Why a healthy debate is necessary for Islam

Is Islam really a religion of peace? Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam was divided into two sects — the Sunnis and Shias. This was due to their dispute over the post of the Caliph. Barring the first Caliph Abu Bakr, three Caliphs and all the 12 Imams of the Shias were assassinated. The quarrels and fights against the numerous smaller sects and groups within the Shias and the Sunnis following this massacre is indescribable.

Jihadis think that the blasphemy laws of Islam were initiated soon after Muhammad’s victory of Mecca. Surprisingly, these laws still exist. They exist and rest not only in the violent hands of ISIS or Talibans, but also in the democratic spaces of our regular life. For example, when Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran calls for Salman Rushdie’s killing in his fatwa, or when an Imam of Kolkata decrees death for Taslima Nasrin, they become inseparable from the ISIS or the Taliban from an ideological perspective. How, then, are these Imams and leaders any different from the ISIS?

There are various verses of the Quran that talk about violence. As the Quran is composed in the classical Arabic language, its translation is varied and often open to interpretations. The question, therefore, is, how far should we rely on the citations of the people who use the verses of the Quran to prove their point, when they quote verses and lines, often out of context to suit their purpose? In the second chapter of the Quran it is said in the verse 191: “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.” Another verse of this chapter says: “And fight in the cause of Allah and know that Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (2:244)

It is said in the chapter “Mai’dah” that whoever creates fights or riots should be killed. In the context of the war of Badr it is said in the Chapter ‘Al-Anfal’, “You should strike at the neck of the non-believers and strike them twice.”

Here the immediate context is open warfare. In the next chapter ‘At-Tawbah’ it is said, “If they seek forgiveness, set them free.” It should be not that non-believer here means the opponent in the war. In Chapter ‘Al-Furqan’, it is said: “Never listen to the non-believers. Call for Jihad against them.’’ In the Chapter titled ‘Muhammad’, a verse says, “If face-to-face war fails, kill the non-believers by cutting their throats.”

Who, according to Islam is non-believer? What is ‘jihad’? There are 163 verses in the Quran on the topic of jihad. It should be remembered that it is wrong to read, spread and interpret these verses without referring to the history of Islam. Human bomb, for example, is forbidden in Islam. Yet terrorists quote verses from the Quran, to suit their own purpose.

Many theologists have said that ‘Jihad’ is the fight against wrongs, and this fight is legal in Islam. This fight, according to Islam, however, should be nonviolent. Jihad is actually the establishment of a moral-social order.

Gandhi’s nonviolent struggle for freedom has been called jihad by many Muslim scholars. In different verses of the Quran, we come across four kinds of jihad — that of thought, that of expression, that of work and that of the sword. The fourth jihad is metaphorical. ‘Sword’ has been interpreted as “the sword of intellect”. But of course the terrorist organisations, who call themselves ‘jihadis’ take it as real sword. Neither do they understand suggestive meanings or metaphorical expressions given in the Quran, nor do they care for Islamic religious theories. It is they who preach that if a male jihadi dies in the process, he should go to heaven, and there would be 72 Hurs — beautiful young virgins — to serve them. What is most misleading is that ‘Hur’ in Arabic is a neuter word which means ‘pure intellect’. And nowhere in the Quran is the number 72 specified.

Islam has been criticised since 9th century A.D. Then Europe saw Islam mainly as heretic, as anti-Christianity. The mainstream criticism of Islam, hence, has placed Islam against Christianity. Islam has been criticised for supporting slavery and heresy, for spreading violence in the name of jihad, for supporting polygyny and homosexuality, for promoting short-term marriage (mutah nikah) and talaq, alimony, domestic violence, theories of punishment and for banning music.

The truth is, Islam is pronouncedly against slavery. Short-term marriage was once a way to legitimise the sexual relations between a woman and a man. Now this is banned in Sunni jurisprudence but is still legal in the Shia body of laws. If anybody has sexual relations with a female slave without marrying her, it is seen as rape, and is a punishable offence in Islam. It is true that polygyny has been supported in Islam, but it is not encouraged. In most Islamic countries monogyny is the law that the state has enforced. In many Islamic countries, religious laws have been formulated to ban instant talaq, but not so in India. This gives rise to another question, ‘Why’?

According to the Quran, Muslim women are entitled to alimony in all good sense. It is said that the ones who are conscious of the Allah, should take it as their duty to give alimony to their divorced wives (2:281). How the Ulemas confine it to iddat (period of waiting) is a mystery if one follows the Quran.

With the advice of Ulemas, a part of the Quran was taken into account to formulate the Muslim Women Act in 1986 in India. But that very part has been interpreted differently by Justice Muhammad Gulam Rabbani and Justice Syed Aminul Islam of Dhaka High Court (in 1995). They have said that a divorced husband is bound to pay alimony to his divorced wife not only in the time of iddat, but also through the years till the woman in question is remarried. (Hefzur Rahman vs Shamsun Nahar case, Dhaka High Court, 1995).

A healthy debate is necessary for a better world. If we fail to do that, the interpretation of Islam will be solely controlled by the terrorists and the haters of Islam.

The author is associate professor and head of Philosophy Department in Belur RKM Vidyamandir, West Bengal