritarian state, they both reject the idea of equal citizenship and they both divide the world into we and they. Taking this beyond the level of ideas would be unfair because unlike Golwalkar’s organization and followers, JI and its followers have never been implicated in communal violence in India. To the best of my knowledge, they never propagated hatred against other communities. Many judicial commissions and independent committees proved RSS’ complicity and participation in communal violence and carnage. Therefore I have no intension of equating both RSS and JI in terms of praxis. (The only evidence usually raised is Munir Commission report from Pakistan, but that is outside the purview of our debate here). At the level of organizational praxis and inter-communal interaction, JI and its followers have always been pretty refined and sophisticated and peaceful. My grudge is just that I wish they extend this to their core set of ideas as well. Maududi and Golwalkar may differ on nationalism, but not on the idea of modern nation-state. It is the very structure of that modern nation-state on which pluralist democracy’s proponents and their critics fall apart. Your claim that G did not have an ideology is bizarre: What else is Hindutwa if not an ideology? Maududi’s books contain hatred (read Khutubath, for instance) of a kind that is different from that of G. His sweeping generalizations on all systems and societies other than what is Islamic in his conception smack of deep hatred and malice. This has been extensively written upon in many books in Malayalam and there is no need to repeat those quotes here. If you follow debates between JI and other Muslim organizations in Kerala, you will see hundreds of such quotes from Maududi’s books.
5. Constitutions of all Muslim organizations claim they derive their ideas from the Quran and Sunna. So does JI. This is immaterial and does not prove anything.
6. Your points on Islam having a vision on everything call for a separate discussion and may not be appropriate to get into in our context. I know this argument and its nuances as I have been following the Mujahid – Jamaath debate on this since adolescence. My whole question in this context is very simple: Is JI committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in India? Is their espousal of Indian secularism (mind you, Indian secularism) a matter of tact or conviction? Do they believe a pluralist secular democratic framework is the best bet for all multi-religious multi-cultural societies? These are the issues I am grappling with.
7. Are monotheism and polytheism matters of policy and program in Islam? JI used to argue voting in an Indian election was a polytheistic act. In a fine morning, voting became halal and now even participation in elections. How can this be explained?
8. Your points on Ibadath and Obedience: My point is simply this: Is obedience to the laws of India an act of Ibadath, which can be done only to Allah?
9. Quran never used the word sovereignty. It is a distortion to say Quran used this essentially modern political term. Quran used the word ‘Hukm’ (inil hukm illa lilla – hukm is only that of Allah) and it is wrongly translated as sovereignty. The verse I just quoted is not a prescriptive verse, but a factual statement that means Allah’s overarching control over the universe is absolute. It is He who turns days into nights and nights into days and all other natural processes. No classical scholars of Islam argued that it is a call to Muslims to establish an Islamic state. The Arabic word for sovereignty is siyada and to the best of my memory this word is not used anywhere in the Quran.
10. If the Quran wanted Muslims to strive for an Islamic state, it would have dwelt at length on the role of the prophet as a ruler. While the prophet is described in many ways in the Quran, not even once is he addressed or mentioned as a political ruler.
11. Your points about Shirk and obedience. Obedience in JI terminology is Ibada, which can only be given to Allah and giving Ibadath to Allah alone is what we call Tauheed. It is JI which conflated obedience and worship and the consequence was that it charged all the Muslims who lived in non-Islamic systems of governance with polytheism. Please refer to the numerous JI publications from the 1950s and 1960s, including issues of Prabodhanam, to confirm it for yourself.
12. It will be a good idea to bring out a book containing the various debates on Ibadath and Itaath from different perspectives.
13. I saw your second post too. They do not either refute or answer my questions. For instance, on Dalits and backwards, you kindly try to find an alibi for JI! My point is this: Being an organization with stated political views, what is its stand on Muslim Dalit and backward groups?
Sorry for the clumsy writing. I am struggling to meet some deadlines today, but thought I must not delay a response to your post, which struck me as unusually refined and sophisticated, unlike many of the posts I saw on this page. Thank you once again for your post and I genuinely feel your have shown how a healthy debate can be initiated.
Shajahan
LikeLike
Dear Shahjahan,
Thanks for your response. I do value it a lot. I am sorry for being late in responding. As of now, I am out of station. However, I wanted to respond to you. I do hope you to address all the queries which you have actually multiplied in your second posting. I am not an erudite on Islam. I do want to learn more about it as a humble student. I know it is like an ever widening universe. You go deep, it becomes deeper. You think broad on it, it becomes broader. I know and understand that I can go wrong in my thought, perception and understanding considering my minimal knowledge in Arabic language, which I believe is very rich and got more enriched by revelation of Koran.
I went through your response a couple of times. I am happy to note that you have ceased to use the word Maudoodism to denote JI even though you gave me your justification of using it in your previous posting. However, may I take liberty to note that I am not convinced with your comparison with Marxism also in labeling JI as Maudoodists . CPIM’s name itself includes Marxist. Either Marx or Marxists had not objection in being called and termed like that. Rather, they call themselves Marxists. Here, I have not heard throughout my decade old relationship with JI any JI activist calling themselves Maudoodist and I have heard and read a lot of such labeling by its adversaries. I do understand Shahjahan is not so diehard to cling with such a labeling imposed by adversaries. JI is the name that JI has given to them. Let us call them by it. I am a kind of person who wants to know the truth from the mouth of horse itself. That’s what led me to studying Islam from its original sources. As part of studying Islam, I am still continuing learning Arabic as well. As a truth seeker, I cannot be prejudiced or reserved. For me, truth is more important. If it is with Shahjahan, I will accept it provided I am convinced intellectually. Here, although I do have great appreciation to Shahjahan’s writing, Shajahan has yet to convince me on the subject we are debating and I think has to go a long way. I don’t want the knowledge to be laid upon the Procrasteuse cot of prejudices and reservations.
As a consistent reader of Prabodhanam at least for the last ten years, I had read the said article written by AR. It is really a response to media mongering conducted in the wake of Arif Ali’s press conference. I did not deny the role played by Maudoodi in establishing JI. I was objecting labeling of JI as Maudoodism. I understand JI and/or any other respectable organization or movement will not reject the role of any thinker or scholar who has played in historical renaissance of Islam. That does not mean that JI or any other similar organization is in agreement with all opinions of such a scholar or thinker on all issues like purdah and music which are related to Fiqh. Now, it is not only Maudoodi or JI who claim Islam as an ideology or comprehensive way of life. All organizations like ML (as I had quoted previously from KN Shaji’s article), all factions of Mujahids and Sunnis believe Islam as an ideology and comprehensive way of life even though they have not yet evolved to form opinions on all issues based on Islam since they simply seem to be parroting JI in this respect without having the holistic vision JI has got. So, there is no point in calling it as Maudoodist Ideology. Moreover, JI presents this Ideology as Islam with substantiating scriptural proofs. So, it is not Maudoodi’s philosophy of Islam. Actually, same version was told before by Abdul Wahab and Ibn Taimiyya. In Indian subcontinent, Shah Waliyulla also had presented Islam in the same way. It is the version you can have from Classical Tafseers. This version was exemplified by Prophet’s life also.
As far as I am concerned, the above issue is a peripheral issue and it was not in your initial numbering for which I tried to give you my input from a third eye. Now, I do understand you have included such issues in your listed questions instead of what I have given in my rejoinder as feedback. I do hope you have read my second posting commenting on the remaining queries from your initial posting. I am more interested to delve into the core of issues. So, I will refer back to your initial numbering and will re-look into your new posting from that perspective first in terms of what difference of opinion you have made to the feedback I have made. And I will try to address all your queries through an holistic approach.
I, as a humble student of Islam, do continue to learn more from people like you even while I do disagree with you respectfully. After all, wisdom is learning from others and ours experiences and mistakes also.
Your initial first query was about JI’s goal and establishment of Islamic rule in India. Now, you have repeated your question in no.6 when you asked if Jamaat is committed to its goal. I understand its goal is and has been Iqamatudheen and it has not changed and it is committed to it. It has not changed even in its interpretation also. JI continues to re-iterate it includes re-structuring of state also as an end in its vision. Prophet also was having this final goal in his vision while he was in Mecca (His words to his followers who were tortured: A time will definitely come when a woman can travel from Sanaa to Hader Mouth with her sheep in the thickest of night without having to fear any except the wolf) and when he was migrating from Mecca to Medina (Prophet’s saying to Suraqa on his way to Medina when Suraqa embraced Islam and when prophet asked him “How it will be when you are put on the black bangles of Kisra on your left wrist?). There are lot of verses from Koran and prophet’s sayings to corroborate it. The final goal can have within itself other supporting an corroborating sub-goals that will help them to reach the final goal. It is not a sin to have such a vision as long as it does not upset the apple cart of peaceful co-existence of pluralistic society. In India each and every political organization has got their own vision about how a state needs to be. JI also have got such a vision from Islamic perspective. I do understand JI uses only peaceful and the most intelligent ways to convey its message. I think JI has got a vision on India, India’s historical traits, demography, pluralistic nature of the society, the current political set-up, economic system ect. JI will achieve its end goal only when most of the people agree with JI’s vision of state. So, neither I, nor Shahjahan need worry about it. I will stand for JI’s right to speak and propagate what they believe in a peaceful way which I believe they are doing. This does not necessarily mean I am in agreement with all their ideas.
Your second query was about Ibaadat and concept of obedience: I think I have given you my understanding of it from a holistic perspective involving cosmology, language, logic and with some major examples of Iblis, Adam and Abraham. I related it to the meaning of “Islam” itself. Then I related it to Deen, Rabb and Ilah also. You did not comment on it. Now, you have multiplied your questions in your second posting from 7 to 11. I think I need to elaborate a little bit on it with some examples and will try to combine all in one shot.
First of all, JI does not say Ibaadat has got only one meaning of obedience. It says obedience is one of its meaning from linguistic and Koranic perspectives. I think you better try to know more details onthis from the mouth of horse itself rather than simply relying on the version of different factions of Mujahids which is unfortunately most inconsistent also. The word Ibaadat originates from the word Abd which means Slave. How a slave relates to his master is through obedience which encompasses every act he performs. As part of my own independent study into this most important terminology of Islam, I had an opportunity to check the most primitive Arabic dictionary which is known as “Qamus”. Now, in Arabic language Qamus itself means dictionary (just like we call diapers as “pampers”, washing powder as “surf”). I was really astonished to note that in its origin Ibadat has got only one meaning of Obedience which corresponds to the salves relationship with his master. Then, it got multiple meanings in the passage of time deriving from its original meaning as we see in Lasanul Arab and Munjid. (Apart from the earlier given analysis, this is from philological and etimological perspectives.
Now, I have to deal with your query on if and when an obedience to any power other than Allah does constitute necessarily an act of Shirk or not. I had written in my previous posting the following:
While Obedience encompasses everything including worship, the concept of worship does not encompass everything. Shirk is not the opposite of obedience. Violation/disobedience is the opposite of Obedience. Shirk is opposite of Thouheed. As per Logic, Shirk and Thouheed are Concrete Contradictions like death and life, light and darkness which cannot have a third state/condition between them and not absolute contradictions like first and last which might have other conditions/ states like second, third ect between them, or white and black which also can have other conditions/states like red, rose ect. This means any belief or creed or ideology that is not built on the ideological basis of Islam is theoretically shirk, regardless of it is material and/or spiritual. Violation/disobedience will not necessarily become shirk. Maudoodi’s book which I have completed reading also does not say so. Violation/disobedience will become shirk, if it is violated with a belief that Allah does not have right to command in the realm where a person violates/disobeys.
Now I will try to give you some examples on this to shed some more light on this as well as to define when obedience to any power other than Allah constitutes and does not constitute an act of shirk . I know, Shahjahan’s analytical skills, cognitive power, intellectual ability and comprehensive faculty as I am used to read your articles even while you were used to write in Kala Kaumudi in the beginning.
Example of when an act of WORSHIP only to Allah becomes an act of Shirk because of disobedience and compare it with when even a Sujud to a creation becomes an act of Ibadat to Allah if it is in obedience to the commandment of Allah (example of Angels’ Sujood in front of Adam).
Think of a person who believes in the comprehensiveness of Islam and abstains from all evils and do all the charities, but says he does not follow Islamic way of worshipping, even though he prays only to Allah as commanded by Islam, since it is not helpful for the meditation he is craving, or for the Nirvana with God that he is aspiring, as he is unable to concentrate in the Islamic congregational prayers mixed with movements and meditations, among the masses sneezing and yawning. Moreover, according to him, Islamic prayer is a time-bound activity whereas the real prayer has to be instinctive and spontaneous. Furthermore, the time and arithmetic concept incorporated and embeded with Islamic prayer makes it a semi-material act. So he adopts his own way of meditation in loneliness with all his Islamic beliefs and says he is a Muslim since he prays only to Allah . In this regard, he considers him to be a Muslim Nirvanist! Is it Imaginable? What is this “Muslim” doing here? Shirk or Thouheed even though he is praying only to Allah? ( I think if he is replacing Allah’s right as to command how to relate slave with Him, it constitutes an act of Shirk even though he might be praying only to Allah).
Another Muslim says: He is also a Muslim and he prays only to Allah as commanded by Allah. However, as far as socio-political life is concerned, he says he is a socialist since he blieves the justice, peace, law and order can be achieved only through socialism and most of the time he work for Socialism praying to Allah only. For him it is not a matter who is the Law giver as long as it serves the goals of the justice in his concept. Moreover, He believes Islam as a religion and Allah as its God has nothing to do with the mundane aspect of human life. So he is a Muslim socialist. Is it OK for us? If this is OK, why the first Muslim mentioned above is not OK? Aren’t both Muslims applying same concept in a different way? Logically and scripturally both Muslim socialists and Muslim Nirvanist are doing the same though we are accustomed to look at both these trends differently as if only the former trend of these two is shirk and the latter trend is pure Towheed tuned for pragmatism?
Another Example of how an act of obedience to any power other Allah or a disobedience constitutes an act of shirk.
A Muslim who eats pork believes that this kind of issues does not belong to the realm of the religion as it is purely material. Moreover, it has to be decided only by our government or by the consulting doctor. God has nothing to do with it. God’s interest in me is only for prayers and I am offering this only to him completely. So, I will continue to eat pork as long as my health allows or until the government enact a law prohibiting it because of environmental issues. What is this Muslim doing? Shirk or just a sin (ma’asiya)? How he is different from other Muslim who eats pork out of lack of determination believing that it is prohibited by Allah. He is not denying Allah’s right in this respect. Are both Muslims doing same in the eyes of Allah and Shareea? No, both of them are not doing same thing even though apparently actions by both of them are same. What makes difference here is the difference in their visions based on which corresponding judgments are given.
Now your question on voting and not voting. As I understand from JI’s response which were given repeatedly, JI does not give response on specifics and does not judge people. It rather deals with the subject in generic level. JI continues to say if Muslims are exercising their franchise without having a vision on What Islam commands them in this respect, or if they are doing it with a belief that it is just a mundane affair and Islam has nothing to do with it and they can act as per their will and whim, it constitutes an act of shirk as explained in the above example. Then what about JI voting? According to them, it is with a Islamic vision and decisions are derived and deducted from and based on Koran and tradition of prophet. We may disagree with their decisions and interpretations. We cannot deny or ignore logical consistency. Content and context also corroborate their argument. In this respect , you can even see how did prophet wanted his followers to totally abstain from visiting the graveyard since it had involved some polytheistic aspects and concepts in its details. After this total detachment, prophet allowed his followers at a later stage to visit grave yard with a fresh out look of reminding them of death, the inevitable. The old visiting of graveyard with polytheistic aspects and concepts is still prohibited and constitutes an act of shirk. I can give you from my humble learning and understanding of Islam many examples in this regard. For fear of length, I am stopping here. This covers almost all your queries except that which are related to concept of sovereignty in Koran and Golvalkar and Maudoodi.
Dear and respected Shahjahan you said: “ Quran never used the word sovereignty. It is a distortion to say Quran used this essentially modern political term. Quran used the word ‘Hukm’ (inil hukm illa lilla – hukm is only that of Allah) and it is wrongly translated as sovereignty. The verse I just quoted is not a prescriptive verse, but a factual statement that means Allah’s overarching control over the universe is absolute.”
With all due respect, I am sorry to say that I have to agree to disagree with you here. Apart from the difference of opinion I do have on limiting the meaning of “ Hukm” on Allah’s control of universe, which also Koran brings forth to cement its postulation of Islam from cosmological perspective , this argument is logically inconsistent and does not correlate with the content and context . I want to keep aloof from judging the intention of proponents of this argument by saying they want to tailor Koran, Islam and its history to their convenience. Let me challenge here your cognitive power. For argument purpose, let me agree with you that there is no word sovereignty in Koran. Can you say in Koran there is no civil law since there is no word “ civil Law”? Can you say, there is no history in Koran since there is no word “thareeque” in Koran? Will you say there is no criminal law in Koran since there is no penal code in Koran? If so, you may even be able to say there is no “Thouheed” in Koran since we don’t see any word in terms of Thouheed in Koran? I don’t want to put forward an argument for argument purpose. Koran not only postulates the concept of sovereignty and obedience, it even defines what a state is and what a state has got over its citizenry. Refer to the verse 8:72 for example in which it clearly says four structural factors of a State in terms of geographical boundary, people regardless of their creed and belief, government and how a state and citizenry is related through guardianship (wilayat) and not through sovereignty. Shahjahan, I can elaborate more on this. I think as a man of understanding, this itself is enough for you.
Regarding comparison between Maudoodi and Golvalkar, I want to keep aloof from such comparison which actually tarnishes the status and stature of a great thinker and scholar whom Islamic world respect and revere. I think it is pitiful to oserve that most of muslim organizations in Kerala except JI breeds scorn and contempt of their own scholars and thinkers rather than teaching their followers how to respect them even while disagreeing. I am happy to note that these Muslim organizations have not compared Maudoodi with Hitler taking into consideration of Hitlers’s version of a state. Dear Shahjahan, any ideological movement will have their own vision of state. Based on the fact that two leaders have got their own vision of state, I won’t say both of them are alike. Communists also have got a vision on state and they also see people as classes in which there is “we” (Proleteriate) and “they” (Bourgeouse). Will you say Golvalkar and Marx are alike in content, substance and rhetoric? Moreover, Koran uses the word “Qaum” for nation. And according to Koran, the term Qaum comprises of people of different creed and beliefs. That’s why we see almost in all pages of Koran prophets addressing even his adversaries as Oh my Nation. ( “Ya Qaumi”), I don’t want even to compare Pre-partition Muslim League and RSS even though Muslim League and Jinnah had wrongly propounded two nation theory( Muslim Nation and Hindu nation in terms of two different Qaumiyyats) which was not in tandem with Koranic usage of Qaum as mentioned above. Actually, Maudoodi and JI were against this Qaumiyyat. I don’t know what you mean by an Ideology. May be it is a matter of difference of perception between us that you consider Hindutwa as an ideology. For me, Hindutwa is a kind of cultural nationalism. That’s what I was able to understand from the book “ We and our Nationhood defined”. Golvalkar and Hedgewar were not pious people las Jinnah and Liaqat were not. All of them are not known for leading their life based on the respective religions they belonged to even though all of them used their religions Hindu and Muslim for their vested and narrow political purposes. That’s why Lapierre and Collins had wondered when they said: Jinnah ate pork and drank alcohol, but was able to organize millions of Muslims behind him ( quoting is from memory) Maudoodi led a life based on Islam. I think you better look for some better had read it before 8 years in the beginning of when I wanted to study Islam . At that time I did not feel it espousing any kind of hatred. I will re-look into it. I know, this book is published all over the world. It is first time I have heard about this book espousing hatred.
In the end, let me summarize with a theme from one of Robert Frost’s poetry. People are tend to think from their own background. For me, I have travelled a long way and I am now at this juncture. Considering my track history, I know I cannot be diehard and I will correct myself if I am proven wrong at its first instance. I do understand before I was a fragmented and disintegrated personality drawn, dragged and pulled apart by different conflicting forces. Now as a Muslim who understand Islam as a comprehensive and complete code of life, I feel the comfort of an integrated personality. I know I cannot become the follower, activist, proponents and spokesmen of man-made ideologies in my mundane life as well and become fragmented again thereof . I am unable even to imagine me praying behind prophet Mohammad and becoming the activists of Abu Jahl in my socio-political life wherever I am ( be in Mecca or Medina or anywhere else). I may support Rome or Persia as part of prioritization I do have. But it will be based on Islam and not denying its political content. I do understand I cannot have diametrically split leaderships contrary to one another from Islamic perspective. A spiritual leadership for religious purpose and a contradictory political leadership for political purpose which I don’t find any example from the history of prophets and their followers mentioned in Koran. I hope with this statement, I have addressed the major topics you have raised. I think for an intelligent person like you, this itself will be sufficient to think further and build upon.
LikeLike
I wonder how youngsters can be so old.. …where have v the lost the anarchic energy to be irreverent and be crtical of all feudal ideology as religion whether from east or west.What prevents them from taking a critical look at Islam(or for that matter any relgion) and why do they suppose that all knoweldge for posterity is encapsulated and sealed in millenia old philosophies. Is this progressive?Is blasphemic energy on the wane from the world.
LikeLike
Dear Shahjahan,
The present world system even though has some virtues is widely oppressive. JIH definitely thinks this system should change and a better system should come which will give peace,justice, and prosperity to all earthlings. It will not come all of a sudden in a day-break,say like with the advent of Imam Al-Mahdi and Eesa maseeh(Jesus Christ) (pbuh), son of Mariam. It is an obligation for Muslims to oppose an evil with hand, if not possible with hand – with tongue , if not possible with tongue, it should be opposed by mind.r with JIH has tried to oppose this system with tongue and with mind, they are trying to bring a system change. It is done using peaceful, lawful and democratic ways. Why are the Hameed-Karesheri and other organizations so much worried about protecting this oppressive system?
LikeLike
No relgious organisation can face bodly and with clarity the scientific and factual truths without smuggling in their theological excesses in the neo lingo of discursive post’ isms.What is JM stand on Darwinism and science?They published a lot denigrating Darwinism in Madhyamam. A good certificate for their ‘progressive’ credentials!. Do they denounce intelligent design of christian fascists?…They share an inherent genetic affinity at its philosophic core with chrstian fascists intelligent design as a logical culmination of their core philosophic out look. Is sucha posture not retrograde….Is being secular antiimperilaistic without any supernatural idealism’s backing a sin in postmodern clime…..
Having said this, the solidarity and Jm in practice, has many plus points, in their activism. they fill the vacuum of a serious left in kerala on many issues, despite their jingoism on man woman relationship and interreligous marriages.
LikeLike
There are many dangerous organisation in India making terrorism and explostions daily and explicit proof also available. Then why this JIH is on discussion as the history and workings of JIH is openly available and there is no a single evidence that it did some mischieves.
LikeLike
Dear all, I am a new entrant and nice to see these healthy debates on JI and its views & stands. Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi (1903-1979) was one of the chief architects and leaders of the contemporary Islamic resurgence, is the most outstanding Islamic thinker and writer of our time. He devoted his entire life to expounding the meaning and message of Islam. I don’t think any Muslim organisation in India ha sthe following in its policies: “..The Jamaat shall strive to uphold the basic human rights, and work for the attainment of social, political and economic justice for all. It shall endeavour to promote human brotherhood and moral values, to establish peace, to restore and preserve democratic values and to safeguard the rights of religious, linguistic and cultural entities. It shall also endeavour to counter all such measures and activities as are detrimental to the basic human rights and values. The Jamaat shall, at every level, direct its criticism against the way of life based on oppression, exploitation and violence. It shall promote value-based politics. ..”
This is the strength of JI.
LikeLike
JIH likes criticism against it from inside aswell as outside and it also likes answering those criticism. So JIH is an organization that may start advertising ‘Criticizers needed immediately’ if all people stops all types of criticisms.
LikeLike
Hi,
Hameed is one of those specialized in attacking JI for last few years. He has been repeating same arguments, many of those already replied by JI leaders though.
At this time what’s he trying to convince is that many secularists have been trapped by JI through their various media. That means only few wise secularist like him only could realize it, but many eminent personalities like VR Krishna Iyer, Swami Agnivesh, Kuldip Nayyar, B.R.P Bhaskar, Justice Tharkunde, KP Ramanunni, Vanidas Elayavoor etc… were trapped by them.
Also regarding the appointment of PK Balakrsihnan, the first editor of Madhyamam Daily, it was not the decision of JI, but it’s by true Vaikkam Mohamed Basheer … !
-abusam
LikeLike
JI has succeeded in attracting many educated Muslim youngsters. The Islam presented by JI is the genuine version of Islam taught by Prophet Muhammad (S.A). That is why all fellow organisation in Kerala speaks against JI.
LikeLike
I wonder why Shajahan is avoiding the question of the similarities between Maudoodi and Golvaolkar..Any peice by Maudoodi contains any number of venomous statements comparable to those of Golvolkar.”‘The Maulana”and the ”Guruji”both dreamed of the destruction of pluralist India.No wonder they became such intimate bed-fellows during the emergency.
LikeLike
Response to Hameed by C. Dawood in Prabodanam Weekly
Click to access dawood.pdf
and more in latest Prabodanam.
http://www.prabodhanam.net/index.html
LikeLike
I pity and symathise with the plight of hameed chennamanagloore. he dared to take on religous orthodoxy in kerla. now he is facing music from the most brilliant/cunning postmodernists to religious out fits. his only sin was that he wanted his community men to be liberated rationally from clergy.The usual ploy of all religon to brand its crtics from inside is used against hamed too; that he is sponsored by other relgions. Sheer nonesense!…had it been true all sanghparivar intelligentsia would have been writing for him here. but see the very few supporters for hamid here and large number of ‘brilliant’ opponents. Atheists are always orphans, the real minority, with no takers.Having said that he suffers from a bit of myopic views, one has to admit.
LikeLike
The post-structural bookish intellectuals who doesnot have any root among the masses and who live in ivory towers without understanidg the dayto day struggles of the public can mouth obscure theories to drive home their points. One should understand the specifity of kerala’s social culture to comprehend the trajectory of its social drift. Till 70’s therwere progressive non marxists secularists of peaceful and militant variety who played a predominant role in all relgions and community in kerala,including minorities.Thus the satalwarts like M.C.joseph, At.Kovur, C.keshavan, Joseph Edmaruku, E.Ajabbar, Abdullah meppayoor, Seythumuhammdad, joseph pulikkunnen and pavanan strived for entrenching a secualr democratic space. But the neoliberal 90’s with its post-isms created a situation where any critical engagemnt with religious tenets where branded as anathema and enlightenment fascism by so-called intellectuals with dire consequences for the laymen within the said communities for individual freedom.
LikeLike
Give me post-structural intellectuals – or pre-structural ones for that matter – any day, rather than these highly structured intellectuals who always live among the masses and speak for the masses and whose words and thoughts remain forever the same. ‘Structured intellectuals’ like you are soo soo predictable. What they have to say can be said anywhere, anytime, on any post!
LikeLike
like Advani’s of hindutva and patrobinsons of the christian fundamentalism, there is no dearth of sectarian intolerant fanatics within Muslims.So branding any criticism of islamic life/ scriptrues as majoritarian fascism will scuttle all democratic impulses within it.Furthermore, whether right or wrong, what is wrong in exercising one’s democratic right of skepticism on theorems of yore.Why patronisng othercommunity intellectuals think of muslim women liberation to be only through islamic feminism and internalisation of the aesthetic defence of purdah, which first of all is alien to kerala.These liberals will do more harm for free souls.
LikeLike
No religion is perse oppressed. It is the culturally oppressed within it who are.Thus the black skinned majority massacred in biggest genocide in Asia go unsung by the official left to postmodernIslam.Rajpakse is accorded diplomat status by the state.The karat-yechuri duo can’t understand intheir busyschedule of (spatiallydistant) palestinian pesudo solidarity theatre to realise that blackskinned Adi-dravidians deserve atleast not to be killed in the vicinity.The Arundhatilikes of urban intelligentisa sing hoarse on fairskined northeast to kashmir’s subordination,noteven noticing a virtual extermination of blackskined race inAsia.Dalit puritans of kumarpushpbrand say the southindian darskinned women should welcome the fairskinned northindian muslim’s lust as liberatory.It speaks volume on the possibility of a black nonblack dalit dichotomy,tobe fought out.Finally, things percolates to theclassical position that the principle divide within hindu,musilm or christian is fair skin vs black or simplyracial divide apart from the only meaningful division, that is class…See how many defenders an elite Muslim group like JM has.
LikeLike
It is also JMI and CPMarxists are the two sides of one coin just like RSS. According to JMI the first priority of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of Islamic rule on earth, that of Marxists is to establish an autocracy of the proletariat I in the world. Both don’t have any belief in parliamentary democracy more than as a means to establish their autocracies – a heaven of justice and fairness for all – that is the duty binding on all Marxists and Muslims from their viewpoint. Both of them don’t allow any liberal democracy in their organizational structure just as RSS.
LikeLike
@mgradha
My understanding is that JI is strictly following Holy Quran, if so they cannot make any priorities to Muslims only. Because as Quran’s messages it’s for whole human beings.
Also we cannot point out any evidence of involvements of JI in various communal riots or political fights in India …
NB:
“Offering felicitations, Mr K P Ramanunni, an illustrious litterateur in Malayalam, said that the message of Prabodhanam was that the pen was to be used for guiding people to the right path shown by Allah. He lashed out at the attitude that excluded religion from public sphere and said that such an attitude would tantamount to rendering politics and public life devoid of any values and ethics. Citing the words of Gandiji, he said death would be preferable to politics without religion. Islam, he said, was not the exclusive property of Muslims but was for all humankind and contained some inherent antipathy to materialistic outlook and Capitalist worldview now rampant in society. He also suggested that like Islam was not for Muslims alone, Prabodhanam should also not be for them alone and should address the people and doctrines of other religions too.”
http://www.jihkerala.org/htm/english/news/Special%20Reports/26.10.2009.htm
-abusam
LikeLike
Dear Mr. Civillo,
Your rather long and theologically oriented posts are a strong defense of Maududism. All I am asking of the JI is to shed the secular pretensions and come out openly defending Abul A’la Maududi, as you are doing now. The ambiguous and rather misleading posturing that we see now is precisely what triggers the barrage of criticism again the JI. Let them state openly that their true goal is to eventually establish an Islamic state in India, giving non-Muslims the ‘honorable status’ of Jizya-paying subjects. Your posts are full of those justifications for such an Islamic state and such an interpretation of Islamic theology that JI publications are replete with. My comparison of Maududi with Golwalkar springs from no personal malice against the former or his followers; I have none. At a personal level, I continue to have and enjoy my debates and conversations with friends from the JI. But the differences remain as acute as they were when we began talking.
I don’t consider it prudent to discuss on the Kafila platform the nitty-gritty of Maududian justifications for the primacy of an Islamic state. For instance, the hair-splitting on the various meanings of Ibaada and such delicate theological issues may not be of much interest to Kafila readers. Most of them would, however, like to know whether or not the JI is still committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in India. They would also like to know whether or not its espousal of secularism and democracy a mere eye wash or genuine. If it is genuine, it is imperative on the JI to come out and explain which aspects of the foundational principles of the JI (all from Maududi) it currently subscribes to.
The theological debate on these aspects has already been taken to its logical conclusions by people who are far more competent than me on the subject. Since you read Malayalam, suffice me to draw your attention to three books that appeared in Malayalam to comprehensively grasp that whole debate, namely, Ibadatum Itaatum by K.P. Muhammed Maulavi, Ibadat Oru Samagrapathanam by K.C. Abdullah Maulavi and Ibaadat Veekshanangalude Tharathamyam by Cheriyamundam Abdul Hamid. (I am no apologist for Mujahid movement; it is just that I find myself agreeing with them on their criticism of Maududi. These three texts are enough to glean a clear understanding on this entire debate).
We began this whole discussion in response to Devika’s rejoinder to Hameed Chendamangalloor’s Mathrubhumi article. My contention with Devika was not in regard to what she said, but what she did not say, namely, the main thesis of Hameed’s article, which in my view made some very valid points. Unlike Hameed, I bear no grudge against religion per se, but consider it extremely important to raise our voices against those interpretations of religion that are explicitly antithetical to the foundational vision of a pluralist society, especially in the present context. I am especially worried about such interpretations coming from the Muslim community, for it is now – more than ever before – facing the twin-dangers of unadulterated hostility from a variety of forces, most notably the forces of Hindutwa and the deep-rooted prejudices of a section of the Indian state. The dubious attitude of the Indian state – albeit under a self-styled secular government – seems to have upturned in the case of Muslims the maxim that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty. A Muslim youth picked up by the cops on suspected involvement in an act of violence is declared a terrorist by the media, the state and the civil society with hardly any attention being paid to the merits and demerits of the case. In these ominous circumstances, I identify three areas as the primary sites of democratic struggles for the dignity and honor of victimized communities, especially Muslims: The attitude of the State, the forces of Hindutwa and other sectarian elements and – equally importantly – extremist strands of thought emanating from within the Muslim community. Maududi, in my view, merits description as a rabidly communalized rabble-rouser whose ideas inspired a host of extremist and militant groups during the past half a century or more. I will randomly quote a few statements from Maududi’s numerous books to give the readers a taste of his thinking, which his apologists would term insightful, original and revolutionary. It is all these three, I grant, but it is extremely dangerous too for a country like India, the fragile social fabric of which is becoming weaker and weaker every day. Please see the following quotes and judge for yourself. If you feel I have quoted out of context or distorted in any way his thoughts, please let me know; I will be more than happy to correct and make amends.
“So without the desire for authority, there is no meaning for calling to a particular philosophy, and there is no meaning for what is lawful and what is forbidden, nor for the prescribed laws.” (Tajdeedud-Deen, p. 32-33)
“Therefore the goal aspired for in the mission of the prophets in this world did not cease till the establishment of the Islamic government upon the earth.” (Tajdeedud-Deen, p.34).
He wrote on prophet Joseph the following (comparing him to no one other than Mussolini, a statement that also gives us a hint of the kind of Islamic state he had in mind!): “This (his request to become the custodian of Egypt) was not a demand to be the Minister of Finance only, as some people understand, this was not a demand of the ministerial office of finance only, but a demand for dictatorship. As a result, this position which Sayyidinaa Yusuf (Joseph) got is almost the same which Mussolini enjoyed in Italy in these days.”( Tafheemaat, Part II, p.122, 5th edition)
“When the Holy prophet took the sword in his hand, the hearts began shedding the rust which had covered them and people started turning to Islam.” (For those of you who understand Urdu, the original runs like this: “Jabb aapkay haath main talvaar aaee, to dilon par say sadiyon kay zang chutnay lagay.” )
In the chapter about Jihad in Let us be Muslims, he explains: “Briefly speaking, it would be enough to state that the real objective of Islam is to remove the lordship of man over man and to establish the kingdom of God on earth. To stake one’s life and everything else to achieve this purpose is called Jihad while Salah, fasting, Hajj, and Zakat are all meant as a preparation for this task….The duty devolves on you that wherever you are, in whichever country you live, you must get up there for the reform of Allah’s creation, try to transform the wrong principles of government into correct principles, snatch away the power of legislation and lordship from those who do not fear Allah and are unbridled. And then taking over the leadership and superintendence of Allah’s servants, conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with Allah’s laws and with belief in their responsibility and accountability in the Hereafter as also in Allah being the Knower of the unseen. The name of this striving is Jihad.” (Let Us Be Muslims, Chapter 7)
In Jihad fil Islam, Maududi wrote: “Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of this ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of standard-bearer of Islam, and regardless of the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic state. Islam requires the earth – not just a portion, but the entire planet – not because the sovereignty over the earth should be wrested from one nation or group of nations and vested in any one particular nation, but because the whole of mankind should benefit from Islam, and its ideology and welfare program. It is to serve this end that Islam seeks to press into service all the forces which can bring about such a revolution. The term which covers the use of all these forces is Jihad. To alter people’s outlook and spark a mental and intellectual revolution is a form of Jihad. To change the old tyrannical system and establish a just new order by the power of the sword is also Jihad, as is spending wealth and undergoing physical exertion for this cause.”
“The Messenger of Allah invited the Arabs to accept Islam for 13 years. He used every possible means of persuasion, gave them incontrovertible arguments and proofs, showed them miracles and put before them his life as an example of piety and morality. In short, he used every possible means of communication, but his people refused to accept Islam. When every method of persuasion had failed, the prophet took to the sword. That sword removed evil mischief, the impurities of evil and the filth of the soul. The sword did something more -it removed their blindness so that they could see the light of truth, and also cured them of their arrogance; arrogance which prevents people from accepting the truth, stiff necks and proud heads bowed with humility…As in Arabia and other countries, Islam’s expansion was so fast that within a century a quarter of the world accepted it. This conversion took place because the sword of Islam tore away the veils which had covered men’s hearts.” (Al-Jihad fil Islam, pp. 137-8)
Maududi further explains: “Human relations and associations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action within its own principles, unless those same principles are in force in a neighboring country. Therefore, Muslim groups will not be content with the establishment of an Islamic state in one area alone. Depending on their resources, they should try to expand in all directions. On one hand, they will spread their ideology and on the other they will invite people of all nations to accept their creed, for salvation lies only in it. If their Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.” (Haqiqat-i-Jihad, p 64).
Non-Muslims are Zimmi and therefore must pay the Jizya. He wrote on Jizya: “…the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of Jizya. For it is obvious that a maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. … Jews and the Christians …should be forced to pay Jizya in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way….That is why the Islamic state offers them protection, if they agree to live as Zimmis by paying Jizya, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and establish them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring an end to their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.” (The Meaning of the Qur’an, Vol. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) l 2, page 183 & page 186,last paragraph.)
I should have perhaps avoided using the term Maududism since it is anathema to you!! But the fact remains that what sets JI apart from other Muslim or Islamic organizations in the whole Indian subcontinent is Maududism, no more, no less! If I concede, as you asked me, what JI stands for is Islam per se with no qualifiers (like Maududism), then there would have been no reason for us to debate this issue at all!!
I did not want to get sucked into the theological nitty-gritty simply because I am afraid it will take us further away from our core issue.
Warmly,
Shajahan Madampat
PS: In case you are interested in continuing the discussion on the finer theological points of Maududism, let us do so through emails, instead of dragging Kafila readers into it. Your overall argument seems to corroborate my contention; that JI is still committed to the pursuit of an Islamic state in India. If that is the case, why don’t they come out and state that position clearly; instead of indulging in pious secular platitudes?
LikeLike
Mr John was explaining what allegations made by Mr. Shajahan then Shajahan Says all that are theoritical gritty – nitty. Also regarding the Maududi’s Quotings; you can make the same ccomplaints against Quran. If you dont consider Quran as a Whole, if you qoute some perticular ayats only.. then you can say the same you are saying about JI. And finally why these kind of discussions should take back to personal emails? Let others also read and learn.
LikeLike
Asghar Ali Engineer says in his latest article:
“Islam, in India, has very different image and Muslims are not involved in any international terroristic activities…even Jamat-e-Islami-Hind also had to accept secular values and is now even thinking of joining democratic political processes which its founder once had declared haram in Islam.”
LikeLike
I wish I could quote all the works of Maulana Maududi in full! The statements quoted are very much integral to his main argument, the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth and therefore no amount of contextualization is going to vindicate them. The theoretical nitty-gritty in question has all been discussed in detail in numerous books; I have referred to a few in my post as well.
LikeLike
Engineer’s observation is absolutely correct as far as the ground-reality is concerned. JI is all set to plunge into electoral politics. But the paradox is a JI member can participate and win an election only at the cost of his membership in the organization. The conditions for membership in JI include the following (JI constitution, article 8 & 9):
Relinquish any key-post which he/she holds under an ungodly governmental system, or the membership of its legislature or a judicial office under its judicial system;
In case of being part of any ungodly governmental system or being instrumental in giving effect to its laws, should readily part with that means of sustenance;
Not go to un-Islamic law-courts for settlement of matters except under compelling necessity
Let us see how they solve this puzzle!
Shajahan Madampat
LikeLike
Shajahan,
I think I understand and can appreciate the point you were trying to make here.
Nevertheless, my concern will continue to be with a tendency to instantly branding, for example, by mere association with one label or other, rather than with the essential content or context of one’s thoughts / action.
One professing Hinduism ( mostly, casteism unabashedly displayed with proud, or brain dead apathy to extreme forms of institutionalized crimes against dalits) or Christianity is not seen as someone posing a grave challenge to peace and secularism; on the contrary, if he or she happens to be a devout Muslim, warning signals all around, secular or official!
Admittedly, this kind of selective treatment to Islam lies in that Islam with its ideology of universalistic moorings happens to be comparatively more political than merely religious . The contemporary sovereign state appears more compelled to follow the diktats of a globalized capital and its militaristic policies worldwide, than policies conducive to the happiness and well being of its own peoples belonging to all faiths.
Naturally, it follows that Islam is conceived as a potential threat to the order driven by the only motivation of profit and naked aggression.
Putting JMI or even Moududi in perspective would make more sense than singularly treating it par with the RSS. At least in India, the whole difference lies in the former being in antagonistic relations with the state whereas the latter enjoys a great deal of state patronage. You are confronted with a substantially Hindu but formally secular, or , with an essentially neo-liberalist but structurally centrist state power; it is against this peculiarity that a kind of discrimination between faiths do matter in the interests of long term alliances in peoples’ struggles for democracy,peace and secularism and against the neo liberal and increasingly militarising state.
Coming back to Hameed Chennamangalur, there seems to exist a constituency of brain dead secularists (like many atheists) who shuns politics and yet want to be the leaders of thought. It may be in service of this category Mr Hameed Chennamangalur sermonizes on Islam. Fortunately and thanks to the alternative modes of communication, there are people who would like to listen to every other view point and want to be dialogging rather than passively listening to scholars like Hameed; the latter have probably not yet turned off the faculty of capturing the nuances and subtleties of the debates on Islam taking place within and outside the country.
Again, (perhaps) this is why Hameed , as he wrote a review of the Malayalam translation of Fatema Mernissi bluntly told his readers that “the translator had either subverted or distorted Mernissi’s ideas”! Don’t ask him to substantiate because he is supposed to be the authority of all ‘progressive/secular ‘ discourses ‘on’ (read against) Islam!
LikeLike
Dear Shahjahan.
Thanks for your new posting. Sorry to say that I felt it altogether as a new pickwickian subject, esoteric and idiosyncratic. Now, you seems to have flown to the new subjects which also I want to address . It was you who had opened the subjects like of JI and Democracy, JI and Secularism, Sovereignty in Koran, Meaning of Ibadat and JI, Golvalkar and Maudoodi. It was you who had asked the question related to obedience and Shirk. It was again from you the justification for labeling JI with Maudoodism with an example of Marxism. I am sorry to note that I did not receive any comment from you on all these subjects, even though I had expected from you something substantial on all these subjects to enrich my knowledge, except your justification for clinging on labeling JI as Maudoodism which for me is very peripheral and superficial. It was astonishing to see a person like Shajahan clinging on such labeling in the most unconvincing way.
I think the truth seeking mentality will keep aloof from such labeling. The word used for Koranic verses are Ayaat which itself means leading to some other implicit truths other than what is explicit from the verse itself. So, there is an immense possibility of having different interpretations. However, each and every interpretation of Koran which are distinct from others, cannot be termed and called “Razism”, “Tabarism”, “Ghazalism”, “Ibin Taimiyyism”, “Ibn Katheerism”, “Wahhabism” Qutubism ect. As far as Maudoodi’s interpretation is concerned, although it is in modern Urdu language and using modern terminologies, it corroborates, except in the issues related to the modern world, with classical tafseers and can be traced back mostly to Razi, Kashaf, Ibn Katheer, Ibn Taimiyya and Abdul Wahab’s interpretations . For me, the intelligent, the objective and just path is to keep aloof from such labeling as long as the proponents do not claim to be so. (You can correlate it with the Koranic methodology when it did not call or address the People of Books as polytheists even though they do associate a son to to the very entity of God and believed in trinity since they don’t claim or believe to be polytheists. Koran addressed them with respect and called them “People of Books”). Otherwise, it will be tantamount to imposing our arguments on others, even though we might be true in our arguments as in the case of our stand towards Christians beliefs. And more importantly, this is not the right way of engaging in a serious debate.
I am not interested in seesawing back and forth. I know freedom is prone to err and Koranically, repentance and correction there of elevates freedom to the level of humanity (Adam’s case) while arrogance and obstinacy relegates it into the level of devil ( Case of Iblis).
Shahjahan, the discussion related to Ibaadat is not theological as you mentioned. You seems to use some word not in its right sense. Theology is a metaphysical subject related to God, his oneness, form, qualities, attributes. I had not written on theology at all, leave alone its hair-splitting elements! The closest word in Arabic for theology will be Ilmul Kalam. Concept of Ibadat defines relationship of human being with God, himself, society and environment and to the world itself as a whole. I had given you its explanation from linguistic, logical, cosmological, etymological and philological perspectives. I had correlated it with the term of “ Islam” itself. Then, I wanted you to look into it from the similar words of Ilah, Deen and Rabb which also corroborates and correlates with it. Now, you are listing to me three books written by KP Mohammad Maulavi, KC Abdulla Maulavi and AH Madani. One who studies those books objectively ( I can confidently say that I did study the subject objectively and the books mentioned by you as well as part of studying Islam) will easily understand the weakness of KNM’s interpretation. That’s why KNM was not willing to accept JI’s proposal to publish both version in one Book. Moreover, as I understand, almost all factions of KNM seem to have given up this subject as a point of dispute between them and JI even though they have not evolved yet accordingly. History as explicitly illustrated in those books will help us to give an idea as to know where KNM’s stand was before and after the split and apart from other wastage of resources how much resources they had spoilt on it also.
As I understand, JI’s stand towards democracy and secularism in its different forms have been unequivocally and explicitly articulated in a crystal clear way. Then your question if JI’s current stand to Indian Secularism is tact or truth. As I understand, Indian secularism as stipulated in the constitution is simply a concurrence and juxtaposition of a Koranic verse commanding to rule among people with justice without discriminating them based on caste, colour and/or religion. So, it is not and cannot be a tact. Rather it is part and parcel of core principle of an Islamic polity itself. After all, Equality is one of the fundamental principles of Islam which correlates both Indian version of constitutional secularism and some aspects of modern democracy. In my previous posting, I had very clearly elaborated on where JI differs on secularism and Democracy. I don’t want to repeat it again. I just want to say, the sicussion on western secularism and democracy is not related to JI only. It is rather related to core of Islamic beliefs itself.
With regard to the concept of Islamic state. As I understand, JI’s constitution, which is available in the market, very clearly and unambiguously speaks and elaborates on its goal, Iqamatudheen. So, what else you want? Moreover, Arif Ali in his interview with Mathrubhoomi also has spoken about it in an unequivocal way. If a person or organization has got a vision on state, democracy even in its ugliest form cannot not deny him/it the right to speak about it as long as he/it does not upset the apple cart of the peaceful existence of the pluralistic society. So, dear Shahjahan, What is the problem you face here? You have got all the right to prove JI’s interpretation of Islam is antithetical to fundamental principle of Islam. That was what I was actually expecting from you.
Now you have brought up a new subject of Jizya issue!. Actually, it is not JI’s issue. Rather, it is an issue mentioned in Koran. In this regard, I hope you to show the boldness to relate it directly to Koran itself. What is preventing you from relating it to Koran directly? Personally speaking, I am a new comer to these kind of topics and I am a humble learner of Koran, prophet and Islam from an academic perspective. I really don’t know what is JI’s stand towards this. Neither I know how did Maudoodi interpret this subject. For me, it is only a part of details of pluralistic Islamic polity, not part of core principles of Islamic polity. I had thought this subject from a different plain and perspective. What I understand Islam is totally against imposition of creed, belief and observations thereof and thereby. Moreover, Islam as a state is very sensitive to the sentiments of the followers of different religions. If Islam was to impose Zakat on non-Muslim citizens of its state, it would have been tantamount to imposition of one of the cardinal affairs of Islam, as a religion, on the people who do not follow it. Islamic state wants to keep aloof from this. This is an example of how Islam respects different religions and their beliefs. So, it wanted them to give Jizya in place of Zakat without wounding or hurting their feelings and sentiments arising out of their religious feelings. This also exemplifies another issue in dispute between me and you regardless of if we agree with it or not. That’s if Islam has got a vision on State or not.
With respect to the three quotings from Maudoodi that you had excerpted, I have not seen the books that you have mentioned. And I don’t know how to read Urdu even though I know a little bit of Hindi. I will try to read it if it is available in any other language. So, I won’t be able to comment on it since I don’t know the context. Having said it, let me say what I understand apparently from your quoting is nothing but what I do understand it from Koran. The relationship between Book and Power. In Koran there is a verse: “Hold the Book with Power”. There is another verse which gives picture of Book and Power with a balancing scale in between it. In another place prophet is asked, in the context of his migration from Mecca to Medina, to pray for Power that makes him victorious (Koranic word “ Naseera” which has got another meaning “Helping” also). Koran wants to liberate people from all kinds of chains that prevent and obstruct them moving to the direction of their own true nature. Koran wants to undo and unload all the neck-breaking weights that have been put on the shoulders of people which hamper even their movement. Koran wants to undo all the walls that have been built in all sides of the people obstructing even their vision. Apart from the gloss and shine of the language, what Maudoodi seems to be interpreting and postulating is the same. So, I do agree that your question is very relevant. But, you need to take it beyond Maudoodi to Koran itself. Actually, as Koran itself said, people act based on their vision. Shahjahan has got a vision about Religion and thinks from that background. Maudoodi has got a different vision on Islam from Koran and prophet’s life and speaks from that background.
Dear Shajahan, you said “Maududi, in my view, merits description as a rabidly communalized rabble-rouser whose ideas inspired a host of extremist and militant groups during the past half a century or more”. I do respect your opinion while I do doubt even its integrity. In previous postings, you had mentioned JI as sophisticated, peaceful and refined. You had mentioned that they are not engaging in any communal riot or militant activities. You had mentioned JI is following Maudoodi also. Now, you say Maudoodi’s ideas inspired a host of extremist and militant groups during the past half a century or more. Your argument looks most paradoxical . It seems as if you are arguing that a mango put in salt is saltier than salt itself! Apart from the fact that Maudoodi was staunchly against communalism and interpreted Islam and Koran from a humanitarian perspective which was very distinctive from the then understanding of Islam and Muslim, let me ask you dear Shahjahan, If Maudoodi’s ideas have not inspired JI itself into militant activities, whom it has inspired? The western powers wrongly relates the militancy and extremism to Mohamad Ibn Abdul Wahab and globally they term Salafis as extremists and militants (example: vide the interview with Gangadharan Sir published in Mathrubhoomi) . It was in this context, MN Karessery wrote an article in Mathrubhoomi saying “ This Wahaabites are not that Wahaabites” (title quoted. Personally, I don’t do or like such disrespectful labeling). If you go further with these kind of false arguments, you can even trace the ‘militancy’ and ‘extremism’ to Koran itself from which every Jack, Harry and Tom find justification for their acts. This is completely a new topic. For you information, the people blamed for this may not agree even with terminologies of “ Militancy” and “ extremism” attributed to them. I hope you will not switch to another ten new topics in your new posting.
LikeLike
John,
I have been following your debate with Shajahan and I have to admit that I appreciate your audacity in displaying your Islamist ideals so openly. In my opinion, in the context of this debate , I think you should stick to the basic questions raised by Shajahan in his first post, like ,does JI still stick on to the agenda of Islamisation of India ,rather than bragging endlessly on Isalm ,Quran and Islamic jargons. As an Indian I’m worried of what would happen to the pluralistic Indian society if an Islamist organisation comes to power .Will our great temples , Elephenta caves ,Ajanta Ellora caves ,Religious festivities ,Art etc still continue to exist or will they have the destiny of Budhas of Bamyan ? Will they be destroyed as they are against the teaching of the Quran ?(You can justify such an action by cherry-picking from the Quran…anything can be justified by quoting a holy book !)Also when you try to vindicate Abdul Wahab’s puritan version Islam in your post , I have a reason to worry. I believe that if you mix Maudoodism with Wahabbism ( oops , I have to resort to” labelism”here !)you will get an explosive recipe for cultural death and destruction.This lethal combination is exemplified in the personalities of Bin Laden and S.Zawahiri .
Lastly,I find it rather amusing to see that an Islamist having a name like John Civillo !Sorry if Iam sounding cynical ! Shajahan has a face here…many of us know him thru his writings ,but the name John Civillo is faceless and very unlikely for an ardent follower of Maudoodi. Isn’t it better to use the real name than the pseudonyms when you pen your dearest principles?(Pardon me if Iam wrong)
LikeLike
Shaji wrote :
Lastly,I find it rather amusing to see that an Islamist having a name like John Civillo !Sorry if Iam sounding cynical ! Shajahan has a face here…many of us know him thru his writings ,but the name John Civillo is faceless and very unlikely for an ardent follower of Maudoodi. Isn’t it better to use the real name than the pseudonyms when you pen your dearest principles?(Pardon me if Iam wrong)
ജോൺ എൽ. എസ്പൊസിറ്റോ മുതൽ ജോൺ സിവില്ലൊ വരെ..അതല്ലെങ്കിൽ വാണിദാസ് എളായാവൂർ വരെ ഉള്ളവർക്ക് ഇസ്ലാമിക വ്യവസ്ഥയെപറ്റി നല്ലതു പറയണമെങ്കിൽ ആദ്യം പൊന്നാനിയിൽ പോയി തൊപ്പി ഇട്ടുകൊള്ളണം!. ഇല്ലെങ്കിൽ സകരിയ്യയുടെയും സി.ആർ.നീലകണ്ഠന്റെയും താഴെ ഇനിയും പേരുകൾ എഴുതിച്ചേർക്കേണ്ടി വരുമെന്നർത്ഥം!. അന്യന്റെ ശബ്ദം സംഗീതം പോലെ ആസ്വദിക്കുന്ന ഈ മതേതര ഫാഷിസം കേരളത്തിൽ വളരുക തന്നെയാണ് എന്ന് സമ്മതിച്ചേ തീരൂ. (താൻ പറയുന്നത് അങ്ങേ അറ്റം നിന്ദ്യമാണ് എന്ന് അറിയാവുന്നതു കൊണ്ടു തന്നെയാണ് ആവർത്തിച്ച ക്ഷമാപണത്തോടെയുള്ള ഇത്തരം കമ്മന്റുകൾ)
LikeLike
why is km.venugopalan so agitated about hameed’s review on his translation of fatema mernissi?why he is bringing up this repeatedly in his post? is this radical intellectual so intolerant of dissenting views on his writing to display unashamedley his personal grudge? after all the debate is on jm and its ideology.
LikeLike
@Mohan Chandran
After all….,yes and no!
The debate, I believe has much to do with the issue of intellectual honesty and I certainly had a related issue to raise. That was indeed connection with the slanderous and rhetorical way of discrediting any honest debate. In this case, about Islam & women.
But for the reference already has been made in relation to the hue and cry against a phantom what Devika called “intellectual jehad” in her original post , I would not have had any reason to mention the name of Mr Hameed..
Nonetheless, I believe dissenting by expressing a comment is not same as irresponsibly accusing someone of having committed a serious crime like subverting or distorting the essential points of a world renowned author and that too, by means of a translation!
I hope you will understand this is not an attempt to personally settle the scores; however, I hope this will be my last post here if at all this is streamed.
LikeLike
Firstly i want to tell you that my name no one can be a muslim as per Islamic law. If you are a muslim you should obay the 5 important things like 5 times prayer and Fasting during Ramdan etc. so as Mr Hameed Chennamangallore is not doing such things he is not muslim at all.. So he colud not speak againts any muslim community as a muslim. If he want to give any certificate he sholud atleast obay Islamic rules.
so i think no need to discuss about his writing mathrubhoomi as he is just an illiterate in Islam.
LikeLike
@ Mohan Chandran / Devika
My apologies for having assumed in my comment that “Intellectual Jihad” in Devika’s title was a phrase coined in a light vein by her; only on a revisit to the post that I could find the usage itself had come from Mr Hameed.
LikeLike
Dear Shajahan,
In order to get clear picture on your views about JI’s stand on various issues, can we restructure this discussion in an orderly manner with separate sessions for each subjects? Otherwise readers may be confused or it would be ambiguous with unstructured long writings.
In this session, can you please explain about Indian Jamaath e islami’s views on Secularism, Democracy and Nationalism ?
-Abusam
LikeLike
Please read books by Abul A’la Maududi and other JI writers on these topics. That will help you hear it from the horse’s mouth, sans my judgmental approach! Even when I disagree vehemently, I greatly enjoy Maududi’s elegant prose . (So is the other major Islamist thinker, Syed Qutub. His Arabic prose is very elegant). I am sure you will enjoy them too and at the same time get a clear understanding of their views.
Shajahan
LikeLike
Please can we get the debate back on the current atmosphere in which islamophobia is being encouraged in the guise of a critique of JI?
I wonder why the liberals seems to assume that others know little of JI’s conservatism. I’m quite amused at this assumption because it is not really the so-called liberals (who either limit their liberalism to political liberalism or thrive through hypocrisy) but some of us who think it necessary to go beyond liberalism who took on Madhyamam when its ugliest face — its willingness to go completely undemocratic and even uncivil — was revealed during the debates around legalising same-sex love and issues around sex work. I think I know enough of that. However, I also think the current feverish attack on JI by the dominant left is fueled by two reasons: one, the CPM’s sudden lurch towards the Hindu religious right and two, by the need of all political parties to clear the way so that Kinaloor-like land acquisitions and evictions are smoothly conducted.
It is really sad that our liberals find their voice against religious conservatism only now, when the Muslim community is under attack under this guise. No wonder the soft Hindu intellectuals in Kerala are busy congratulating Shajahan. If he thinks these congratulations are because they have something against me, he is mistaken. They actually have nothing against me. In fact they are happy because he is actually taking the bait.
These long-winding theological debates on JI may be interesting, but I do hope that we don’t forget the current conjecture. Maudani has been chargesheeted and will be arrested — and we won’t even be asking if there is a shred of decent evidence that justifies this act. And the precedent will be set. The current hysteria that discredits not just JI but also the spokespersons of other kinds of politics that utilized the space it opened, and in fact reduces ‘identity politics’ to ‘Muslim politics’ is going to seriously shrink democratic space in Kerala. It is already happening but our suave liberals carry on. They ought to read Arendt’s report on the Adolph Eichmann trial, especially what she says about the leaders of the Jewish community who walked into Hitler’s trap.
LikeLike
The reason why Devika and some others took on Madhyamam then is precisely the reason why someone like me (I don’t want to speak on behalf of others) now chose to criticize the JI. Islamophobia was very much here then, as it is now; but the presence of Islamophobia then did not prevent Devika and others from taking on Madhyamam . The trigger then was the ‘willingness to go completely undemocratic and even uncivil,’ where as now it is their gimmicks to hide their ‘willingness to go completely undemocratic and even uncivil.’
When Devika insinuates that the likes of us are walking into ‘our’ own Hitlers’ trap, I can’t find better words to respond than her own: “The fact that intellectuals, radicals and others, do utilize the spaces set up by the Jamaat or nationalists, or left radicals does not mean that they are unaware of or necessarily agree with whatever agendas these groups may have. To do so it is to deny the them agency. In fact, Chennamangalur’s respectful address of ‘radical intellectuals’ is nothing but a rhetorical ploy to reduce the blame that he places on them’ by saying that they are misled by their ‘innocence’. This is also a cunning way of denying them agency.” (while reading, please replace the words and names to match this quote to our present context). So please don’t deny me my agency, following in the footsteps of Hameed Chendamangalloor!
If Devika’s statement (It is really sad that our liberals find their voice against religious conservatism only now, when the Muslim community is under attack under this guise), may I humbly submit I have done it all through, starting from my first book published way back in 1997. I also consistently wrote against Islamophobia and the Hindu Right during the past fifteen years. (This is beside the point and I am sorry for this; I am pretty clear about my own insignificance. I am forced to bring in this personal element because her post has unnecessarily personalized the whole debate). Contrast this with the rather long posts by Mr. John, who is obviously a great admirer of Maulana Maududi, but he never deviated from the norms of a healthy debate.
That said, I completely agree with the last part of Devika’s post: The hatred of Muslims and things Islamic is assuming such alarming proportions that we all need to put our heads and minds together and join in united action (without denying each other our respective agencies). But to argue that all other debates and discussions should come to a halt until Islamophobia is driven out is hilarious!
Shajahan Madampat
LikeLike
Devika’s courage and intelligence has to appreciated.but only generally.She is in the forefront in Kerla to defend Mulsim rights and various other marginalised sections!But doubt whether she too is myopic in certain aspects.
When it comes to defending the rights of sex workers, she castigates all other progressive sections from radical feminist to others and blows trumpets as the only cahmpion of all progressive thought process there. probably,She is not even willing to indulge in a discussion with the theoeretical positions behind the ire of radical socilaist femininists on sex as a commercialsed work as such. There, devika too, I would say, lends suport inadvertantly to the ideology of the most heinous commodification and exploitation of women’s body when she promotes sex as a commercialised work instead sex as free expression of human bonding.This indirectly justify the rights of vulturist capitalism to exist as a system by promoting trade in female body.What a pity!
LikeLike
I don’t see where I said that all other debates should come to a halt before Islamophobia is driven out. I’m only saying that the criticism of Chennamangalur’s article had a different thrust — which I hope will be taken seriously. I’m sure the critique of JI ideology has happened and is happening and it is indeed very important to keep the question under debate. But the danger I was trying to point to was another — and it appears now that it has been brushed aside as unimportant. I would argue that at this moment the danger I’m trying to point out is more serious. I don’t think there is reason to think, contrary to Chennamangalur and the soft Hindutva intellectuals, that the JI is on the brink of taking over the Malayalee public sphere; but I think there is a real danger of anti-Muslim sentiment becoming hegemonic.
Nor do I see where I ‘personalized’ the debate — it is a fact that the soft Hindutvavadis are praising shajahan for his foresight but I don’t see how stating that is ‘personalizing’ the debate.
I also do know that through the 20th century, a Muslim public has debated key issues including the very grounding of the community and that Muslim conservatism has been consistently critiqued. But there are key moments in which social conservatism hegemonizes the entire public sphere — which are not often — when it is able to carry along a wide range of diverse groups in asserting its exclusionary agenda. In the debates around the legalisation of same sex love and sex workers, the JI, the Hindutva elements, and the progressives and many liberals as well were all well-grouped around Malayalee nationalistic moralism.And that is when we needed the liberals most. Well, now Islamophobia is turning hegemonic, and we are all merrily flowing with the tide.
And I do disagree that the debates around legalization of same-sex love and sex work also happened in a cultural atmosphere that is the same as today’s. Indeed not. The turn against the Muslim community is unprecedented at this moment in Kerala and I don’t think we need to search very hard to see why.
LikeLike
I think we can close this debate now(at least between you and me). The danger of Islamophobia that is sweeping Kerala right now is far more dangerous than any thing else; I can’t agree more with you. As I clearly said several times in my posts, my intension was only to question the JI on its core ideology while making it amply clear that it never indulged in communal violence nor promoted antipathy against other religious communities. I also hoped such pressure from all sides will persuade the JI to further distance from the utopia of Islamic state, as has been happening over the past few decades in the realm of praxis, if not precepts. I hope I have been careful enough to keep the nuances of the argument clear throughout.
I do agree the purpose of the CPI (M) in raising this issue at this point is immediate electoral gains. I have no illusions about our dominant lelf. I have no difference of opinion with you on the overarching consensus across the political spectrum for the neoliberal agenda. Whatever differences we have are merely on tactical details, which can and must be set aside in view of the more pressing and consequential issues. Thank you very much for triggering this rather energetic debate with your article.
LikeLike
I think we can close this debate now(at least between you and me). The danger of Islamophobia that is sweeping Kerala right now is far more dangerous than any thing else; I can’t agree more with you. As I clearly said several times in my posts, my intension was only to question the JI on its core ideology while making it amply clear that it never indulged in communal violence nor promoted antipathy against other religious communities. I also hoped such pressure from all sides will persuade the JI to further distance from the utopia of Islamic state, as has been happening over the past few decades in the realm of praxis, if not precepts. I hope I have been careful enough to keep the nuances of the argument clear throughout.
I do agree the purpose of the CPI (M) in raising this issue at this point is immediate electoral gains. I have no illusions about our dominant lelf. I have no difference of opinion with you on the overarching consensus across the political spectrum for the neoliberal agenda. Whatever differences we have are merely on tactical details, which can and must be set aside in view of the more pressing and consequential issues. Thank you very much for triggering this rather energetic debate with your article.
LikeLike
Dear Shahjahan and Devika,
Historically speaking Islamophobia has been there from the beginning of Prophethood of Mohammad. Koranically it is only a kind of creation of boisterous atmosphere to overcome the music of truth. Koran said: Those who disbelieve says: Do not listen to the Koran, create fuss and ado so that you may become able to overcome” (41:26). History is replete with this fuss and ado. Recently, this has been given the title of Islamophobia. Again Koran says how to respond to it: “You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will hear from those who were given the scriptures before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But, if you are patient and vigilant and if you have forbearance – Indeed that is of the matter (worthy) of determination” (3:186). Again Koran says: “ They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths”. I think those verses reflect and exemplifiy the history of western relationship with Islam. Europe’s socio-political and literary history actually explains those verses. Europe and Papacy resorted to the tricks of disinformation, misinformation, manipulation, distortion, interpolation and misappropriation to make travesty of Islam. They even spread lies. They mixed false and fallacies with facts. They wanted to conceal and dissemble the truth. They orchestrated character assassination of prophet Mohammad, the greatest human being the history of mankind has ever seen. They had started this from the time of Prophet Mohammad himself. It continued throughout history in general and during the 11 centuries from 7th to 18th in particular when Islam and Muslims were stronger in all walks and fields of life. For example Catholic Encyclopedia says (even) Martin Luther believed Mohammad as first born son of Devil. During the period of 17th, 18th and 19th centuries of European colonization Astro –Asian, African and American continents, Europe was able to ethnically and culturally cleanse all provinces like America, Australia and New- Zeal-Land (the new name given by British for the Maoris’ old land of Aotearoa) wherever there was no strong presence of Islam and Muslims. How to deal with Islam and Muslims always posed the big question mark for Westerners. I started studying Islam from the books written by Orientalists. I can say any body who goes through the literatures, thoughts and social history of Europe during the middle ages will see the same . Let me give some examples for you: Divine Comedy of Dante, Mahomet, a tragic play written by Voltaire (simply a pitiable dramatic version of lies fabricated by Church and Papacy – You cannot believe a thinker like Voltaire swallows whatever Church and Papacy had vomited when it is related to Islam and Mohammad). Sultan’s Court, the book written by Alain Gosrichard is a survey of Orientalist texts written during 17th and 18th centuries. The books written by Baudier Michael ( the French), Cusa and Alfonso A Spina ( Spanish), Humfferey Phidieu (English) are only some examples of how lies can be concocted and fabricated, how to tarnish the ever illuminating face of prophet Mohammad, the greatest leader of the world and after all how to program and condition the minds of millions by creating myths, prejudices and reservations, when you deal with Islam and Muslims. For its latest version, you may read “Rage and Pride” and “Force of Reason” and “Thwarting Eurabia” written by Oriano Fallaci, a well known Italian journalist.
Dear Devika, the modern Islamophobia has got the same hues and colours of the anti-Islam propaganda carried out by Europe during the dark middle ages. It is a recent development in Kerala. Apart from Hindu fascists, what do I observe is some Christian elements seem to be following the same methods adopted by church and papacy of the middle ages in Europe without understanding the socio-cultural pitfalls. That’s what we see in the books published and distributed in Pathanamthitta, in the question paper of Thodupuzha Newman college, the role played by Christian Church in controversy of Love Jihad, intolerance towards Muslim students in different educational institutions ect. I am sure, this anti-Islam propaganda of which love Jehad and Intellectual Jehad are not the starting point is not going to be the finishing point as well. This will continue in other names probably of Investment Jehad, Softsware Jehad ect. I do observe a pattern also in all these developments. I can understand the fear psychosis of Christian community towards Islam. Scripturally and Intellectually, they do understand that the Christian beliefs built on irrational grounds with no historical support, cannot withstand against Islam. That’s why we never see Christian community in Kerala conducting a cultural debate, symposiums or seminars involving others in general and Muslims in particular while all sects and factions of Muslims do conduct it abundantly involving other religionists. This may be because of the confidence level Muslims have got over others in general and Christianity in particular. There are some socio-political and historical reasons roots also in Kerala which I am willing to discuss if the people in this forum is interested.
Dear Shahjahan
I am an admirer of Koran and prophet Mohammad. That taught me to admire every thing good. I do have great respect towards Maudoodi as many books written by him has played great role in helping me to understand Islam and convincing me it intellectually. Again, that does not mean that I am in agreement with each and every opinion he has got. I know how to agree to disagree with respect. When I disagree I don’t deny the status and stature of a thinker or the role he has played in the historical renaissance. I don’t want to hide my indebtedness towards JI also for the role they have played in imparting me the right and true spirit of Islam in a very intelligent way. I do understand prevalence of peaceful, calm and serene atmosphere will be very much advantageous and conducive for Islam and its propagation. I hope Muslims not to fall into the trap and pitfalls set by Islamophobists by becoming provoked and exasperated. As Koran said, be patient and have forbearance. Be vigilant and cautious. Be optimistic by finding opportunity in every difficulty. Always work to create a peaceful and tranquil socio-cultural environment. Work among the people, with people and for the people. Never go back again to cave Hira, for the revelation that has brought down Mohammad from the solitude of the cave Hira to the people is still with you. I am sure, Islam will thrive, even if most of the Muslims may not be striving for it.
For me, our world is at cross-roads. It looks to be slipping fast into violence, chaos and anarchy. Hatred is spreading due to the rampant ignorance prevailing about one another. This hatred works as springboard of clash of civilizations. While we are living in an era of science and technology, of information explosion and data processing, it is astonishing to see we are groping in the darkness as far as our understanding of fellow religionists is concerned. Gross blindness takes the place of scientific objectivism in this regard. I don’t think the belief in God, whatever kind it may be, has to be blind. I don’t think the wheel of reasoning has to get halted at my belief. So, as far as I am concerened, there is a need of rational, scriptural, logical and/or natural justification to support the belief I do have. At the same time, as far as I am concerned, each set of belief and religion with all the contradiction they do have among them, cannot to be true. I will continue to ask for the proof to support any claim. I cannot agree with the idea that it is belief beyond and above all kinds of reasoning. For me, the truth in its absolute sense cannot be contradictory to itself.
LikeLike
Dear Shahjahan,
You mentioned: “I also hoped such pressure from all sides will persuade the JI to further distance from the utopia of Islamic state, as has been happening over the past few decades in the realm of praxis, if not precepts”. May I bring into your notice that you seem to be using words not in the right sense here also when you mentioned “Utopia of Islamic State”. The word “Utopia” ( a fictional island in Atlantic Ocean with perfect socio-political-legal system) comes from the Book of Thomas Moor. This term is now used to denote an ideal place that never has existed and wil not exist since it is realistically imposssible.
“Islamic state” is and was not an utopia since it was an historical experience not in once during the time of prophet, Abu Bakr, Omar ect. Even after deteriorating into a kind of monarchy, it had again emerged into areality during the time of Omar II, Saladin ect. As a system of governance it had existed 1000 years with all the flaws and frails crept into it during the passage of time. It was the longest living political system the world has so far seen, when you compare with any other political system including democracy. Shajahan, Prophet Mohammad, Abu Bakr, Omar, Omar II, Saladin are not myths. They can be read in the complete light of history. They were at the thresholds of our modernity. Let us not call it “Utopia” regardless of the possibility whether JI will be able to achieve its goal or not. We are in dearth of lofty goals and good resolutions. Let us not kill that also. Everybody is striving to attain their goals. Let JI also strive for what they have set as its goals. Let us not be intolerant to any kind of goal even if we may believe it as Utopia. Human being is the only creature as I understand who has got capability to dream. If human civilizations from time to time were to set the goals with so called realistic approach, I don’t think we would have reached where we are now. Afterall, prophet Mohammad himself started alone. All the revolutionaries when they gave ideas, they were not part of majority. Again let us not be judgemental even about the results. Everest is too high. Still, many climb it. Even failure on the way in this respect is commendable when you compare with others who don’t have such a goal and vision.
LikeLike
The lion share of the readers are malayalees and may I opt malayalam to express my views?
ഹമീദിന്റെ വീക്ഷണങ്ങള് എന്നും ഇത് തന്നെയായിരുന്നു .വര്ഷങ്ങളായി അദ്ദേഹം പുലര്ത്തുന്ന അഭിപ്രായങ്ങള് തന്നെയാണ് ഇപ്പോള് അദ്ദേഹം പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത്.അവയെല്ലാം പ്രസക്തവും ശരിയുമാണ്.എന്നാല് ഈ ലേഖനത്തിന്റെ സമയം ചില സംശയങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നു.മുസ്ലിം സമുദായവുമായി സിപിഎം ആരഭിചിരിക്കുന്ന നിഴല് യുദ്ധത്തില് പങ്കു ചേര്ന്ന് തന്റെ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട സ്ഥാനം കൈക്കലക്കുവാന് വേണ്ടിയാണോ എന്ന് ഒരു സംശയം നിഷ്പക്ഷമതികള്ക്ക് തോന്നിയാല് അവരെ കുറ്റം പറയാന് പറ്റുമോ.
LikeLike
FEW WORDS BEFORE CLOSING THE DEBATE:-
Dear All,
It’s a good debate with many supporting arguments from Devika, John and Shajahan ..etc…
But before closing the session let me point out few points:-
– Nowadays this is like a fashion as pseudo secularists used to criticize JI and Moududi blindly without hearing what they are actually saying ..!
for eg: Aryadan Shoukath had commented, Islamic youth have been mainly misguided by reading books of Maoududi. Specifically mentioned the book ‘Islam Matham’. Sheikh Mohamed Karakkunnu, leader of JI had arranged friendly discussion with Aryadan and given ‘Islam Matham’ for a true analysis, and challenged to quote any lines which may guide to extremism. But according to Sheikh, there is no replay from him till now.
– Mostly Muslim named criticizers have more demands and getting good exposure through various media. They are just keeping the same stand and repeating same arguments,
– I can say very confidently, Madhyamam is one which reveal many facts, it was hiding by our media. For. Eg: Love Jihad.
– Can we say any involvements of JI in incidents, communal riots, chaos …
LikeLike
it seems Mr Shaji is worried about that Islam is going to rule india next month! What phobia crated by CPM within a few days!. These politicians never thinks about the longlasting damages created by these kind of election stunts! Shaji is worrying about what will be happend to other Religions and Other cultures under Islam. yes the answer is here:
http://www.islammalayalam.com/general/fq/31.html
LikeLike
എന്താ, ആര്ക്കും മലയാളം അറിയില്ലേ? ഒന്നും മനസിലായില്ല. മെനക്കെടാനും വയ്യ…
LikeLike
All Islamists want to establish what they view as a nizam Islami (Islamic system of government) based on the notion of hakimiyyat Allah (God’s rule or sovereignty), as opposed to the notion of popular sovereignty associated with secular democracy, which is considered to be derived from the ‘satanic’ thinking of the infidels. The core issue in Islamist ideology is the contention that only God, not man, is entitled to rule the world. The Islamic state envisioned by the Islamists is based on a constructed and politicised sharia (the term sharia occurs only once in the Quran, in sure 45, verse 18, and with a very different meaning). In contrast to this ideology created by the Muslim Brothers from the moment that their movement was established in 1928, today’s Muslim Brothers pay lip-service to democracy, present their version of Islamism as a moderate form of Islam, and argue for their other views within the context of multiple modernities. Is this simply being done for convenience and for tactical reasons, or does it represent a fundamental shift in Islamist thinking? How could democracy truly grow from people who are committed to the shariatisation of Islam? In their ideological background and historical development, the Islamists have no credentials whatsoever that could support claims concerning the compatibility of their ideology with the civic culture of democracy.
When one addresses the issue of democracy in the world of Islam, it would be a terrible blunder – and also a great service to the Islamists – to blur the distinction between the terms ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamism’ (political Islam) and to use them interchangeably. Islamists make prodigious efforts to camouflage themselves as ‘true Muslims’. In this sense, at issue are two different questions and two different objects. The first question has to do with Islam’s compatibility with democracy, while the second question has to do with how democratic Islamism could ever become.
The answer to the first question is affirmative, although it is conditional on religious reforms (Salafist Islam, for example, is not compatible with democracy). The answer to the second question is unfavourable, however, with a ‘but’ to be specified later on. The distinction between the two adjectives ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’ does not reflect a form of linguistic pedantry, but instead applies to two different phenomena. For instance, the Nahdatul Ulema party in Indonesia is an Islamic party – not an Islamist-party – and it can be qualified as a democratic institution that represents a form of civil Islam. In contrast, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – as well as its off-spring (e.g. Hamas) – is not a democratic party, but one that is totalitarian in its outlook. Therefore, the formula ‘Islam without fear’ is highly misleading in this context.
Next to the distinction between Islam as a faith and Islamism as a religionised ideology, there is another significant distinction within Islamism itself. It is the differentiation between peaceful and violent Islamists. The latter are the jihadists who wage jihad in pursuit of their political agenda. Their jihad is interpreted explicitly in the form of qital (violence), however, in accordance with the new legitimation of jihadism. In contrast, peaceful Islamists participate in and take advantage of democratic institutions. For tactical reasons, they eschew resorting to violence. In short, jihadist Islamism differs from institutional Islamism with respect to its means, but not in terms of its goals. Kelsay is completely right (Arguing the Just War in Islam, Harvard University Press, 2007) to note that, even though these so-called ‘moderates’ and ‘militants’ disagree over practices, they share the same vision. To be sure contemporary jihadism, when interpreted as indiscriminate fighting, is not the same as the classical jihad in Islam, for in classical jihad violence (qital) was in theory bound by certain rules and restricted to limited targets. Therefore, classical jihad is a form of warfare, although it might be irregular, but it is not primarily terrorism, as jihadism now is. Jihadism is a pattern different from the traditional Muslim regular warfare. To reiterate, the differences between jihadist Islamism and institutional Islamism concern means and practices, not broader visions or ultimate goals. The establishment of a sharia-based nizam al-Islami is shared by both institutional Islamists and jihadists. As Baran puts it, the ‘moderates’ consent ‘instrumentally to democratic elections … the easiest path to power’, and replace violent ‘Islamization … in favor of a gradual bottom-up policy’. This signifies nothing more than a ‘creeping Islamization’ (see Zeyno Baran, “Divided Turkey”). It is certainly not a bona fide form of democratisation.
The analytical and political distinctions made above have to be kept in mind when Islam and Islamism are related to the question of their compatibility with democracy. The inquiry has to be enhanced by further distinctions with respect to democracy itself. To reiterate, democracy is based institutionally on an electoral procedure, but it is much more than a form of balloting. Democracy is also and above all a political culture of pluralism and disagreement based on core values, combined with the acceptance of diversity in terms of political pluralism. The procedure of elections and the institutional establishment of this political culture are elements of the same system that cannot be separated from one another, as the institutional Islamists try to do. They abandon the earlier top-down form of Islamisation in favour of a bottom-up process of Islamisation. They agree to ballots instead of bullets, but not with the pluralist political culture of democracy or its form of civil society. This statement can be confirmed by a careful study of the political programs released by Islamist movements themselves, as well as by observing their actual behaviour. It should be taken seriously, even by those ‘Islam pundits’ who dismiss demands for maintaining the ‘pluralist civic culture’ of democracy as a form of ‘secular takfiri fundamentalism’ (!). That reaction is obviously stupid, to say the least.
LikeLike