[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From:
Category: Category 1
Date: 23/10/03
Time: 20:49:04
Remote Name: 202.49.173.2
Islambashing in the Web: Is Fascism the other side of the Coin?
S. A. Pintu E Mail : pintu@despammed.com
This is in Response to Dr. Taj Hashmi's article which appeared on NFB Reader's forum on August 8, 2003. I wish to to respond to some of Dr. Hashmi's remarks which are debatable. It is fasionable to call any criticism that one does not like as fascism and any criticism of Islam as Islam bashing. It is a cheap game that many Islamists play. Dr. Hashmi is playing the same game. Let me instead dwell on specific issues as raised by Dr. Taj Hashmi:
I find Farida Majid honest, objective and correct so far as her assertion goes that Wahhabism represents but a very, very insignificant number of Muslims in parts of the Middle East and South Asia and that the creed promoted and nourished by a group of highway robbers belonging to the Saudi tribe since the 18th century under the influence of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab, has hardly anything to do with the mainstream Islam.
There is nothing called "mainstream Islam".
There is only one Islam. Mainstream Muslim on the other hand may be a valid expression to mean the majority of Muslims who are moderate. Wahabbism is not an "ism" outside Islam or a separate creed. Wahabbism, pure and simple means a strict adherence to Sunna, i.e Muhammad's way of life and a belief in the strict oneness of Allah, i.e Tawhid (When the pro-Islamic newspapers call Islamic mob as Tawhidi janata they might as well call them Wahabbi janata).
Wahabbism is a call simply to adhere to the strict tenets of Quran and Hadith. Wahabbism has nothing to do with any ideas unique to Abdul Wahab himself or to the so called highway robbers of Arabia. It is a clever ploy by Islamists to propagate the myth that Wahabbism is alien to Islamic doctrines and is an external creed, in order to divert attention away from any critical scrutiny of Islamic scriptures (specially after the 9/11 incident) that might expose its hateful and intolerant roots.
If the Wahabbists seem to Dr. Hashmi as highway robbers then he might think of prophet Muhammad as being one, because Wahabbis only insist on strictly following Sunna, nothing more. Wahabbism is another name for Islamic purism. Wahab and his followers were just trying to enforce this strict adherence through an organized movement.
A strict Sharia based society is Wahabbism's goal. Although majority of Muslims do not themselves follow the rigid Islamic lifestyle according to Hadith and Sunna, they also do not oppose the call for a strict islamic society based on Quran and Hadith either.
Therein lies the problem. Wahabbism, in the sense of a movement to enforce strict Sunna based society will not face a mass resistance, because the idea itself is judged politically correct (In the Islamic sense) to the majority. Today we see the society in all Muslim countries leaning more and more toward the Islamic fundamentals.
The tentacles of Wahabbism is sneaking upon most Muslim societies, including Bangladesh, where changes to age old syncretic traditions and customs are being brought about through systematic brainwashing by Wahabbists, i.e Islamic purists.
These changes are not being effected in the name of Wahabbism, but in the name of following the true spirit of Islam, which is what Wahabbism aims at. Sufism, veneration of Peers and Aulias, Baul music, etc are slowly and cleverly being labelled as "Bida", as anti-Islamic, and the public are buying into it, or silently resigning to it, since there is no equivalent Islamic fundamentals to inspire an oppostition to the Wahabbist brainwashing. Wahabbism is an insidious movement.
It doesn't directly preach the militant approach rightaway, rather they start with advocating innocent looking cultural changes, like changing Khoda Hafez to Allah Hafez, glorifying the virtue of wearing Hijab, abandoning or arabizing all the non-Arabic indigenous customs and traditions. This creates a favourable situation for an eventual Jihadi approach towards Arabic Islamization. Wahabbism is rooted in Islamic scriptures.
Taj Hashmi:
Kamran Mirza has simply failed to prove that true Islam advocates violence. He must read the Quran with a sense of history, geopgraphy and time.
The proof of the pie is in the eating. A reading of Quran and Hadith provides that proof except to the closed minded. Verses of Quran and Hadith do preach hatred and violence. If citing scores of verses from Quran and Hadith that preach violence and hatred does not convince those who have buried their head in the sand, sees no evil, then nothing can ever be a proof for them.
The advice that Quran must be read with a sense of history, geography and time is disingenuous, as it is contrary to Quran's own claim of it being clear and self-contained complete book. Quran need not be read with any particular "sense". Even the Quran does not say that. From where did Taj Hashmi get this revelation of how to read Quran?
Besides if Quran is for all time, for all people everywhere as is often publicized by Islamists, why should one care about history, geography and time for reading Quran? It is hytpocritical to claim timelessness and universality of Quran and in the same breath talk about time, history and place for Quran's applicability.
If Quran is(or was) a guidebook for some tribal folks in ancient Arabia on how to conduct war, defeat and murder enemies, then be frank and honest and call it an ancient manual for the bedouins. Stop calling it a perfect guide for mankind for all time.
Taj Hashmi:
There are Quranic verses dealing with a particualr battle or confrontation with Jews and enemies of Islam from Mecca where we find violent resistance and attacks are justified. But if you recheck those verses you would find that the Quran does not promote aggression but defensive retaliation. And it also tells Muslims not to shy out from signing peace treaties whenever their enemies seek peace.
What on earth can be the relevance today of a verse dealing with a particular battle involving Jews and enemies of Islam in ancient past? If they were justified then why should that advice be etched in stone for all to read for all time to come?
The only effect of such a verse today is in preaching hatred and intolerance towards Jews and "imagined" enemies of Islam. Any mention of enemies, revenge, etc in a guide book is bound to generate hatred and intolerance among the ordinary masses, who do not always think with intellect and reason.
We humans guard against such possibility. It is amusing that Quran, claimed to be the perfect word of God can be so irrepsonsible about what it preaches. The intolerant verses of Quran have an enduring effect of hatred, because non-Muslims are always imagined as enemies of Islam, and Quran teaches to fight enemies. So the end result is that intolerance is preached by the verses of Quran.
Taj Hashmi:
Lastly, had Islam been a promoter of violence then the vast majority of Muslims throughout history would not have remained peaceful. Look at the history book.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Muslims throughout history have remained peaceful DESPITE Islam's promotion of violence. That is the correct way to put it. The fact that Islam preaches violence is behind the menace of Islamic terrorism, persecution of non-Muslims and apostates in islamic society.
The majority Muslims may be peaceful, but the same majority are not against the extremist minority for what they do. Many even express tacit support for extremists. Thats why many of the peaceful Palestinian mothers and children were celebrating the 9/11 attack.
The peaceful public in the streets of Dhaka were singing praise for Osama Bin Laden. Majority of beef eaters are disinclined to slaugher the cows themselves, nevertheless do not mind the butchers slaughtering the cows, although they prefer a less gory way to kill the cows. While the majority of Muslims may not themselves engage in the same means as the extremists do, many do not differ much with the ends of the extremists.
The end is to bring the entire world under one Muslim Umma. When the Islamic holy books contain recipe for violence, the existence of peaceful Muslim people does not mean much. When we subtract out these peaceful Muslims, the number of Muslims left who oppose both the end and the means of the extremists, they may not make up a large majority after all. A Muslim who truly believes in religious pluralism may well be a rare specimen!
Taj Hashmi:
Now, to turn to the argument that Syed Ahmad Brelvi borrowed Wahhabism from Arabia in the 1820s is historically incorrect. By then Wahhabism had been crushed by the Ottoman rulers of Arabia.
This is a false logic. Wahabbists may have been crushed by the Ottomans. But that does not mean Wahabbism was crushed. What can stop anyone from importing Wahabbism as an idea (Strict adherence to Sunna)? Anyone who believes in Wahabbism can try to enforce Wahabbism, Wahabbists being in power in Arabia is not a prerequisite for fighting for Wahabbism elsewhere.
The fact is that the Wahabbists have already spread their poisonous ideas far and wide before being overthrown by the Ottomans. Of course the Wahabbists did regain control of Arabia from the Ottomans, and they are alive and kicking to this day, exporting Wahabbism all around the globe. Wahabbism is another name for Islamic fundamentalism.
And Islamic fundamentalism is built into the core of Islam. It is being embraced, not rejected by increasing number of Muslims due to the missionary zeal of Saudi financed groups. Only recently a faint glimmer of hope of stemming this tide of the spread of Wahabbism is visible due to the increased attention and scrutiny of Saudi connection to 9/11 incident.
S A Pintu