I am simply unable to understand why there is so much coverage on Gayatri Devi. I tried to find out what Gayatri Devi has done. I could not find out much other than the fact that she got selected as one of the most beautiful women by some magazine. She has won some elections - mostly due to her royal background. Somewhere in the corner I read that she also did some charity work. Most of the news articles just talk about her lavish royal lifestyle. Does such a person deserve so much attention? Rajasthan government is giving her state honors -:(
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Varun’s Hate Speech
Varun Gandhi has committed a big mistake in his attempt to impress Hindu voters. He claims that the videos are forged. I personally don't buy his story. In any case, slapping NSA on him is an overreaction by the Mayawati government. Such overreaction would only create sympathy for Varun and as a result the mistake he has done may lose focus. Lalu has gone a step further and says that he would crush him using a roller. It is really disgusting to hear such things for a senior politician. If Mayawati and Lalu are thinking that they can get the support of Muslims with such hate actions and statements, they have totally misunderstood Islam. What else can we expect from our politicians who want to capitalize on every possible opportunity? Though I strongly condemn Varun's comments, I feel sorry for him - he has become a victim of dirty politics.
Muslims voters should not get carried away by the actions and utterances of politicians. They should look through the tactics of the politicians and decide with a clear mind. I am not against voting for Mayawati or Lalu. But, one should not vote for them just because they have shown hate towards Varun. Hate has no place in Islam.
Note: Comments are moderated
Muslims voters should not get carried away by the actions and utterances of politicians. They should look through the tactics of the politicians and decide with a clear mind. I am not against voting for Mayawati or Lalu. But, one should not vote for them just because they have shown hate towards Varun. Hate has no place in Islam.
Note: Comments are moderated
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Verse of the Sword – What is the truth?
Verse 9:5 of Quran is popularly known as the verse of the sword by those who argue that Islam is violent by nature. I am quoting verse 9:5 below.
9:5 - Then, when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and seize them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and establish prayer and give zakah, then leave their way. Indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
People interpret this verse as a command to fight against all polytheists till they accept Islam (establishing prayer and giving zahah means accepting Islam). This is seen as the basis to spread Islam by the sword.
Another verse that is equally popular among those who argue against Islam is verse 9:29.
9:29 - Fight those who do not believe in Allah and in the Last Day, and they do not make unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, and they do not acknowledge the true religion (Islam) from those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the Jizya willingly while they are subdued.
This verse mentions the people given Scripture (Jews & Christians) and talks about jizya (a kind of tax). Verse 9:29 is put together with verse 9:5 to conclude that – all polytheists have only two options: convert to Islam or face death while Jews and Christians have a third option: pay jizya and live in subdued state.
In addition to this, the surah that contains these two verses is believed to be the last surah that was revealed. Based on that, it is also argued that whatever is there in this surah is the final word and anything in other surahs that talk about peace, etc are all invalidated.
There is strong ground for Muslims to argue that all these interpretations of the two verses (9:5 & 9:29) are wrong. To start with, one needs to understand that there is a specific approach that needs to be used for understanding Quran. I have described the approach in a separate post – Understanding Islam from Quran.
Now, before coming to verse 9:5 and 9:29, one needs to first look at certain other verses that establish high-level guidelines on the relationship Muslims should have with non-Muslims.
Consider the following verses.
60:8 - Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
60:9 - Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
The above two verses are preceded by verses that talk of not having friendship with non-Muslims. These two verses summarize the whole concept – Muslims should treat non-Muslims with kindness and justice as long as the non-Muslims don’t fight Muslims on account of religion and don’t oppress Muslims (drive them out of their homes).
Quran allows Muslims to fight against those who fight them on account of religion, as explained by the below verses.
Quran 22:39 & 22:40 - Permission is given to those who are being fought because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is Able to give them victory. Those who have been evicted from their homes without right only because they said, “Our Lord is Allah.” ...
Though Quran gives Muslims the right to retaliate, it asks them to prefer patience over fight.
16:126 - And if you retaliate, retaliate with an equivalent of that with which you were afflicted. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient.
Now let me come to verse 9:5. Have a look at the verses before and after that verse.
9:4 - Except those with whom you have a treaty among the polytheists and they have not failed you in anything and they have not supported anyone against you, so fulfill their treaty until their term (has ended). Indeed, Allah loves the righteous.
9:6 - And if anyone of the polytheists seek your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Words of Allah. Then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
Verse 9:4 clarifies that the fight is because the polytheists have broken the treaty and turned hostile towards Muslims. Verse 9:1 to 9:3 can also be read to get more information on the context – the polytheists had broken the treaty and Muslims are asked to wait till the sacred months are over and then retaliate.
Verse 9:6 says that if a polytheist surrenders, Muslims are supposed to escort them to a place of safety after making them hear the words of God. From this verse, it is obvious that there is no intention of forcing the polytheists to accept Islam. They are made to hear the words of God and then allowed to go where they want. This shows that the fight is only against hostility and not to spread Islam. Spreading the word of God is something that Muslims are supposed to do as much as possible. Asking those who have surrendered in battle to just hear certain things on God cannot be considered unfair. It is unfair only if they are tortured or forced to accept Islam.
In addition to that, Quran is completely against compelling anyone to accept Islam. Consider the following verses.
3:20 - So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants.
10:99 - If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!
Verse 3:20 asks the Prophet to just convey the message from God - there is no other duty for him. Verse 10:99 says that some people do not believe only due to God’s intention and the Prophet should not compel people to believe. If Mohammed himself does not have the right to apply any force to make people believe, other Muslims cannot even think of doing it.
Note that verse 9:5 talks about ending the fight if the opponent accepts Islam. At many places, Quran talks about ending hostilities when the opponents accept Islam. This approach is based on the principle that when someone accepts Islam it is implicit that there is no reason to continue the hostilities – this is because most of the fights referred to in Quran were on account of religious differences. This does not mean that the fight itself is just to make the opponents accept Islam.
The reason for the fight referred to in verse 9:5 is the failure of the polytheists to honor a peace treaty. But in case of verse 9:29, it is violation of a special type of peace treaty called Dhimmah. The key word in verse 9:29 is jizya. One needs to understand the meaning of jizya first. Jizya is related to Dhimmah. I am describing the concept of jizya below.
Dhimmah is a social contract an Islamic society makes with non-Muslims in order to let them be within the Islamic society. Islam is not just a belief system - it includes social practices that are aimed at making Islamic societies self-sustaining. One such practice is zakah - mandatory charity that every capable Muslim should pay in order to take care of the economically weaker sections of the society. Under Dhimmah, capable non-Muslims have to make a mutually agreed periodic payment to the Muslims. This periodic payment is called jizya. The concept of jizya is there in order to ensure that non-Muslims also contribute to the society similar to the way Muslims do with zakah. Another point to note is that jizya is not something enforced by Muslims arbitrarily – the amount of jizya is agreed upon by the non-Muslims at the time of establishing the contract.
Verse 9:29 clearly says that the fight is to get jizya. Based on that, it is obvious that the fight is against someone who owed jizya but refused to pay – it is not about fighting non-Muslims in general. In an Islamic society, even Muslims will be asked to pay zakah similar to the way non-Muslims pay jizya. It is just about enforcing the law of the land – similar to the way present day governments enforce taxes on citizens.
Another criticism on verse 9:29 is about the phrase “pay the jizya willingly while they are subdued”. This is misinterpreted as a requirement that those who pay jiza (i.e., those who are under Dhimmah) should always be in a subdued state. This is an incorrect interpretation. The word “subdued” can refer to only getting subdued in battle. The verse just says that the opponents should be subdued in battle and made to pay the due jizya. Verse 60:8 clearly states that non-Muslims who are not hostile should be treated with kindness and justice. Dhimmis (non-Muslims under Dhimmah) are those who have agreed by contract to live in peace with Muslims - there is no question of treating them badly or as second class citizens.
Note: Comments are moderated
9:5 - Then, when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and seize them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and establish prayer and give zakah, then leave their way. Indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
People interpret this verse as a command to fight against all polytheists till they accept Islam (establishing prayer and giving zahah means accepting Islam). This is seen as the basis to spread Islam by the sword.
Another verse that is equally popular among those who argue against Islam is verse 9:29.
9:29 - Fight those who do not believe in Allah and in the Last Day, and they do not make unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, and they do not acknowledge the true religion (Islam) from those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the Jizya willingly while they are subdued.
This verse mentions the people given Scripture (Jews & Christians) and talks about jizya (a kind of tax). Verse 9:29 is put together with verse 9:5 to conclude that – all polytheists have only two options: convert to Islam or face death while Jews and Christians have a third option: pay jizya and live in subdued state.
In addition to this, the surah that contains these two verses is believed to be the last surah that was revealed. Based on that, it is also argued that whatever is there in this surah is the final word and anything in other surahs that talk about peace, etc are all invalidated.
There is strong ground for Muslims to argue that all these interpretations of the two verses (9:5 & 9:29) are wrong. To start with, one needs to understand that there is a specific approach that needs to be used for understanding Quran. I have described the approach in a separate post – Understanding Islam from Quran.
Now, before coming to verse 9:5 and 9:29, one needs to first look at certain other verses that establish high-level guidelines on the relationship Muslims should have with non-Muslims.
Consider the following verses.
60:8 - Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
60:9 - Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
The above two verses are preceded by verses that talk of not having friendship with non-Muslims. These two verses summarize the whole concept – Muslims should treat non-Muslims with kindness and justice as long as the non-Muslims don’t fight Muslims on account of religion and don’t oppress Muslims (drive them out of their homes).
Quran allows Muslims to fight against those who fight them on account of religion, as explained by the below verses.
Quran 22:39 & 22:40 - Permission is given to those who are being fought because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is Able to give them victory. Those who have been evicted from their homes without right only because they said, “Our Lord is Allah.” ...
Though Quran gives Muslims the right to retaliate, it asks them to prefer patience over fight.
16:126 - And if you retaliate, retaliate with an equivalent of that with which you were afflicted. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient.
Now let me come to verse 9:5. Have a look at the verses before and after that verse.
9:4 - Except those with whom you have a treaty among the polytheists and they have not failed you in anything and they have not supported anyone against you, so fulfill their treaty until their term (has ended). Indeed, Allah loves the righteous.
9:6 - And if anyone of the polytheists seek your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Words of Allah. Then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
Verse 9:4 clarifies that the fight is because the polytheists have broken the treaty and turned hostile towards Muslims. Verse 9:1 to 9:3 can also be read to get more information on the context – the polytheists had broken the treaty and Muslims are asked to wait till the sacred months are over and then retaliate.
Verse 9:6 says that if a polytheist surrenders, Muslims are supposed to escort them to a place of safety after making them hear the words of God. From this verse, it is obvious that there is no intention of forcing the polytheists to accept Islam. They are made to hear the words of God and then allowed to go where they want. This shows that the fight is only against hostility and not to spread Islam. Spreading the word of God is something that Muslims are supposed to do as much as possible. Asking those who have surrendered in battle to just hear certain things on God cannot be considered unfair. It is unfair only if they are tortured or forced to accept Islam.
In addition to that, Quran is completely against compelling anyone to accept Islam. Consider the following verses.
3:20 - So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants.
10:99 - If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!
Verse 3:20 asks the Prophet to just convey the message from God - there is no other duty for him. Verse 10:99 says that some people do not believe only due to God’s intention and the Prophet should not compel people to believe. If Mohammed himself does not have the right to apply any force to make people believe, other Muslims cannot even think of doing it.
Note that verse 9:5 talks about ending the fight if the opponent accepts Islam. At many places, Quran talks about ending hostilities when the opponents accept Islam. This approach is based on the principle that when someone accepts Islam it is implicit that there is no reason to continue the hostilities – this is because most of the fights referred to in Quran were on account of religious differences. This does not mean that the fight itself is just to make the opponents accept Islam.
The reason for the fight referred to in verse 9:5 is the failure of the polytheists to honor a peace treaty. But in case of verse 9:29, it is violation of a special type of peace treaty called Dhimmah. The key word in verse 9:29 is jizya. One needs to understand the meaning of jizya first. Jizya is related to Dhimmah. I am describing the concept of jizya below.
Dhimmah is a social contract an Islamic society makes with non-Muslims in order to let them be within the Islamic society. Islam is not just a belief system - it includes social practices that are aimed at making Islamic societies self-sustaining. One such practice is zakah - mandatory charity that every capable Muslim should pay in order to take care of the economically weaker sections of the society. Under Dhimmah, capable non-Muslims have to make a mutually agreed periodic payment to the Muslims. This periodic payment is called jizya. The concept of jizya is there in order to ensure that non-Muslims also contribute to the society similar to the way Muslims do with zakah. Another point to note is that jizya is not something enforced by Muslims arbitrarily – the amount of jizya is agreed upon by the non-Muslims at the time of establishing the contract.
Verse 9:29 clearly says that the fight is to get jizya. Based on that, it is obvious that the fight is against someone who owed jizya but refused to pay – it is not about fighting non-Muslims in general. In an Islamic society, even Muslims will be asked to pay zakah similar to the way non-Muslims pay jizya. It is just about enforcing the law of the land – similar to the way present day governments enforce taxes on citizens.
Another criticism on verse 9:29 is about the phrase “pay the jizya willingly while they are subdued”. This is misinterpreted as a requirement that those who pay jiza (i.e., those who are under Dhimmah) should always be in a subdued state. This is an incorrect interpretation. The word “subdued” can refer to only getting subdued in battle. The verse just says that the opponents should be subdued in battle and made to pay the due jizya. Verse 60:8 clearly states that non-Muslims who are not hostile should be treated with kindness and justice. Dhimmis (non-Muslims under Dhimmah) are those who have agreed by contract to live in peace with Muslims - there is no question of treating them badly or as second class citizens.
Note: Comments are moderated
Understanding Islam from Quran
Understanding Quran is key to understanding Islam. In addition to Quran, there are other sources of knowledge like Hadith, etc. However, in order to get an understanding of the core principles and practices of Islam, it is sufficient if one looks at Quran alone. All other sources must be consistent with Quran – any inconsistent material from other sources should be considered invalid. Here, I am describing the approach that should be used for understanding Quran.
Note: The translations of Quran verses used here are from Abdullah Yusuf Ali (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)
Quran is believed by Muslims to have come directly from God. It is the most authentic source of knowledge on Islam. Quran cannot be understood with a casual reading - some focused attention is required in order to understand it. Based on verses from Quran itself I am explaining how Quran should be interpreted:
4:82 - Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
This verse essentially says that you will not find discrepancies in Quran. Incidentally, this verse is placed very close to two verses (4:78 & 4:79) that appear to contradict each other. If someone perceives discrepancy between certain verses in Quran, then it means that s/he has misinterpreted the verses. Whenever one tries to understand Quran’s stance on a particular topic, s/he should read all related verses from different parts of Quran together. One needs to consider verses on the particular topic as well as verses on Quran’s high level principles that have a general applicability to multiple contexts.
Some people talk about the concept of abrogation – they say that if there is a conflict between two verses, the verse revealed later would abrogate the earlier one. This is an invalid concept. When Quran clearly says that there is no contradiction in it, there is no question of abrogation. The proponents of abrogation concept cite verses 2:106 and 16:101. These verses talk about replacing certain messages/signs with new ones. These verses actually refer to replacement of messages sent before Quran – messages sent through earlier messengers like Moses and Jesus. Even in case of replacing messages, verse 2:106 clearly says that the new message will be similar to or better than the previous one. This cannot be interpreted as replacing a wrong message with a right one – the previous message will continue to be true, although it is replaced.
The next important verse on understanding Quran is:
3:7 - He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
As per the above verse, there are certain verses in Quran that are allegorical. Only God knows the true meaning of the verses. People should not interpret those verses in a manner that causes discord. The above verse also says that one needs to believe that the whole of Quran is from God – no part of it can be considered as false. Now, there arises a question: what are we supposed to do with the allegorical verses that cannot be understood completely? The answer is – we don’t have to do anything. The verses in Quran can be classified into two broad categories:
(a) Verses that command people to do certain things or not do certain actions. These verses cannot be ambiguous in any way – God himself is not going to say that commands from him cannot be understood by humans. Verses in this category are the ones that define the actions and practices mandated for Muslims. It is important that these verses are understood completely.
(b) Verses that describe the characteristics of something or someone - Allah, Quran, Mohammed, Jews, Christians, God’s punishments, God’s rewards, some event of the past, and so on. Some of these verses may use metaphorical descriptions. These verses would not have any command/guideline to humans from God. In other words, knowing the true meaning of these verses would not change any belief/action/practice of a true Muslim. For example, verse 2:23 challenges anyone who doubts Quran to produce a surah similar to any of the surahs in Quran. This verse states the greatness of Quran. A true Muslim would not need any further introspection on this verse because s/he already has great esteem for Quran. But, some Muslims spend time trying to find out why surahs are unique by counting words, applying mathematical calculations, etc. In my opinion, spending time on finding out the uniqueness of surahs is an unnecessary effort - it does not benefit anyone.
Note: I have done the above categorization of verses just for the purpose of explaining the approach that needs to be used while interpreting Quran. However, Quran itself does not do any categorization.
God also gives an assurance that Quran will be protected from any corruption. The assurance is given in the following two verses.
Quran 15:9 - We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
Quran 41:42 - No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.
There is only a single version of Quran on earth today. So, one need not be worried about multiple versions or distortions in Quran.
Another important aspect to consider while understanding the verses is the context in which those verses were revealed. Quran was revealed over a period of 23 years and the verses were not revealed in the same order in which they are organized. The history behind certain verses may be uncertain or may not be available. In addition to that, there is no guarantee that the available historic information will be 100% accurate. God has promised to guard only Quran against distortion. One should be cognizant of this fact while looking into the history behind the Quran verses.
I short, one needs to take into consideration all of the following in order to understand any particular verse.
1. Verses adjoining the verse under considering.
2. Verses on the same topic from other parts of Quran.
3. Verses on high level principles that have applicability to the topic being considered.
4. Historic context of all the verses being looked at.
Except the 4th item (history) everything else can be got from Quran itself. It may be possible to understand Quran verses without looking at the historic context – but it requires very careful study. People who read the translation have an additional challenge due to distortions during translation.
Note: Comments are moderated
Note: The translations of Quran verses used here are from Abdullah Yusuf Ali (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)
Quran is believed by Muslims to have come directly from God. It is the most authentic source of knowledge on Islam. Quran cannot be understood with a casual reading - some focused attention is required in order to understand it. Based on verses from Quran itself I am explaining how Quran should be interpreted:
4:82 - Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
This verse essentially says that you will not find discrepancies in Quran. Incidentally, this verse is placed very close to two verses (4:78 & 4:79) that appear to contradict each other. If someone perceives discrepancy between certain verses in Quran, then it means that s/he has misinterpreted the verses. Whenever one tries to understand Quran’s stance on a particular topic, s/he should read all related verses from different parts of Quran together. One needs to consider verses on the particular topic as well as verses on Quran’s high level principles that have a general applicability to multiple contexts.
Some people talk about the concept of abrogation – they say that if there is a conflict between two verses, the verse revealed later would abrogate the earlier one. This is an invalid concept. When Quran clearly says that there is no contradiction in it, there is no question of abrogation. The proponents of abrogation concept cite verses 2:106 and 16:101. These verses talk about replacing certain messages/signs with new ones. These verses actually refer to replacement of messages sent before Quran – messages sent through earlier messengers like Moses and Jesus. Even in case of replacing messages, verse 2:106 clearly says that the new message will be similar to or better than the previous one. This cannot be interpreted as replacing a wrong message with a right one – the previous message will continue to be true, although it is replaced.
The next important verse on understanding Quran is:
3:7 - He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
As per the above verse, there are certain verses in Quran that are allegorical. Only God knows the true meaning of the verses. People should not interpret those verses in a manner that causes discord. The above verse also says that one needs to believe that the whole of Quran is from God – no part of it can be considered as false. Now, there arises a question: what are we supposed to do with the allegorical verses that cannot be understood completely? The answer is – we don’t have to do anything. The verses in Quran can be classified into two broad categories:
(a) Verses that command people to do certain things or not do certain actions. These verses cannot be ambiguous in any way – God himself is not going to say that commands from him cannot be understood by humans. Verses in this category are the ones that define the actions and practices mandated for Muslims. It is important that these verses are understood completely.
(b) Verses that describe the characteristics of something or someone - Allah, Quran, Mohammed, Jews, Christians, God’s punishments, God’s rewards, some event of the past, and so on. Some of these verses may use metaphorical descriptions. These verses would not have any command/guideline to humans from God. In other words, knowing the true meaning of these verses would not change any belief/action/practice of a true Muslim. For example, verse 2:23 challenges anyone who doubts Quran to produce a surah similar to any of the surahs in Quran. This verse states the greatness of Quran. A true Muslim would not need any further introspection on this verse because s/he already has great esteem for Quran. But, some Muslims spend time trying to find out why surahs are unique by counting words, applying mathematical calculations, etc. In my opinion, spending time on finding out the uniqueness of surahs is an unnecessary effort - it does not benefit anyone.
Note: I have done the above categorization of verses just for the purpose of explaining the approach that needs to be used while interpreting Quran. However, Quran itself does not do any categorization.
God also gives an assurance that Quran will be protected from any corruption. The assurance is given in the following two verses.
Quran 15:9 - We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
Quran 41:42 - No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.
There is only a single version of Quran on earth today. So, one need not be worried about multiple versions or distortions in Quran.
Another important aspect to consider while understanding the verses is the context in which those verses were revealed. Quran was revealed over a period of 23 years and the verses were not revealed in the same order in which they are organized. The history behind certain verses may be uncertain or may not be available. In addition to that, there is no guarantee that the available historic information will be 100% accurate. God has promised to guard only Quran against distortion. One should be cognizant of this fact while looking into the history behind the Quran verses.
I short, one needs to take into consideration all of the following in order to understand any particular verse.
1. Verses adjoining the verse under considering.
2. Verses on the same topic from other parts of Quran.
3. Verses on high level principles that have applicability to the topic being considered.
4. Historic context of all the verses being looked at.
Except the 4th item (history) everything else can be got from Quran itself. It may be possible to understand Quran verses without looking at the historic context – but it requires very careful study. People who read the translation have an additional challenge due to distortions during translation.
Note: Comments are moderated
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Who is Immoral?
Outfits like Sri Ram Sena and some Chief Ministers are making a big issue about pubs. While Sri Ram Sena talks about using violence to stop pub culture, it is not clear what actions the CMs are proposing to stop pub culture. Pub culture promotes drinking - that is a bad thing for sure. Apart from that, I don't think there is anything wrong about pubs. People who are against boys and girls having fun together are not in tune with the times.
The Sri Ram Senas attack pubs because they don't like boys and girls mixing. They also drag religion into the issue - they are especially against Hindu girls having any interaction with Muslim/Christian boys. They say that many young unmarried girls commit suicide because they get pregnant. They put most of the blame on Muslim/Christian boys. The sad part is that these disgusting ideas get support from none other than the Chief Minister.
The Yeddyurappas and Ashok Gehlots come to power talking about development and governance. Once they are in power they start questioning the morals of the very people who voted them to power. These politicians would not dare to talk about moral policing when they seek votes. But, everything changes when they assume power - they start behaving as if they are maharajas. It is their morals that need to be questioned.
Note: comments are moderated
Saturday, January 31, 2009
More on Secularism
This is a continuation of my earlier post on Secularism. I am elaborating on some of the points mentioned earlier for better clarity.
Belief Explained
When listing down the three basic characteristics of the members of a secular society, I used the word “belief”. As mentioned earlier, the beliefs we are referring to here are the ones that are impossible to convincingly prove or disprove using scientific facts. I intentionally used the word “belief” instead of the word “religion” because the beliefs of an individual will normally not fit into any particular religion. I also wrote in that post that an individual who chooses to follow a particular religion should not be under compulsion to adhere to every practice/belief of that religion. All this essentially mean that an individual should be free to pick and choose what specific things he wants to believe in. The set of beliefs that an individual has may come from multiple religions and culture.
For example, an Indian Muslim woman may believe in Astrology and Feng shui but not on Vastu. She may also believe that Friday the 13th is unlucky and be of the opinion that Muslim women need not wear hijab. The set of beliefs this person has will not completely fit into Indian tradition or Islam. We cannot call this person anti-Indian because she does not believe in Vastu or because she believes in foreign things like Feng shui and Friday the 13th. Similarly, no one can force her to wear hijab just because she calls herself a Muslim.
I think, the goal of secularism can be achieved by letting each individual to have his/her own set of beliefs without causing any harm to others. There is no need to define any accepted set of beliefs.
What is Secularism?
Secularism is not a term that is owned by anyone. The term will mean different things to different people. The objective of my post was not to explain what secularism is – It was to explore what secularism should be. My approach was to start with goal - to avoid problems in the society caused by conflicting beliefs – and work towards a realistic approach. The idea to arrive at an approach that will work for us – we don’t have to be hung-up on what others call as secularism. We could even give a new name to our approach.
How about Dharma?
The article pointed to by Vishwa (http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-secularism) compares Dharma and Secularism. I think we don’t have to get into that discussion. We should rather think about a workable approach to achieve the overall goal. We can combine ideas from Dharma, Secularism and many other philosophies. The above link does not give the definition of Dharma. But, another article from the same site (http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma) has a good definition:
It is most difficult to define Dharma.
Dharma has been explained to be that which helps the upliftment of living beings.
Therefore, that which ensures the welfare of living beings is surely Dharma.
The learned rishis have declared that which sustains is Dharma
- Shanti Parva - 109-9-11
So, an approach that makes an honest attempt to achieve the goal of avoiding problems in the society caused by conflicting beliefs is in fact Dharmic according to the above definition of Dharma.
Note: comments are moderated
Belief Explained
When listing down the three basic characteristics of the members of a secular society, I used the word “belief”. As mentioned earlier, the beliefs we are referring to here are the ones that are impossible to convincingly prove or disprove using scientific facts. I intentionally used the word “belief” instead of the word “religion” because the beliefs of an individual will normally not fit into any particular religion. I also wrote in that post that an individual who chooses to follow a particular religion should not be under compulsion to adhere to every practice/belief of that religion. All this essentially mean that an individual should be free to pick and choose what specific things he wants to believe in. The set of beliefs that an individual has may come from multiple religions and culture.
For example, an Indian Muslim woman may believe in Astrology and Feng shui but not on Vastu. She may also believe that Friday the 13th is unlucky and be of the opinion that Muslim women need not wear hijab. The set of beliefs this person has will not completely fit into Indian tradition or Islam. We cannot call this person anti-Indian because she does not believe in Vastu or because she believes in foreign things like Feng shui and Friday the 13th. Similarly, no one can force her to wear hijab just because she calls herself a Muslim.
I think, the goal of secularism can be achieved by letting each individual to have his/her own set of beliefs without causing any harm to others. There is no need to define any accepted set of beliefs.
What is Secularism?
Secularism is not a term that is owned by anyone. The term will mean different things to different people. The objective of my post was not to explain what secularism is – It was to explore what secularism should be. My approach was to start with goal - to avoid problems in the society caused by conflicting beliefs – and work towards a realistic approach. The idea to arrive at an approach that will work for us – we don’t have to be hung-up on what others call as secularism. We could even give a new name to our approach.
How about Dharma?
The article pointed to by Vishwa (http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-secularism) compares Dharma and Secularism. I think we don’t have to get into that discussion. We should rather think about a workable approach to achieve the overall goal. We can combine ideas from Dharma, Secularism and many other philosophies. The above link does not give the definition of Dharma. But, another article from the same site (http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma) has a good definition:
It is most difficult to define Dharma.
Dharma has been explained to be that which helps the upliftment of living beings.
Therefore, that which ensures the welfare of living beings is surely Dharma.
The learned rishis have declared that which sustains is Dharma
- Shanti Parva - 109-9-11
So, an approach that makes an honest attempt to achieve the goal of avoiding problems in the society caused by conflicting beliefs is in fact Dharmic according to the above definition of Dharma.
Note: comments are moderated
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Secularism
Secularism is a concept that is often misunderstood. At one extreme we have people who equate secularism with atheism and at the other extreme we have people who look at secularism as a mechanism by which the society defines a common set of beliefs that everyone accepts. Everyone would agree that the goal of secularism is to have social harmony. But, people have many different opinions on how social harmony can be achieved. Here, I am trying my best to figure out what secularism should be.
The goal and the possible approaches
The goal of secularism is to avoid problems in the society caused by conflicting beliefs of different people. One obvious way to achieve this goal is to make all the beliefs in the society consistent with each other. This approach would require some or all people to change or drop certain beliefs that cause conflict. The biggest challenge in making this happen would be to convince people to change or drop the conflicting beliefs. The only way to really change someone’s belief is by confronting it using facts and logic. The beliefs we are talking about here are spiritual beliefs – they are not based on facts, but faith. It would be impossible to prove or disprove these kinds of beliefs using scientific facts. For example, let us consider that there is someone who believes that there is a power called God beyond the universe. This belief cannot be disproved by science because science just knows that universe is a big expanding ball of matter. Science is yet to figure out what lies beyond the universe. When people are not able to come to common ground based on facts and logic, they are most likely to get into confrontations based on beliefs. As a result, the approach of making all beliefs consistent with each other should be considered flawed because the approach itself creates the problems that it is supposed to avoid.
Another approach often suggested by some people to achieve secularism is to make everyone accept that all others faiths are also correct. I consider this approach to be a simplified form of the above approach of making beliefs to be consistent with each other. There are certain beliefs that can never become consistent with each other. For example, consider that there is a person who believes that there is no God and there is another person who believes that there is God. Now, think what would happen if we ask both of them to believe that the other person is also correct – we will be in effect asking these two individuals to have paradoxical beliefs.
Since changing beliefs of people to achieve the goal of secularism is clearly impractical, we need to see how the goal of secularism can be achieved without getting into the slippery slope of changing the beliefs of people.
Members of a secular society
For a secular society, we need a way by which people can hold on to their beliefs but still live together without fighting among them on beliefs. Let me list down what I think would be the basic characteristics of the members of a secular society.
1. They will have their own beliefs on spirituality. But, they will not expect the beliefs of all others to be consistent with theirs. People will consider it normal for others to have beliefs that might conflict with theirs.
2. They will have a healthy social relationship with others even if they don’t have the same beliefs as them.
3. They will practice/express their beliefs without creating denigration, hatred, violence or other anti-social behavior.
Now, let me go into more details on each of the points taking the Indian context into account.
My first point is related to what is normally called tolerance. One common misconception about religious tolerance is the assumption that religious tolerance requires one to accept that other’s faiths are also correct. Hindus who go by this assumption see the concept of tolerance to be totally consistent with the Hindu concept that God can be reached by multiple ways. They feel that religions like Islam are unsuitable for secularism because those religions require followers to believe that theirs is the only right way to God. Similarly, there are many Muslims who go by the above assumption and think secularism is against Islam. Confusion between the concepts of secular government the concepts of secular society may be a reason for the incorrect assumption. A secular government is supposed to treat all religions as equal, but an individual in a secular society is not at fault if he considers one religion to be truer than another.
In my opinion, the word “tolerance” itself is inappropriate to be used in this context because of the common meaning of the word. One normally understands “tolerance” as capacity to endure pain or hardship. So, when we say we should tolerate other religions, it appears as if other religions cause pain to us and we are supposed to endure the pain. I would prefer to say “respect other religions” instead of saying “tolerate other religions”. We should not feel pained to show respect to other religions. We should rather consider it natural for other religions to exist and have beliefs that may possibly conflict with ours. If we consider tolerance as a hardship, it will naturally lead to accumulation of frustration over time and result in the pent-up frustration manifesting itself in undesirable ways.
My second point (people should have a healthy social relationship with others even if they don’t have the same beliefs as them) is an essential requirement of a secular society. This requires people to not be ghettoized based on religion and have good social relations among them. Religion should not be a major factor in normal social interactions. This will ensure that people don’t look at those belonging to other religions with suspicion. This requires some more open-mindedness than just tolerance as described earlier. People should have basic awareness of other religions. They should try to involve neighbors/friends from other religions in their celebrations.
We should understand that every religion will have some elements that are intolerant toward others. The success of a secular society is in marginalizing the intolerant elements. That cannot happen unless there is a cordial social atmosphere. Having a good social relationship with people from other religions will also ensure that one does not stereotype other religions based on the acts of certain intolerant elements. For example, a Hindu who has a reasonable level of social relationship with Muslims would not stereotype Muslims as supporters of terror.
Unfortunately, we are not doing very well on socialization in India. We do have business/work relationships without bringing in religious differences. But, there is always an undercurrent of mistrust on other religions. This is not the case with all Indians – only those who do not socialize enough are likely to have this problem. Political parties exploit the feeling of mistrust to their advantage. The feeling of mistrust is probably because historically caste has been a major factor in determining how one socializes with others. Religion has added one more dimension to it.
My third and last point (people should practice/express their beliefs without creating denigration, hatred, violence or other anti-social behavior) is another requirement of a secular society to be sustainable. This is to ensure that individuals or faith groups practice/preach their beliefs without harming others. The support of law should be there in order to achieve this. Governments should act promptly and strongly to any religion based act of violence, terror, etc. Any shortcomings of governments in taking action against religion based anti-social acts will cause erosion of trust on the government. It will lead to further strengthening of divisive forces that will damage the secular nature of the society.
In India, the laxity of governments in responding to violence caused by Islamic terrorists and Hindu fanatics has dented the trust people have on the governments. The inefficiency of the criminal justice system we have is also a problem. We would definitely need a lot of work to restore the trust of people.
Nature of a secular society
The nature of a secular society follows from the nature of its members described above. A secular society should give full freedom for individuals to follow any religion they like. People should not be under compulsion to follow any particular religion. They should be free to change their religion whenever they desire to do so. If an individual chooses to follow a particular religion there should be no compulsion to adhere to every practice/belief of that religion.
A secular society is most likely to be pluralist. A secular society may be homogeneous at some point in time due to natural evolution. But, it will not be making explicit attempts to bring in or to retain homogeneity. Due to the human nature to question things and to innovate, the personal freedom given by a secular society causes the society to become pluralistic.
India is officially secular since it established its constitution, though the word “secular” was added explicitly only much later. But in my opinion, India is a secular society even from the days when Hinduism was the only way of life. Faiths like Buddhism could rise because the society was not rigid – the Hindu concept that God can be reached through multiple ways would have helped. India has been open to even faiths that are not consistent with Hinduism. Christianity and Islam came to India (Kerala) much before any foreign invader came. The trend continues even today – India has the maximum number of followers of Bahá'í faith, one of the newest faiths in the world.
Indian society has evolved from a homogenous Hindu society to the present pluralist form. It has certainly been influenced by Muslim/Christian rulers. But I think even if there had been no external invasion, India would have had the same kind of religious diversity it has today, although with different demographics.
Secular government
The definition of secularism is incomplete without talking about the responsibilities of the government. The role of government is crucial to secularism. Following are the characteristics of a secular government.
1. It will not use religious sentiments or religious morals as the basis of its laws – This means that the law should be common to all and that the law should not be based on the sentiments of any particular faith.
2. It will not be funding or interfering in the religious activities of any religion – In this age of governments shifting away from non-core activities, religious activities would be the first thing the government should get off its plate. If government promotes/subsidizes religious activities it will be a difficult task to give equal attention to all religions and keep all sections happy. It would be more efficient for the faiths to have their own non-profit institutions to manage religious activities with the support of followers.
3. It will have common laws related to social activities that involve multiple individuals, like marriage, property transfers, adoption, etc – This is essential because of complications that are likely to arise due to situations involving individuals from multiple religions. However, having a common law would not prevent people from following the rules of a religion with the consent of all parties involved. For example, let us assume that the common law requires children, spouse and parents to inherit equal share of the property of a deceased person. In a situation where all the parties inheriting (as per the common law) are Muslims they can choose to split the property as per Islamic guidelines. But if any one of the parties objects, the common law should apply.
4. If it has to resolve conflicts between religions, it will do it based on facts, not sentiments – If the government is in a situation where it has to resolve a conflict between two religious communities, it should first try to arrive at a consensus. If that is not possible, it should resolve the conflict using facts as the basis. The government should also try to resolve religious conflicts as soon as possible. Leaving conflicts to continue would make them difficult to resolve and also cause disgust between communities.
5. It will ensure that the spirit of the secular society is upheld – It will be the responsibility of the government to ensure that people get to excise their rights as members of a secular society and to ensure that it responds to anti-social behavior in an appropriate manner, as described earlier.
One point to note here is that the people who run the government also have their rights as members of the secular society. Though the government itself needs to function in a religion-agnostic manner, it does not mean that people involved in the government need to be unreligious.
Finally…
The goal of secularism is to avoid tensions in the society due to religious differences. With some burden out of the shoulder due to secularism, the society and government can devote more attention to overall development in the spheres of economy, education, etc.
Check out the continuation: http://shahuls-world.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-on-secularism.html.
Note: comments are moderated
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)