Faith over Justice

On the day, when Kartarpur opened its arms to welcome people from all over the world to worship in the newly rebuilt birthplace of the founder of Sikh religion, the land where once stood the Babri Masjid in the north Indian city of Ajodhya for almost five hundred years was shut for Muslims forever.

One of the oldest disputes over the ownership of land finally came to an end when the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision decided to rescind the Muslim right over the land and handed it over to Hindus to reconstruct the Temple under the supervision of the Ramjanambhomi Trust. It is an irony that while Pakistan announced the decision to renovate 400 Hindu Temples in Pakistan, India's highest court decided to take away the Babri Masjid from Muslims.

 The Supreme Court explained that its decision is based on the basis of law, and not on the basis of belief and traditions. Yet, the decision exposes the biases and the reliance on traditions and beliefs. This is how the Court's biases become clear.

Ram Lalla was the only part whose right to the land was acknowledged and accepted. It is part of the belief system and traditional accounts. It is not a historical fact as there are scores of places that claim to be the birthplace of Ram.

Sunni Waqf Board that has managed the mosque for centuries was not considered a legitimate body to contest the land ownership, yet the Court awarded five acres of land to the board to reconstruct a new Masjid elsewhere.

Nirmohi Akhara was not considered a party to the land dispute, yet the newly formed Trust was asked to include its members on the board.

The Court acknowledged that no temple was demolished, but the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land.

The Court relied on the Archeological Survey of India's recommendation that said that the mosque was built on the structure that did not look like an Islamic structure, yet did not prove beyond doubt that the structure mentioned above was part of the Hindu Temple.

The Court failed to establish that there stood a Temple dedicated to Ram, yet decided to accept the traditional belief that a Temple existed on the land where the Babri Masjid was built.

The Court described the demolition of the Masjid in the 1990s unlawful, yet failed to restore the mosque to Muslims.
The Court admitted that 1949 idols of Ram were placed and they did not emerge miraculously as claimed by Hindus, yet decided to consider the mosque a place of worship for Hindus

The Court claimed that its decision is based on law, but failed to present any legal document in support of the belief that the land was the birthplace of Ram.

The Court failed to explain the existence of the Masjid for almost 500 years as a place of worship.

The Court claimed that the mosque was not used as a place of worship until the beginning of the 19th century, yet restored the right of worship to a Hindu claimant in the Masjid land where there was no proof of Hindu worship.

The court decision is based on politics and is not unbiased. But it is a decision of the highest legal institution of India. Muslims have announced their intention to accept the claim. But the acceptance does not mean that injustice is accepted. History would always record the decision of the Court a political one rooted in majoritarianism.

Oslo White supremacist terrorist and Hitler’s Hindus

What is the connection between Hitler’s Hindus and white supremacists? They both admire each other for their anti-Islam rhetoric. They both believe that violence is the way to eliminate Islam.

Anders Behring Breivik also known by his pseudonym Andrew Berwick, is a Norwegian terrorist who committed the 2011 Norway attacks. On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a bomb in Oslo, then shot dead 69 participants of a summer youth camp on the island of Utøya.  In July 2012, he was convicted of mass murder, causing a fatal explosion and terrorism.  

At the age of 20, Breivik joined the anti-immigration/right-wing Progressive Party, and chaired the local Vest Oslo branch of the party's youth organization during 2002. He left the Progress Party in 2006 and went on to join a gun club while also founding a company which he used to finance his planned terrorist attacks.

On the day of the attacks, Breivik electronically distributed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his militant ideology. In them, he stated his opposition to  Islam and called for the deportation of all Muslims From Europe.  He wrote the purpose of his terrorist attack was to publicize the manifesto. 

Since his imprisonment, Breivik has identified himself as a fascist and a Nazi who practices Odinism and supports ethno-nationalists.  Odinism is a form of polytheism. Breivik was an admirer of Hindu nationalist groups such as the RSS and the BJP. He wrote the manifesto at a time Congress government was in power. The following are the excerpts from his manifesto that adores RSS militancy and its anti-Muslim strategy.

“The state of the Indian/Hindu resistance - Indian nationalists Saffronisation is a political neologism (after the saffron robes of the Hindu clerics), used to refer to the policy of right-wing Hindu nationalism (or Hindutva) which seeks to make the Indian state into a "Hindu nation" and its Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain minorities incorporated into Hinduism. These nationalist movements are also called Sanatana Dharma movements. A related term, the Saffron Brigade, is used as a descriptor of people and organizations in India that promote Hindu nationalism such as the Sangh Parivar by their critics, who allege a militant Hindu agenda. The Sanatana Dharma movements or Hindu nationalists, in general, are suffering from the same persecution by the Indian cultural Marxists as their European cousins. An example of typical Hindu nationalist ridicule: "Ullal by-polls results are out and the Congress has retained its ‘forte,’ thus upsetting BJP and JD(S) calculations. The message is clear - the BJP has failed to gain the confidence of minorities. “Come what may. We do not want the saffron brigade or any other party which is supporting the saffron brigade to come to power in Ullal” - is the answer given by the electorate of Ullal." The thing is, The Indian government (current government United Progressive Alliance coalition led by Indian National Congress) is a Socialist-Leftist Liberalists. The other side is National Democratic Alliance led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a political arm of the RSS: these people are of Hindu right-wing nationalism comprising of Hindu parties (including Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain sub-sects), strongly supported by Jewish and Zoroastrian minorities. The UPA (the incumbent government) relies on appeasing Muslims and very sadly proselytizing Christian missionaries who illegally convert low caste Hindus with lies and fear alongside Communists who want the total destruction of the Hindu faith and culture. The irony in India is that the Hindus who are living abroad (expatriate Hindus) are more concerned about Hindu culture than the ones in India, because from abroad, they can get an eagle's view of what's happening in India while Indian Hindu residents don't see it being in the scene.

The only positive thing about the Hindu right-wing is that they dominate the streets. They do not tolerate the current injustice, and often riot and attack Muslims when things get out of control, usually after the Muslims disrespect and degrade Hinduism too much. This behavior is nonetheless counterproductive. Because instead of attacking the Muslims, they should target the category A and B traitor in India and consolidate military cells and actively seek the overthrow of the cultural Marxist government. India will continue to wither and die unless the Indian nationalists consolidate properly and strike to win. It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. Our goals are more or less identical. The PCCTS, Knights Templar support the Sanatana Dharma movements and Indian nationalists in general.”

Kashmir: The Gamechanger

by Dr. Aslam Abdullah

It was expected, even though the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) in its election manifesto in April 2019 had assured the people of Kashmir that it would not change the Article 370 of the constitution that gives them the autonomy. On August 5, ten days before India's 73rd celebration of independence and 69 years and 40 days later India agreed to a United Nations resolution on the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, one of the 29 states in India was stripped of its statehood and given the status of the eight union territories to be governed by the President with a state elected body having limited powers.

What was done by the BJP as part of its ultimate goal was to ensure that the constitution does not give special privileges to any state.  India initially had given special status in three states, Assam, Nagaland, and Jammu & Kashmir, but eight more were added later and they are Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim, Tripura, and Uttarakhand. 

Why was Kashmir picked as the first state to be stripped of its special state? 

Kashmir is the major source of tension between India and Pakistan. India has accused Pakistan of fomenting trouble in the Indian side of Kashmir after occupying part of Kashmir known as Azad Kashmir. India believes that the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir does not empower the union government to take appropriate measures to control the Pakistani influence in the Kashmir valley. India also believes that due to its special status, non-Kashmiris cannot buy land or invest in the state.

But the issue is not related to administrative technicalities or cross border influence. Kashmir occupies a special status in Hinduism. It is believed by the Hindu religious scholars that when Buddhism gained its ground in the Kashmir region, casteism became less prevalent with the exception of the uppermost caste, the Brahmins who resisted the changes. Brahmins of Kashmir are considered the most nobles within the Brahmins of India and they had a special status because of higher positions women held in their community. Islam gained its followers in the seventh century, but it was in the 14th century, when Kashmir became a predominantly Muslim region. It is said that during the reign of the sixth ruler of Shah dynasty known as Shah Miri, known as Sikandar Butshikan, the Hindus were asked to accept Islam or leave the state. Many left the region. Later on, his heir Zainul Abdin is said to have restored Brahmins, their property and those who were forcibly converted to Islam were allowed to return.

The Hindu nationalist organizations, including RSS and BJP, believe that Hindus, especially, belonging to the upper castes were forcibly converted to Islam and it is their duty to facilitate their return to their original religion and ensure that the state is restored to its original Hindu inhabitants. It is this religious fervor that is behind the BJP's latest move in changing the constitution on the issue.

Many Kashmiris believe that the BJP initiative would not stop here. Kashmir is the northernmost geographical region of the Indian subcontinent. It includes a larger area that includes the Indian administered territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, the Pakistani-administer territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and Chinese administered territories of Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract.  j & K has a population of over 12 million with 70 percent Muslims. 

Many believe that the next step would be to change the demography of the state and the final step would be the reunification of Kashmir. This would infuriate Pakistan and even China with the possibility of increased hostilities leading even to war.

Obviously, in this latest BJP move, the Kashmiri Muslim leadership was kept in the dark. The entire Muslim leadership was detained and Muslim regions were put under curfew. State and universities were closed and the news was not allowed to travel out of the area. This would create more bitterness among Muslims in Kashmir. The ruling party invited the Hindu and Buddhist constituents of the state to discuss the issue, but Muslims were completely kept in the dark. On the contrary, they were given the assurance that nothing dramatic was going to happen. The sense of betrayal is likely to turn more Kashmiri youth to militancy. This situation could be exploited by anyone with a goal to destabilize India.  The BJP believes that it has the mass support of the rest of India for its stand, and it has the right military might control any militancy whether domestic or foreign. Armed with legislation that gives the government a power to detain any individual under the pretext of terrorism, the BJP is confident to sail through the Kashmir controversy. Will it lead to peace in the region, it is a guessing game.

Khashoggi’s Disappearance:  A Political And Theological Quagmire 

The disappearance of political dissidents is neither unusual nor mysterious in our world. But the drama that surrounds Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance has taken a turn that is most likely to influence the political and financial maps of the world in the foreseeable future.

Khashoggi was a free thinker and a journalist working with the Washington Post.  He was close to the well-known Saudi billionaire Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz bin Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family at odds with the present Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. He entered the Saudi Consulate in Turkey in October and never returned.

The Turkish officials say that he was murdered inside the Saudi consulate. Saudi Arabia initially denied the allegation, but later changed its position. Ironically, those who came to the rescue of the Saudi Arabian government were right-wing media experts, known Christian evangelical leaders, Republica party leaders and above all President Trump.

Saudi government refuted the Turkish claim that the journalist was murdered on the premises of its consulate and threatened severe punishment against those who believed in the Turkish narration. The government claimed that Khashoggi left the premises.

However, when asked to provide the proof of his exit, the Saudis kept quiet. Meanwhile, the US intelligence sources claimed that they had intercepted messages from Saudi Arabia suggesting that a team of 15 Saudi men was dispatched to Turkey to tame Khashoggi.

When the Turkish officials claimed that they had the evidence to prove the murder of the dissident inside the consulate, the Saudis insisted that they were unaware of his fate. However, the right-media promoted the rumor that Khashoggi was a sympathizer of the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar was behind the efforts to malign Saudi Arabia.

This explanation was repeated by President Trump’s son as well as prominent Christian evangelical leaders trying to create the impression that the murder might be a good thing in disguise as it eliminated a terrorist sympathizer. This explanation did not make any sense at least to world business giants, many of whom announced their decision to pull out from an already planned financial summit in Saudi Arabia.

President Trump initially said that if found guilty, Saudi Arabia would be punished severely even though he also pointed out that the US was in a 110 billion dollar arms deal with the kingdom. The Saudis retaliated in anger and suggested that they would open their doors for the Russians and decrease the oil output to let the prices soar to 200 dollars per barrel.

It was at this point that President Trump changed its rhetoric and adopted the right-wing explanation but with a twist. He acknowledged that the journalist was killed, but not by the Saudi government. Instead, he argued that the killing was done by the rogue elements who acted on their own.

This was the line that the Saudi government immediately adopted when the news was circulated unofficially that Khashoggi was killed accidentally during interrogation and the Saudi Arabian officials or rulers were not aware of it.

Political murders are not new to the kingdom. No specific data are available, but Human Rights observers believe that hundreds of political dissidents are languishing in Saudi prisons and scores have been killed over the years. What is intriguing is why a US President and right-wing politicians as well Christian evangelical leaders are supportive of the Saudi monarchy and absolving it from any role in the murder.

The right-wing politicians and President Trump advised by his son in law who is his envoy in the Middle East peace efforts believe that Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is the key to the permanent US presence in the Gulf as well as the permanent security of Israel. They believe that because of the prestige the kingdom enjoys in the Sunni Muslim world, the decision Muhammad bin Salaam takes towards the US, Israel, and Iran would be accepted by a great majority of Muslim countries who are dependent on Saudi Arabia for their oil needs or financial subsidy.

They believe that over the years Saudi Arabia has developed an intensive network among Muslim organizations and groups all over the world. The Trump Administration is confident that the network would help the Saudis to convince Muslims of their approval of the US peace plan in the Middle East.

Besides, there are financial gains for the US in maintaining cordial relations with the Monarchy. But the US is aware of the fact that even in case of a change in regime; the US oil interests would remain secure. So it is not the oil that is the driving force behind the current policy towards Saudi Arabia. Rather, it is the future of Israel that is driving the current policy towards monarchy.

President Trump intends to secure Israel’s security permanently before the end of his first term. Christian evangelists are of the opinion that only Trump can do that, hence they are willing to accept the Saudi monarchy in its present role. The evangelists believe that the security of Israel would bring them closer to their theological goals of establishing the kingdom of God on earth under the leadership of Jesus who would return only when greater Israel is formed.

In this political and religious quagmire, the ideas of freedom of expression and human dignity are lost as the concerned parties are keener to accrue political, financial and theological benefits for their interests. The the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is being used as a pawn in this political and theological game of chess.

Blasphemy: Does God want His rejectors to be Killed? Is He (God) so insecure of his majesty that he wants those who believe in him to kill those who insult him or his messenger and prophet?

Mumtaz Qadri was hanged in Pakistan on Monday, February 29, 2016. His crime was killing the governor of Punjab for whom he was working as a bodyguard. He took the life of the man he was appointed to protect because in his view the governor was guilty of being critical of Pakistan’s “Islamic” blasphemy laws.

In Qadri’s view, anyone who blasphemes the Prophet or supports those who do so deserves to be killed. This is not what was revealed to Qadri by the Law Giver, God or by His messenger. It is what he learned from his teachers. Qadri was true to what he was taught. He preferred death over living in a situation where his prophet was maligned and his religion ridiculed. Consequently, he paid the price of a misrepresented theology that the religious oligarchy in many Muslim societies has promoted for centuries unchallenged.

In reality, the blame lies with those who have promoted this distorted belief against the will of God and His messenger (s).

Unfortunately, the Muslim religious establishments have perpetuated a literal application of what they call blasphemy laws that were evolved and developed by Muslim schools of thought for a different time period over several centuries.

A number of Sunni and Shia scholars decree death to those who blaspheme the Prophet or Islam.

Hanbali jurisprudence views blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women, and repentance is not accepted.

In the Hanafi School of thought, blasphemy was synonymous with apostasy. Repentance was acceptable, but for those who refuse to repent, death is the punishment if a blasphemer is a Muslim man, and if the blasphemer is a woman, she must be imprisoned with coercion till she repents and returns to Islam. If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment was “tazir” (Punishment for offenses at the discretion of the judge: death, arrest, caning, etc.)

Malikis view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, and repentance is not accepted. For women, death is not the punishment suggested, but she is arrested and punished until she repents and returns to Islam or dies in custody. A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.

According to Shafi’ school of thought, blasphemy is also a separate offense from apostasy, but the repentance of blasphemers is acceptable. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is the death

Shia school of thought views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death if the blasphemer is a Muslim. In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.

But what is blasphemy? Based on the laws of various countries and religious decrees given by scholars, the definition includes the following.

Speaking ill of God, finding fault with Prophet Muhammad (SAW), insulting a prophet mentioned in the Quran or slandering a member of the family of the Prophet, claiming to be a prophet, and visually depicting the Prophet. But is there a word in Arabic that means blasphemy. The English translators of the Quran have no consensus on choosing an Arabic word equivalent to blasphemy in English.

For instance, Muhammad Asad and Yusuf Ali use blasphemy or its variations 18 and 23 times respectively in their Quran translation, mostly for the words Kufr and Makr to mean blasphemy, even though the word kafar and its derivatives appear 500 times in the Quran. (Example MA: 13:42, 14:46, 16:26, 16:112 … YA: 2:88, 2:102, 4:155, 5:17 …) Marmaduke Pickthall limits the translation of blasphemy to the Arabic “alhada”. (7:180)

Despite this ambiguity in the definition, however, all four schools of thoughts have used the following reasons to justify death to blasphemers.

Those who annoy God and His Messenger – God has deprived them of His mercy in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.- Quran 33:57

Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbors for any length of time: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy). Quran 33:61

Ever thought the verses do not talk of the death penalty, yet scholars chose to conclude that the intent of the divine was to ask the believers to kill those who speak ill of God.

Several scholars also provide the following ahadith (sayings of the Prophet) from Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Sunan Abu Dawood and justify the killing of blasphemers.

The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf who has really hurt God and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O God’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka’b) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to the task and asked us for charity.” Ka’b replied, “By God, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him. Narrated by Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:270,  

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of God said: Who will kill Ka’b b. Ashraf? He has maligned God, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of God, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). Sahih Muslim, 19:4436

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of God declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4349 

A thorough and closer look at the Quran and the life of the prophet provide clear evidence against the theology of death for those who blaspheme ..

Despite all these theological decrees, the number of actual prosecutions for blasphemy in the Muslim historical record is extremely infrequent. One of the "little known cases” was that of a Christian in the year 1293 CE who was accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad. It ended in an acquittal though it was followed by a protest against a decision led by the famed and jurist Ibn Taymiyya.

However, in Pakistan, where laws on blaspheme were introduced in the 1980s, over 1300 people have been accused of blasphemy from 1987 to 2014, (generally non-Muslim religious minorities), mostly for allegedly desecrating the Quran. Over 50 people accused of blasphemy have been murdered before their respective trials were over and prominent figures who opposed blasphemy laws (Salman Taseer, the former governor of Punjab, and Shahbaz Bhatti, the Federal Minister for Minorities) have been assassinated

A thorough and closer look at the Quran and the life of the prophet provide clear evidence against the theology of death for those who blaspheme. What is often implied in this theology is that God and His messenger allow deception and lies to get rid of those who blaspheme. It is unthinkable to attribute this understanding to God and His messenger. It is not only a lie, but a sin against God, especially when the Quran is very specific about speaking the truth in no ambiguous terms.

The Quran says:

“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus We have made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end, will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.” 6:108

“O ye who believe! Let not some men among you ridicule others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women ridicule others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong”. 49:11

“Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they are angry even then forgive;” 42:37

If blasphemy was punishable by death in Islam, then the Prophet would have been the first one to order the killing of hundreds of his foes who later became his closest companions. In our religious books, references are made to six incidents where the Prophet allegedly asked his companions to silence his opponents forever. A careful examination of all such incidents reveals that they are either concocted or far from the truth. With the exception of a very few earlier Arabs who accepted the Prophet as the Messenger of God, the majority of people of Makkah opposed him, humiliated him, cursed or blasphemed him or even tried to kill him, yet he preferred to practice forgiveness seeking the divine mercy for them. Even after being wounded severely in Taif, he refused to seek revenge.

The idea of blasphemy was justified by many medieval Muslim scholars on the basis of their understanding of Christian and Jewish texts...

The old woman who used to throw garbage on the Prophet was visited by him when he did not see her throwing it anymore to learn that she was not well. When Suhail bin Amr, a poet who composed poetry blaspheming the Prophet was taken as a prisoner of war after the battle of Badr, the Prophet asked his companions to show kindness to him. There are examples after examples to prove that the Prophet never resorted to violence against those who were showing utter disrespect to him or God.

Violence against anyone criticizing Islam, God or Prophet Muhammad is unacceptable as the divine teachings make it clear. Any punishment against so called blasphemy is a stab in the heart of Islam and a humiliation of the Prophet by those who claim to be his followers. Those who support the killing of people accused of blasphemy do no understand the spirit of Islam nor respect the Prophet who was sent as mercy humankind. No matter who they are, they must be challenged on the basis of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet.

The idea of blasphemy was justified by many medieval Muslim scholars on the basis of their understanding of Christian and Jewish texts supporting laws against those who blaspheme and vilify their religions. Unfortunately, their argument is built on a position that is supported by a number of Muslim religious scholars all over the world that demand death for acts of apostasy and blasphemy, that were developed under the influence of corrupt despotic Muslim rulers who misused their power to twist religious scholarship to serve their political interests.

The word “blasphemy” came via Middle English blaspheme and Old French blasfemer and Later Latin blasphemer meaning “I injure.” Based on this definition, rulers used laws to victimize non-members or dissident members of the ruling elites or a cult. Countries that had a state religion used it often to serve the interests of the rulers.

In Judaism, the third book of Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy shall surely be put to death. The seven laws of Noah seen by Judaism as applicable to all of the humankind prohibit blasphemy. In Christian theology, the Gospel of Mark 3:29, describes blaspheming the holy spirit as unforgivable eternal sin. Thomas Aquinas considered blasphemy a major unforgivable sin, more serious than murder. The Book of Concord describes it the greatest sin ever committed. The Baptist Confession of Faith calls it a disgusting and detesting act. Catholic Church has specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy against God and the Church was a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world. In England, last blasphemy execution was that of an 18-year-old Thomas Aikenhead who was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the accuracy of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ’s miracles.

The Quran and the authentic teachings of the Prophet describe the practice of showing irreverence to God and his messenger as acts of ignorance, deliberate provocation or hatred or rebellion. Yet the two sources of Islamic guidance never proposed punitive actions on the basis of theological dissent or religious differences or irreverence. Some Muslim jurists have, often misused the institution of ijtihad to serve the emotive interests of the people. The fatwa or religious decree issued by Khomeini proposing killing of Salman Rushdie was an opinion with no direct support from the book of divine guidance.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan also has in its penal code laws that prohibit and punish blasphemy against Islam ranging from a fine to death. The Criminal courts often decide a case of blasphemy on the basis of public emotions and political interests rather than the divine writ. For instance, Pakistan’s Criminal Code 295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object, code 296A forbids outraging religious feelings, code 295 B forbids defiling the Quran, code 295 C forbids defaming the Prophet, Muhammad.

Defiling the Quran is punishable by imprisonment for life and defaming the Prophet Muhammad by death with or without a fine. None of these codes have any basis in the Quran or the authentic teachings of the Prophet.  It is a position that many scholars adopted under the influence of despotism that prevailed in the Muslim world for centuries and still prevails in many countries. This position has been challenged by many who have knowledge of the Quran and Sunna. But most of the time, their religious authority and opinions are suppressed by the rulers.

The tyranny of such religious scholars is so intense that those opposed to these laws are condemned as heretics punishable by death. Some of the scholars even encourage their followers to unleash terror against such people. Their arrogance has reached to a point that they do not want to listen to any argument based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet. Many religious and educational institutions of the Muslim world suffer from the tyranny of these scholars who justify their ignorance and arrogance on the basis of literature that emerged at a time, when Muslims had lost connection with the Quran and by and large was at the mercy of despotic rulers and their hired religious scholars.

Islam is not the monopoly of self-imposed scholars. It is a faith given to people for their well being and guidance without any interference from any authority other than God, the almighty. Those who assume the divine role in condemning people and deciding their life and death on the basis of their religious identity must at least be questioned for their opinions on the basis of the Quran and Sunna.

If Muslim religious scholars who support blasphemy laws are seriously concerned about the sensitivities of people with regards to their faith and its holy figures, then they should advocate common laws for every religion and religious community, emphasizing that respect must be shown to all religions and freedom of speech must not be seen as a license to hurt and provoke others.

When some people make fun of God and His messengers including Prophet Muhammad, it hurts and causes pain. As acknowledged by the Quran: “We do indeed know how your heart is distressed at what they say.”  Al-Hijr [15:97]

But God clearly advises:

“Repel evil with that which is best: We are well acquainted with the things they say.” Al-Mu’minun [23:96]

“Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!” Fussilat [41:34]

Rape is a Norm in India

And yet another 23-year-old girl was gang-raped in Bombay, India on August 22.
In 2010, Indian police recorded some 22172 cases of rape against women nationwide, compared with 84767 cases in the United States. While the US leads India in reported rape by a margin of 25 rapes per 100,000 reported cases, India is described as the rape capital of the world for the simple reason of under reporting.
India is a highly sexually perverted society as a child is exposed to sexual abuse from the very childhood. Boys, and girls, as young as five or even under, face constant sexual abuse at the hands of their immediate family members or friends of the family. Hardly anyone complains about them. Once they go to school, they face another round of sexual assault at the hands of their elders. In religious institutions and seminaries, regardless of their religious orientation, the situation is even worst. Not many children living in boarding houses may escape sexual assault sometime during their stay. Once they grow older and go to colleges, sexual assault increases and the victims exposed to it from their childhood feel ashamed to report it or talk about it. Gang rape, date rape, forced consent rape, deceptive rape, half rape, quarter rape are all common.
India is a misogynist society. Women, by and large, are often seemed to be hierarchically inferior to men. They are considered entirely subservient to men: a girl is governed by her father, a married woman by her husband, and a widow by her sons. Women are also depicted as being impure because they menstruate.

Women in classical religious texts are thus often perceived to be inferior beings, yet there are also images of women, for instance, in Hinduism, in the form of various goddesses, that is decidedly more positive. But it is the image of an inferior, submissive and a subservient woman that prevails the popular culture.

You just need to sit in a male-only gathering and listen to the discussion on women. Regardless of the background of the people in the gatherings, women and their sexuality are often subjects of usual vulgar discussions and no one is safe from the eyes of lecherous. No wonder, India strictly followed the practice of veiling women and still follows it in rural areas. Exposure of female flesh is an obvious reason for sexual arousal and masturbation in public is not uncommon even in buses and trains..

Strict laws are needed. But those who apply and implement these laws are men. Religious teachings focusing on the dignity of women are needed, but those claiming to be religious often violate that dignity first. It is a pathetic situation.

Seemingly, the age of the internet has taken the prevailing perversion to a new peak.  Most seem to be influenced by the culture created by pornography. In this situation, women find them totally helpless and at the mercy of perverted men. Many feel intimidated to speak up of the abuses they experience in their daily life. Many are afraid of being blamed. Perhaps, in this situation, those who veil themselves might find safer. But how would anyone guarantee their safety in places like homes, schools or colleges, which are usually considered safe? Perhaps, we need to look at our educational system, at our religious teachings and at our male dominant ethos that prepares the ground for assault and abuses on women and children.

Why I must not Question the beheading of Seven men in Saudi Arabia?

On March 13, in Pakistan, the country created in the name of Islam, some unidentified people killed a female social worker in open daylight and in Saudi Arabia, the country that claims to follow the Sharia beheaded seven people found guilty of stealing and armed robbery. The killers in Pakistan did not give any reason for their killing. However, the Saudi Press Agency speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Justice issued a statement that begins with the Quranic verse from Sura Al-Maida: "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (5:33)

So, it is obvious that the execution of seven men is based on the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet.
As a conscious human being, I feel saddened by these events taking place in the name of Islam not only in lands with a Muslim majority but also elsewhere.

But why should I question this sentence when it is arguably sanctioned by the Creator and the one who gave His message to humanity?

Why should I look for an alternative meaning of this verse that might lead me to argue that when the Quran talks of cutting off hands or feet, it might be alluding allegorically to physically restrain the criminals?  
Why should I question the judges for not opting for exile in this case?

Why should I argue that the purpose of the state is to create conditions where theft and robbery may become redundant?

Why should I argue that the biggest robbers are those rulers who have taken away the right of people to have a say in matters affecting their lives?

Why should I argue that those who are living in royal palaces are in fact stealing the money from people?
Why should I bother about the Muslim claim that the Prophet is a Prophet of mercy and Allah is a God of compassion?

Why should I even question this sentence when none of those who claim to speak on behalf of Islam are questioning it?

Why should I raise my voice, when the scholars of Islam are silently approving this sentence?

Why should I bother to remind myself that Islam talks of reform, rehabilitation, and repentance?

Why should I even ask if the due process in establishing the guilt of those accused was followed?

Why should I even say that one of the accused was about 14 years of age when he was accused of theft in 2005?

Why should I say that beheading is cruel and God does not like cruelty?
Why should I say that a Saudi preacher found guilty of the murder of his daughter was freed after paying the ransom and the seven thieves were beheaded for stealing jewelry etc.? 

I will do none of the above.

Rather, I would be quiet, not talking anything about this inhumane treatment to the prisoners or anyone else.

I would be quiet because I want to be known as a true believer who sanctions every act done in the name of Islam by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I would be quiet, hoping I may be invited by Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj or Umra at its expenses.

I would be quiet to ensure that those who support this implementation of Sharia do not condemn me as a non-believer.
I would be quiet to ensure that no harm is done to my family and children by the gatekeepers of Islam.

I would be quiet to ensure that I am recognized as a legitimate Muslim and no one declares me a kafir (rejecter) or murtad (apostate) eligible for yet another beheading.

I would be quiet because everyone else is quiet.

But wait a minute!
Would my silence be accepted by God?

I am not sure.

A Saudi Preacher, torture, rape and murder: A Tale of Twisted Justice

A Saudi preacher is accused of raping and torturing his five-year-old daughter to death. He admitted using a cane and cables to inflict the injuries after suspecting his daughter’s virginity. He served a few months in jail and then a judge ruled that the prosecution could only seek blood money and not the death penalty or life imprisonment. The scholar paid about $50,000 blood money to the mother of their daughter and was released from the custody. (Thank God that the judge did not allow the guilty preacher to keep the money under the pretext that he is the father of the girl.) Thus the value of a five-year-old was determined and that included compensation for rape and torture.

The judge based his ruling on sharia, so is the claim. Does the sharia want a murderer to get away with the crime? Does the sharia offer no punishment for torture and rape? Does the sharia have no rulings on child abuse? Does the sharia place a dollar value on torture, rape, and human life? Does the sharia absolve parents from the abuses committed against their children or spouses? These questions must be asked honestly because the ruling given in the name of God and Islam does not make any sense no matter how the legal experts interpret the Quran and the Sunna of the prophet.

If the Sharia is defined as a license to torture, murder or rape, then this is neither divine nor prophetic. It is simply male-chauvinistic tribalism immersed in ignorance and total disregard to human life and dignity. This cannot be allowed in the name of God or Islam. Muslims in general and Muslim scholars, in particular, owe it to their creator to question the legitimacy of this ruling and take a stand against it. Yet few would dare to do that. Most of them did not care about this case. Most of them didn’t bother to follow it and question the logic behind the verdict.

It is sad that despite the presence of so many learned scholars of Islam in the world, few are willing to condemn this verdict and openly distance them away from this vulgar interpretation of sharia. On the contrary, many are trying to justify this verdict in the name of God and Prophet. Shame upon them.

The Quran demands equal rights for children, boys and girls included. The Quran does not give parents the unlimited authority to do whatever they want to do with their children. The Quran condemns rape, torture and child and spousal abuse. There is no room for these things in a society that claims to follow Islamic precepts. However, violations of these mandated Quranic rights do occur. It is in these circumstances that justice and those who are entrusted with the responsibility of preserving it must play their roles properly. If they do not, then it is the duty of Muslim scholarship to take a unified stand against this. The silence in these matters is like condoning and supporting crime and injustice.

Slavery is abolished by Islam once for all

It was the year 2008 when the world observed the 200^th Anniversary of the abolition of slavery in America. Yet the celebrations failed to recognize the existence of slavery in modern-day times. In our world today some 27 million people are still forced to live in slavery, three out of four slaves are women and some 50 percent of them are children. They may not be known as slaves as many of them are described as un-free labor or bonded labor or forced labor. It is estimated that some 17,500 slaves are brought into the US every year with some 50,000 working as prostitutes, farm workers, and domestic servants. The CIA estimates about one million slaves in the US. Thousands of these people have remained unclassified as they are not recognized as slaves due to legal coercion. Despite the fact that no religious group would justify slavery from a theological perspective, the reality is that slavery has been practiced by all religious communities in the name of God against the will and guidance of God.

In the sixth century Arabia, when Prophet Muhammad introduced Islam to the people of Makkah, he found slavery institutionalized and rampant in Arab culture and society. The divine message he invited people to talk about slavery in detail and set two priorities before the newly emerging community of believers.

1.     How to eliminate slavery once for all.

2.     How to work for the freedom of those who were already slaves.

Islam proposed gradual emancipation of the existing slaves by introducing laws that would ensure equality of all human beings and that would also help create a just society to eliminate the institution of slavery once for all. Thus the Quran refers to slavery as an institution of the past and does not support the idea of its continuation. Wherever the Quran talks about slaves, it refers to those who were enslaved before the reintroduction of Islam. The Quran does not say that people are allowed to enslave others. Rather, it talks about freeing the existing slaves (90:13) The Quranic references to Aw ma malakat imanukm (4:3, 24, 25, 36; 16:71; 23:6; 24:31, 33, 50, 52, 55;70:30)  refer to those who were enslaved in the past.

Islam closed the door for enslaving human once for all. In pre-Islamic Arabia, the war prisoners were the ones who were taken as slaves or captives.  The Quran said in chapter 47 verse 47: that when you fight those who have imposed war upon you, you too should be prepared to confront them and when their strength is broken and you have subdued them, then you should take the remaining as prisoners of war. Then the Quran gives instruction saying they should either be freed or sent back after they pay compensation or through an exchange of your own prisoners. The Quran lays emphasis on freeing them and describes this as an honorable act. This is the only verse in the Quran pertaining to taking prisoners of war. Nowhere does the Quran say that such people should be enslaved and put in the chain of slavery for generations.

The Quran further explains in Chapter 3 verses 78-79 that the fundamental principle of Deen is that no human being – even though Allah may have given him a Code of Laws or the power to enforce it or even Prophethood – has the right to say to the others: “You should obey me or you should be my slave rather than Allah’s slave. What he should say is: “You should be amongst those who belong to Allah by following His Book which you study and teach to others.  

Thus, from the divine text, it is clear without any ambiguity that slavery in any form or shape is not permitted in Islam. The Quran eliminated the institution of slavery once for all and instructed the followers to embark on the process of integrating the former slaves as equal human beings in all spheres of society. The gradual approach the Quran adopted was to ensure that people understand the idea of the dignity of human beings and create objective conditions in society for their integration as full human beings.

The practice among Muslims of slave girls or boys was in contrast to the Quranic edict. It was the result of the social conditions prevailing in the medieval times. Even though many Muslim scholars in the past and present have tried to justify slavery, they have ignored the clear Quranic text in this context and succumbed to historical anecdotes rather than following the divine verdict. It was this historical explanation that resulted in the enslavement of millions of men and women in the Muslim world in the past and until recently, in places like Mauritania. It should also be mentioned that much of the justification of the institution of slavery comes from historical anecdotes allegedly related to earlier Muslims than the Quranic teachings.

Even though the Quran took an exceptionally strong stand against slavery, it was not until recently that the slavery was legally abolished in all Muslim countries.

Writing about 1862 the English traveler W.G. Palgrave says that in Arabia he constantly met with black slaves in large numbers. There were many others who observed a similar pattern in different parts of the world. Until 1891, Muslim slave-owners had Chinese slaves to girls and women used as a concubine. Until 1908, the sale of black and Caucasian women was common in Turkey. In 1925 slaves were still bought and sold in Makkah as an ordinary way of trade. These slaves were the offsprings of local slaves as well as those brought from Yemen, Africa and other Asian countries. It was only in 1936 that Saudi Arabia prohibited the importation of slaves. It was only in 1969 that Muslim states abolished slavery finally.

Islamic jurisprudence accepted the basic principle of liberty for a person, yet slavery was defined as an exceptional condition. Some scholars defined slavery as a form of punishment for unbelief. Capture in the war and birth in slavery were seen the reasons for the continuation of slavery. Much of the jurisprudence on slavery emerged in a patriarchal society politically controlled by despotism and authoritarianism. At times it went against the basic teachings of the Quran or what the Prophet said: Few bothered to see the relevance of the Prophet’s saying in their political conditions they were living in. The prophet said that "there are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgments: of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majah). 

The companions of the prophet competed with each other in setting slaves free. The Prophet personally liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by his wife 'Aishah was 67, His uncle 'Abbas liberated 70. The son of second Caliph 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and another companion 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free.  How is it possible that those liberating and freeing slaves would buy new slaves against the dictates of the Quran.

Still, there are juristic positions adopted by some contemporary scholars in justification of slavery. Yet, the majority of Muslims reject and recognize slavery as anti-Islam practice.

For instance, Syed Abul A'la Maududi, the founder of the Jama'at Islami, and a translator and commentator of the Qur'an and author of several books on Islam says that "According to the Qur'an a woman who has been captured by force falls in the category of a slave girl (kaniz).  And because the Qur'an confines the use of force to the fighting (qital) in the way of God, thus, according to the Qur'an a slave girl is that woman who falls in the hands of Muslims as a prisoner during the course of war waged in the way of God" (Rasa'il wa Masa'il 3^rd Edition, p.102, vol. 3). Responding to the question, how many slave girls a Muslim fighter may have besides his legally wedded wives?, the interpreter of the Quran Syed Maududi said: “"There is no limit to their numbers” (Tafhim-ul-Qur'an-commentary of the Qur'an by Maulana Maududi, vol. IV, under verse 33:52).

Describing the attitude of the Prophet to slavery, Syed Maududi writes:  "According to this permission, those women who came into his possession from among the God-granted salve-girls, he selected for himself Hazrat Raihana, Hazrat Juwairiyah, and Hazrat Safiyah, who were taken,  as prisoners of war in the skirmishes with Banu Quraizah, Banu Mustaliq and at Khaibar (respectively) and also Hazrat Mariyah (Mary) the Coptic sent as a gift by Maquaqis (Patriarch) of Egypt.  The former three he set free and took them into wedlock while he lived with Hazrat Mariya on account of possessing her by the right hand.  It has not been established (historically) that he set her free and took her into wedlock" (Tafhim-ul-Quran, vol. iv under verse 33:50, pp. 113-114).

Justifying this, Syed Maududi further explained: "The proper granting of the rights of possession by the State is just as legal an action as a marriage.  Therefore, a person who does not show the slightest aversion to marriage, there is no reasonable ground for him to show unnecessary aversion to living with a slave girl" (Tafhim-ul-Qur'an, Vol.1, under verse 4:24, p.340)

The assertion of Syed Maududi that the prophet did not marry Maria is not true. In one of the books it is mentioned "It is reported from 'Abdullah al-Zubairi who said: that after this the Noble Prophet married (tazawwaju)  Mariah daughter of Sham'un.  This is the same Mariyah who was sent by Maqauqis, the ruler of Alexandria to the Prophet as a gift" (Sahih al-Mustadarak Hakim Vol. iv)

Syed Maududi also ignored the following saying of the Prophet when he remarked: " A person who has a slave-girl  and trains her in the best manner and gives her the best education, then sets her free and marries her, he will have a double reward (in the next life) Mishkat-ul-Masabih Kitab-ul-Iman Ch.1; Bukhari 3:31)

How could the Prophet go against his own words? Syed Maududi and many other scholars have failed to answer this basic question while trying to justify an institution whose demise was pronounced by Islam.

Sexual Abuse in Religious Education Institutions

No, no, I should not write about it. No, no you must write about it. I was torn inside when I thought of writing about it. Why are you showing your dirty linens to the world, especially to those who are waiting for any opportunity to pounce on the community? Why do you want to be critical of your own community? Why not focus on other issues that are more relevant and important?

But then I thought of the scars that are carried by people who are traumatized by this and I felt an uncontrollable urge to write about it. The problem I am going to write about it is not on the table for discussion among Muslims. It is off-limits. It is considered a taboo. People do not talk about it or do not want to talk about it. But for the sake of those innocent souls who suffer silently and then carry their wounds to the rest of their life, this subject must be dealt with, hoping that people in our religious institutions would address this problem and prepare guidelines that would ensure that such practices do not take place ever anywhere.

It is about those young and innocent children who suffer sexual abuse during their early years of education in many religious institutions throughout the Muslim world. Regardless of the country, where these schools are located, there are untold stories many young children keep to themselves throughout their lives about the abuse they suffer in the early stages of life.

I personally met several such students in the Indian-Pakistan-Bangladesh sub-continent, in Iran, in Malaysia and Indonesia and in several places in Africa as well as in the Middle East who are now young adults but who are bitter and wounded about what they went through. A teacher, a senior student or a physically stronger person turned their vulnerability to his advantage. They were coerced to take care of the sexual urges of such people. They were forced to do all sorts of acts that would please their controller. They were afraid to tell others because they were threatened with dire consequences.

How could a six-year-old kid literally abandoned by his parents and left at the mercy of people at the religious institutions defend himself against his attackers when they are the ones who control his future destiny?

There is no need to go into details. The details would hurt. The wounds are ugly and the stories are horrible. Suffice to say that religious institutions, by and large, have no policy to deal with this kind of widespread abuse. When someone comes up with accusation authorities either hush up the matter or force students to be quiet.  

While intellectuals and scholars are focused on raising funds and drawing up a new curriculum, it is important that they address the issue of sexual abuse of children in a bold manner. I am referring to those in the age group of 5 and under18 coming from poor and vulnerable families often abandoned by those who brought them in this world. I am talking about those who were inducted in the Islamic education system as the families were unable to afford their livelihood. I am talking about those who are afraid to complain about anything as it might jeopardize their future..

It is good to say that Islam promotes ethics that prohibits this kind of abuse. But how should one deal when this abuse takes place and what measures one must adopt to ensure that they do not recur?  

This is an issue that we have ignored and neglected for ages. No one wants to talk about it. But we must ask the religious scholars and clergy running these institutions to look into the matter seriously. Each institution must find its internal mechanism to deal with the problem. But there must be some overall guidelines for an institution not only to deal with the perpetrators but to rehabilitate the victim. The scars and the shame that one carries haunt him throughout life, influencing his behavior and attitude towards life. And it often leads to an unending chain of abuse. 

There are several cases that can be published with the names of the institutions and individuals, but it would not serve any purpose except initiating furious allegations with no end in sight. But silence is no more an option. The Quran talks about the day when all the secrets would be open: “that day when all things would be tested.” (86:9) That day has arrived.

Before the issue goes out of control and things become unmanageable, it is better to look into the issue seriously and take appropriate measures to deal with them openly and honestly keeping in mind the future of the generations that would one day lead us in religious matters.