It is not enough for Muslims to say that terrorists misinterpret Islam. Here is what they must do

While societal and political attitudes towards Muslims need a drastic change, they must stop living in denial.

I am amused when I am often asked to present a “liberal Muslim viewpoint” on an issue.

Why am I considered a “liberal Muslim” ?

I was born a Muslim. As a child, I was made to read the Quran in Arabic – a language I do not understand – by rote. I was tutored in the essentials of faith by a neighbourhood maulavi through a book written for young Muslim boys in the early years of the last century on the correct methods of performing ablutions, praying, fasting, and compensating for doing all or any of this in an impermissible way.

But I also attended English medium schools, participated in Diwali pujas at the neighbours, celebrated Raksha Bandhan in school, earned a number of degrees, joined the bar, made English my language of communication, travelled the world wearing western suits and wrote and spoke extensively on ‘non-religious’ matters. So perhaps this makes me a “liberal”.

Together, these attributes perhaps make me a “liberal Muslim” – a favourite commodity for TV channels debating anything from Triple Talaq to Ramzan terrorism.

As Television Rating Points enthusiasts rejoice in this discovery, I ask myself : Is it possible to be a liberal and a Muslim at the same time? That this question can be asked for a religion that came as an egalitarian social reform movement itself bears testimony to the fact that something is fundamentally and terribly wrong.

My Islam vs theirs

Even as hundreds are being killed in the name of religion, apologists continue chanting the corroded mantra – terrorists have no religion – and to back their defence, explain that if they did, they would not be killing fellow-Muslims or bombing the Prophet’s city.

Yes, there are Islamic injunctions against violence. There are verses that give the message of tolerance and universal brotherhood. There are exhortations for treating even enemies with deference. But that is not the only side of Islam and cannot be overstretched to cloak the other side that has been successfully usurped by ISIS and the like.

In covering themselves with this Oedipus blind, these apologists are deliberately disregarding the fact that the killers involved in each of these incidents (including the one in Medina) also swore by one or the other Quranic verse to justify their acts as part of an essential religious duty.

For them, what they were doing was as Islamic as for me or you it is un-Islamic. After the recent Medina bombing, Muslims all over the world are busy declaring that the bomber had nothing to do with Islam since the Prophet had reportedly said:

“Anyone who harms (the people of) Medina, Allah will make him melt in fire like iron or like salt in water”.

In making these declarations, they conveniently forget that, probably, it is the self-same hadith that made the bomber unleash terror on Medina in the first place. It seems that the man was convinced that some religious practices being followed there were “harming” true Islam and to save Medina from these harms, decided to “melt people in fire”.

What does it result in then - their Islam against mine?

What must Muslims do?

It is this philosophy of everyone claiming ownership of his own brand of Islam that has led to Islam being at war not only with the rest of the world but also with itself, leading to dreadful instances of bloodbath in Syria and Iraq.

In these circumstances, is it enough for Muslims to say that terrorists “misinterpret” the scriptures ? Are our scriptures and theological texts beyond misconstruction ? I am afraid, the answer is an emphatic “no”.

In fact, both the Quran and the Hadith (Prophet’s teachings) are, what journalist Hasan Suroor calls “a minefield of ambiguity allowing people to cherry-pick” verses and sayings to defend their case. The hundreds of translations and the dozens of authoritative commentaries of these texts are not only vulnerable to but, in fact, invite manipulation – and portions from both are routinely quote-mined to defend outlandish opinions. After all, why does no one misinterpret Newton’s law of gravity?

The question that naturally follows is: what should, then, a “liberal” Muslim do if not say that that his religion and its teachings are being misinterpreted? This question needs to be answered at various levels.

To begin with, it is not only the “liberal” Muslim but every Muslim who must do something about this – and that “something” is to stop living in denial. Instead of being defensive, we must acknowledge the problem – this itself will lead to a serious change.

Among other things, Muslim parents need to create an environment, not only of passive tolerance but of active harmony. Ordinary Muslims need to mobilise a mass movement and come out on streets against extremism, as they do – and rightly so – against Israel’s excesses on Palestine.

The ordinary Indian Muslim on the street is a formalist who makes it to the local mosque, at least every Friday. The neighbourhood Imam should, therefore, instead of reading an incomprehensible sermon in Arabic and advising people on the length of their pyjamas while praying, publicly denounce and slam violence in his weekly sermons and declare it anti-Islamic from the pulpit without any “ifs” and “buts”. The message should be loud and clear – irrespective of the cause, violence shall not be tolerated in any form.

Finally, Islamic scholars must recognise the fundamental need of Islam – Islam is in need of a Renaissance. Like every other religion that has grown by proselytisation, Islam too has had a violent history which, in those times, was defensible. However, much as the advent of Islam was all about progressivism, unlike their proselytising predecessors, Muslim theologists have failed to inform their beliefs and attitudes with contemporary standards and demands of inclusivity.

There is a pressing need to present Islamic texts unambiguously and in consonance with present-day realities, leaving no room for misconstruction by anyone. If they keep their political differences and selfish interests aside, this is an exercise that can stem from faith itself rather than through an artificial compromise with a phenomenon from outside.

This is what Muslims – “liberal” and others – must do.

But what about non-Muslims?

But are Muslims alone required to take the entire burden of solving this mess? Is the onus of arresting radicalisation solely on them? Again, the answer must be an equally emphatic “no”.

Societal and political attitudes towards Muslims need a drastic change. Expecting the common Muslim to apologise for a terrorist attack in Paris or circulating jokes on how everyone must keep a Quranic verse handy to save oneself from unexpected murders after Dhaka only adds fuel to the communal fire in which the oppressed and mistreated Muslim community has been burning for ages.

And, in India, what certainly does not help is the demand of selectively banning an obnoxious pinheaded Muslim evangelist while ministers who unabashedly hurl the filthiest of abuses on the Muslim community not only go scot-free but are accorded official protocol.

Muslims must set their house in order but what will they build on if every now and then someone keeps perforating the foundation on which their house stands?

As we try to answer such bewildering questions, the “liberal Muslim” in me must seek refuge in Iqbal who has best explained the dilemma of every “liberal Muslim”:

Zaahid-e-tang-nazar ne mujhe kafir jaana
aur kafir ye samjhta hai, muslmaan hoon maiyn

While the narrow-minded mullah considers me an infidel
the infidel thinks I am Muslim

Saif Mahmood is PhD (law), Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Founder, South Asian Alliance for Literature, Art & Culture

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.