Monday, August 30, 2010

Gandhi and Islam

Interfaith Dialogue
28 Aug 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com

Gandhi and Islam

By Syed Ashraf Ali       

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the spiritual and political leader of India, worked tirelessly to make India independent of British rule. His teaching was based on the power of love.

He organised campaigns to defy the government by peaceful means because he did not believe in the use of force. He once said: "An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind." His belief in non-violence was based on his faith that truth is God. India became independent in 1947 largely as a result of his leadership.

Gandhi lived a simple life, did not hold a position of power in the government, and had no worldly possessions. He felt in himself the woeful poverty of his people and literally put on the beggar's robe to demonstrate his unity with them.

For clothes, he wore a loin-cloth and a robe of coarse homespun. He lived on goat's milk, vegetables cooked without spices or salt, and a little bread and fruit. He used to spin for a while every day in order to identify himself with the poorest people.

He also used to clean streets and collect refuse in order to punish himself for the injustice of the caste system as practised by most people in India. Only untouchables did this kind of work.

Whether as an exceptional human being, a unique politician, or charismatic leader of non-violent movement, Gandhi's many-sidedness is proverbial. The Indian people loved him. They called him Bapu (father) out of affection and still hail him as the Father of the Nation.

Rabindranath Tagore, the great Indian maestro, called Gandhi Mahatma, which literally means "great soul." His ideals and teachings have influenced and inspired billions at home and abroad, including the likes of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King.

Although a very devout Hindu with unshakable conviction in Hinduism, Gandhi was a religious genius as well -- with genuine tolerance and respect for all mankind's faiths. In his Introduction to the Sayings of Muhammad by Abdullah Suhrawardy, Gandhi declares emphatically: "There will be no lasting peace on earth unless we learn not merely to tolerate but even to respect the other faiths as our own."

M.J. Akbar elucidates it further: "Gandhi's commitment to religion did not mean commitment to a single religion. In his Ram Rajya, every faith had full freedom and complete equality. His prayer meetings were not just about his beloved Gita; there was space for the Holy Qur'an, the Bible and the Guru Grantha Saheb as well. He could never understand why anyone should misunderstand this, and it pained him when opponents misrepresented him, sneered at his gentle idealism, and challenged his pacifism with the undisguised threat of violence."

The impression of Islam and the Muslims on Gandhi started at a very early age. "He was born," says Sheila Mcdonough, a renowned authority on comparative religion, "into that part of India (the coast of Malabar) where the geography situates Hindus to reach out and experience contact with others. To be a child beside the sea is already to know that a mysterious beyond beckons. The Muslims had been in Gujarat for centuries as traders. In his childhood, Gandhi knew them as representatives of those who came and went to other places beyond the seas. Muslims seem from the beginning to have represented challenge and adventure to him ... Muslims were received as guests in the Gandhi home: the political traditions of diplomatic courtesy seem to have been imbibed by the child as a self-evident way for civilised life to be conducted ... In his father's world, the Muslims had long been part of the community. The British were the perceived danger to the well-being of the social and political order."

Gandhi not only spent his childhood among Muslim neighbours who were frequent visitors to his house, six generations of Gandhis had also served as ministers of the ruler of one of the principalities of Kathiwara where Gandhi was born.

The family had therefore great experience in dealing with Muslims as part of local political and social life. Even at school he learnt to cultivate friendship with students who professed other religions and developed a healthy respect for their beliefs.

Gandhi was well aware that his fundamental values with respect to Hindu-Muslim mutual respect and cooperation were rooted in his childhood experiences. While addressing a meeting of the Congress Working Committee in 1942, he reiterated the importance of these fundamental values as a basis for designing a free, renascent, independent India:

"Hindu-Muslim unity is not a new thing. Millions of Hindus and Mussalmans have sought after it. I consciously strove for its achievements from my boyhood. I believed even at that tender age that the Hindus in India, if they wished to live in peace and amity with other communities, should assiduously cultivate the virtue of neighbourliness."

In the world of the men of his family, friendships with Muslims, Jains, and Parsis were indeed part of the natural order of life. Once when Gandhi's paternal grandfather had been involved in a conflict with a local ruler, Muslim soldiers had guarded his house during an attack, and one of them was killed. A memorial to that Muslim soldier still exists in the Vaishnava temple adjoining the family house.

When Gandhi returned to his native land after qualifying as a barrister in England, he went to South Africa as a lawyer for a Muslim firm that had family connections with some of his neighbours at home. Through this significant phase Gandhi's sense of common brotherhood with Muslims was reaffirmed and strengthened.

Many of the Muslim businessmen he worked with in South Africa had roots in his hometown of Probandor, as well as in Bombay (now Mumbai). He sometimes lived in their homes there. The feeling of participation with Muslims in common life with shared goals became much stronger.

In his own words: "When I was in South Africa, I came in close touch with Muslim brethren there ... I was able to learn their habits, thoughts and aspirations ...

I had lived in the midst of Muslim friends for 20 years. They had treated me as a member of their family and told their wives and sisters that they need not observe purdah with me."

In his political activity in South Africa, both Hindus and Muslims living there were his followers. The South African experience invigorated his belief that there should be mutual understanding and cooperation among Indians irrespective of religion.

"The South African experiences," writes Sheila Mcdonough, "seems to have strengthened and developed Gandhi's basic religious consciousness by eliciting from him a profound 'no' to the absolute category of eternal inferior which the South African were attempting to impose upon the Indians. Since the category was imposed on Hindus and Muslims equally, the 'no' came with power from both. The protesters formed a brotherhood of resistance to degradation.

"Gandhi knew that Prophet Muhammad had said 'no' to many elements of his own situation. He understood from his Muslim friends that sometimes courage requires casting the whole self into struggle ... Gandhi responded with the movement of his own soul when he heard an old Muslim say that, with God as his witness, he would never submit to that law.

"This attitude is characteristic of a certain Muslim understanding of jihad, struggle, namely that sometimes witnessing to God requires that the whole self must make conscious choices and decide to act. Gandhi believed that the essential struggle of Muhammad's lifetime, the struggle to create a new form of civilisation, could be equated with the mythical struggle of Rama against Ravana as portrayed in the epic, the Ramayana. The Qur'an and the Ramayana, as he understood them, conveyed images and symbols that could illuminate the spiritual meaning of everyday life."

The years spent by Gandhi in Great Britain to qualify for the Bar also played a significant role in educating him on Islam. During the early twentieth century when he was in England, the climate against eastern religions, especially Islam, was slowly changing.

On May 8, 1840, Thomas Carlyle delivered a public lecture in Edinburgh on Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Islam. It was the second of a series "On Heroes, Hero-worship and the Heroic in History," and had the particular title: "The Hero as Prophet."

Carlyle had no special qualifications as Arabist or Islamist for lecturing on this subject, and yet the lecture has an important place in the development of Islamic studies in Europe, since here for the first time in a prominent way was it asserted that Muhammad (pbuh) was sincere and the religion of Islam basically true. This speech on the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a massive attack on the stereotyped Christian and Jewish attitude to Islam.

Carlyle carefully listed the virtues he had found that Muslims attributed to Muhammad (pbuh). The holy Prophet was regarded as: "A man of truth and fidelity, solid, brotherly, genuine ... able to laugh ... spontaneous, passionate, just ... a great, silent soul ... one who could not but be in earnest ... one who communed with his own heart ... open to the 'small, still voice'."

In his historic and brave endeavour, Carlyle was only following the footsteps of the great German philosopher-poet Goethe's positive evaluation of the religious simplicity of basic Islamic teaching, namely that human beings should surrender to God, and only to God.

"If this be Islam," said Goethe, "do we not all live in Islam? Yes, all of us that have any moral life, we all live so."

It was through Carlyle's sensational essay that Gandhi got the perception that Islam affirmed self-denial. Carlyle said: "Islam means in its way Denial of Self, Annihilation of Self ... This is yet the highest Wisdom that heaven has revealed to our Earth."

The fact that Gandhi read Carlyle's essay at a formative period in his own development makes it very probable that Carlyle's perspective strengthened the young Hindu's conviction that Muhammad (pbuh) represented an example of a significant religious leader whose battle against the forces of darkness in his own time could and should be a model of honest people everywhere.

Gandhi himself informs us: "A friend recommended Carlyle's Hero and Hero Worship. I read the chapter on the Hero as a prophet, learnt of the Prophet's greatness and bravery and austere living ... These books raised Muhammad in my estimation."

Later, Gandhi read Shibli Numani's biographies of Muslim heroes, books of Hadith, and Syed Amir Ali's books on Islamic history which strengthened his respect for the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) all the more. We find references to the works of Carlyle, Shibli and Amir Ali scattered throughout Gandhi's writings in every period of his life.

All this whetted Gandhi's interest in Islam and he made a deeper study of the tenets laid out in the Holy Qur'an to understand better. In his later years, he learnt to carry on "sympathetic debates" with eminent Islamic scholars like Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and later Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Zakir Hussain, M. Mujeeb and S. Abid Hussain.

Gandhi firmly believed that understanding the religion of another is ultimately appreciation of the other as a person, with direction and hope. He tried to reveal himself in this sense to his Muslim friends, so that they could perceive the inner meaning of his tradition. He was committed to inter-faith dialogue; he believed one should try to comprehend the personal dimension of faith. "Heart-unity" meant for him that friends should be open to the deepest values of each other's traditions.

In 1920, Zakir Hussain, M. Mujeeb, S. Abid Hussain, and a few other Muslims of Gandhi's way of thinking felt that they had to disassociate themselves from the Aligarh Muslim University which was considered too pro- British. In this instance they decided to set up an altogether different type of institution of learning for Muslims, the Jamia Millia Islamia.

Very few Muslims know that Gandhi offered the directorship of the new institution to the renowned poet and philosopher Allama Mohammed Iqbal. Most of Gandhi's close Muslim friends loved Iqbal's poetry; the poet's work was an important source of increased Muslim pride and self-esteem.

Gandhi himself was well aware from his conversations with his friends like Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar that Muslims generally considered Iqbal's poetry a magnificent source of inspiration.

In his brief but eloquent letter written to Iqbal in 1920 Gandhi wrote: "The Muslim National University calls you. If you could but take charge of it, I am sure that it will prosper under your cultured leadership. Hakimji Ajmal Khan and Dr. Ansari and of course Ali Brothers desire it."

Iqbal, however, very politely declined the offer for personal and other reasons. He replied: "I regret very much my inability to respond to the call of those for whom I have the highest respect, for reasons which need not and perhaps cannot be mentioned at present. While I am a strong supporter of National Education, I do not think I possess all the necessary qualifications for the guidance of a University that requires a man who would steer the infant institution through all the struggles and rivalries to arise in the earlier stages of its life. And I am, by nature, a peace-time worker."

"Iqbal believed," writes Sheila Mcdonough, "that the Muslims of his generation needed special help in education to get them up to the level of the other communities of the country in terms of economic development. They were, in his opinion, a sort of backward minority, because, following the disaster of the 1857 Mutiny (the First War of Independence), they had been excluded from the possibility of development by British policy. Gandhi and other Hindu leaders still thought of Muslims as bullying rulers, needing to be tamed into reasonable citizens, but many Muslim leaders, like Iqbal, thought that the repression of Muslims after the Mutiny had made them a relatively under-developed class.

"On the issue of religious education, there was also an emerging difference ... Gandhi thought that hymn-singing and devotional practice were the crucial elements of religious practice, and that helping children learn to sing hymns and to internalize the inner significance of religious poetry was all that was necessary ... Iqbal, the poet, had less confidence than Gandhi did in the spiritual power of poetry to shape future generations.

"Iqbal laid special emphasis on Sharia. Iqbal's phrase about the need for the Sharia was that it might give 'a suitable line of action under our present limitation' ... The Sharia stressed human equality, and would serve to keep Muslim minds aware of social justice at a time when they were in danger of being swamped by discriminatory caste system ... So the poet thought the Muslims needed the Sharia, as well as poetry."

Gandhi did not seem to have grasped the significance of Iqbal's thought on this issue. Later, while he was in jail in 1932, Gandhi decided that Iqbal had become anti-nationalist.

After going through an account of Iqbal's speech to the Muslim League published in the newspaper, he commented: "Other Muslims too share Iqbal's anti-nationalism; only they do not give expression to their sentiments. The poet now disowns his song Hindustan Hamara (India is Ours)."

Mahdeva Desai asked: "Is not his pan-Islamism the same as Shaukat Ali and Muhammed Ali's?"

Bapu said: "Yes, but this anti- nationalism has nothing to do with pan-Islamism."

Zakir Hussain, M. Mujeeb and S. Abid Hussain, the three young Muslims who returned from their graduate studies in Europe to take over the Jamia Millia Islamia, remained with the institution until the independence of the country. They devoted themselves specifically to education.

Gandhi called upon educators to design a new system of basic education for Indian Schools. He put Zakir Hussain in charge of this project. Dr. Hussain stayed with the project for ten years. Subsequently, he became the governor of Bihar, vice president of India, and finally president of India.

Gandhi's broad outlook and respect for other religions urged him not only to ask that Jamia Millia Islamia retain the word Islamia in its name, but he also sent one of his sons to be educated there. Gandhi's keen interest in Islam took a political turn when he launched India's freedom struggle after his permanent return to the country. He was able to enlist the full support of Muslims, intellectuals and masses alike, when he himself lent full support to the Khilafat movement and tacked on the 1921 Civil Disobedience movement to it.

The message of the Khilafat movement, ably led by Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, and supported whole-heartedly by Mahatma Gandhi and Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, reached every nook and corner of India.

For the first time in the political history of India, thirty thousand men and women went to jail in thirty days. For the first time in the political history of India twenty lakhs of human beings left their country at the bidding of their leaders.

So pervasive was the passion for liberty that even Moplas were roused out of their poverty and ignorance to set up a Khilafat kingdom along the far-flung Malabar coast.

It seemed that India at last realised her new dreams, her new pride and dignity, her unity and strength. The folk song of the day truly echoed the feelings of the nation by the words: "Desh ka Bandhu Chittaranjan, Desh ka Shova Gandhiji, Khoda ka piyara Muhammad Ali (Chittaranjan is the friend of the country, Gandhiji is its ornament and Muhammad Ali is the darling of God).

The Muslim sentiment had been antagonised by the dethronement of the caliph at Istanbul by the victorious Western powers as Turkey had fought with the Germans in World War I.

The entire Muslim Ummah had looked upon the caliph as the spiritual head of Islam. The caliph was needed to protect the freedom of Makkah. Pilgrimage to Makkah is one of the basic religious duties of all Muslims, and Makkah has been free from foreign domination since the days of the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The independence of Makkah was therefore a potent symbol for all Muslims. Gandhi argued that one must help a brother whenever he says he has a religious need. Hence the Hindu should help his Muslim brother defend the sacred shrines of the Islamic faith. According to him, Hindus needed "heart-unity" with their Muslim brothers; they could win this unity if they helped the Muslims protect the independence of the Turkish caliph.

Indian Muslims joined the civil disobedience in large number as Gandhi had linked it to the demand to restore Caliph to his pristine spiritual glory. Not only Maulanas Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, but many other renowned Muslim leaders and exegetists like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad also became actual participants in the joint Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements, the first nation-wide Hindu-Muslim movement since the First War of Independence in 1857.

But the entire bottom fell out of the historic movement when the resurgent Turks under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk decided to abolish the caliphate and declared themselves a republic.

Gandhi called off non-cooperation after violence broke out in Chauri-Chaura. Many Muslims felt, as did some Hindus, that Gandhi had betrayed their revolution by calling it off just when they had some hope of success.

Since the Turkish revolution abolished the Caliphate, the Indian Muslims of the Khilafat movement fell into disarray and confusion because they had lost their cause and the symbol that united them. Most of the Muslim students, who had earlier shunned the Aligarh Muslim University, returned to the same institution. But to the end of his life, Gandhi always had Muslim friends close to him.

Besides the group of teachers and students of the Jamia Millia Islamia, another group of Muslims who remained loyal to Gandhi were the Khudai Khidmatgar (servants of God). These were a group of Pathans on the North-West frontier under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Popularly known as the "Frontier Gandhi," Abdul Ghaffar Khan remained loyal to Gandhi for the rest of his life, and accompanied the Hindu leader later on many of his long walks in riot-torn areas.

Mention must be made in this connection of another Muslim stalwart who influenced Gandhi's life and thought (not always in a positive way), especially in the period from 1937 to 1947.

He was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, creator of Pakistan. Hailed as the Father of the Nation in Pakistan, he is revered by all Pakistanis as Quaid-e-Azam , the "Great Leader," a name first given to him in 1940.

Gandhi and Jinnah took diametrically opposite positions on most occasions and arrived at very different solutions for the Muslims in undivided India. But the situation was totally different and quite friendly at the initial stage. The two leaders were not at daggers drawn and saw eye to eye on many an issue:

"In 1915, the young Jinnah, having established a successful legal practice in Bombay, became a leading advocate of co-operation between Hindus and Muslims in the task of working together to promote self-government for India after the war. He managed to arrange for the Muslim League and the Congress party to hold a joint meeting."

No wonder, Gopal Krishna Gokhale unhesitatingly declared: "Jinnah is an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity." Jinnah was also hailed by many as the "Muslim Gokhale."

"But Jinnah did not like the response of many Congress members in 1919 to Gandhi's call for the use of his satyagraha techniques for combating the British. Jinnah disliked the idea of attempting to agitate the masses, and he prepared to deal with the British through constitutional negotiation. He also did not like Maulana Azad's idea when he wanted to develop a new form of leadership by enlightened members of the Ulema class.

Jinnah was interested primarily in the development of modern constitutional means of government ... He never felt any sympathy with Gandhi's approach, or with the tactics of the Muslim leaders of the Khilafat movement. Although he certainly shared the goal of self-government for India, he disliked the populism and mass agitation of the Non-Cooperation movement of 1919-22. The difference between him and Gandhi was a matter of disagreement over means; it was not in the first instance a difference based on Hindu-Muslim issues. Once Jinnah, after 1937, accepted the leadership of the Muslim League, he faithfully implemented the policies of the League. Iqbal and other Muslim thinkers helped to brief him and then he implemented their ideas." (Mcdonough)

The difference between Gandhi and Jinnah unfortunately went on widening over the years and soon their views were poles apart almost on all occasions, especially when Jinnah became the chief spokesman of the Two Nation Theory. No wonder, Gandhi never felt inclined to discuss Islam with Jinnah, as he often did with Muslim thinkers like Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar, Allama Iqbal, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Zakir Hussain, et al.

During the period of the Khilafat and the first Civil Disobedience movements, Gandhi moved very closely with Muslim leaders and intellectuals like Maulana Muhammad Ali, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Allama Mohammed Iqbal, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and later Congress stalwarts like Zakir Hussain. Through intimate acquaintance and long discussions with these learned exponents of Islam, his profound respect for the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) became deeper and stronger.

Gandhi was so eager to know about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that he became sad when he did not have more to read about him.

In his own words: "I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind ... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his selflessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission -- these and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography) I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life."

Gandhi's eulogy further testified: "Muhammad was a great Prophet. He was brave and feared no man but God alone. He was never found to say one thing and do another. He acted as he felt. The Prophet was a Faqir, he could have commanded wealth if he had so desired. I shed tears when I read of the privations, he, his family and companions suffered voluntarily. How can a truth-seeker like me help respect one whose mind was constantly fixed on God, who ever walked in God's fear and who had boundless compassion for mankind."

The sayings of the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) impressed Gandhi to such a great extent that he hailed those as "the treasures of mankind." In his introduction to The Sayings of Muhammad (SM) by Allama Sir Abdullah Al-Mamun Al-Suhrawardy, he unhesitatingly declared:

"I have read Sir Abdullah Suhrawardy's collection of the sayings of the Prophet with much interest and profit. They are among the treasures of mankind, not merely Muslims."

Mention may be made in this connection that the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy came to appraise the real personality of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) through Sir Abdullah Al-Mamun Al-Suhrawardy's The Sayings of Muhammad (SM) and "a copy of this book was found in the large over-coat in which he wrapped himself before setting out on that last walk of his to die in the fields he used to till."

In addition to his interest in the example of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a man who changed the world by putting his faith into action, Gandhi also studied the Holy Qur'an regularly. He spent a considerable time studying the Holy Qur'an during his intermittent sojourns in Indian jails as the guest of His Imperial Majesty.

"He wanted, as he often said," claims Sheila Mcdonough, "to know from the inside the hearts of his Muslim fellow-workers, and he believed that understanding their scripture was the way to understanding them. There were a number of areas in which he believed that he recognised similarities of themes between the insights he had gained from his understanding of Hindu scriptures, and the Qur'an. The word 'surrender' is one instance. This is the common English translation of the word Islam and is acknowledged to be the basic affirmation of all Muslim faith, namely surrendering to God, and to God alone. Gandhi felt that this was similar to the understanding of surrender he gained from an Upanishadic passage. Gandhi thought there was no significant difference between the Qur'an and the Upanishads on the issue of the necessity for total self-abandonment to God."

Another similarity he discerned was the teaching that one should respond to evil with good. This seems to have one of the earliest affirmations that he took very seriously to heart when he learned it from a Vaishnava hymn. There is a very similar moral teaching in the Qur'an.

In the words of Mcdonagh: "Only men possessed of mind remember; who fulfill God's covenant ... patient men, desirous of the Face of their Lord, perform the prayer, and expend of that We have provided them, secretly and in public, and who avert evil with good."

In Gandhi's opinion, dharma meant firmness in upholding truth. This would be similar to his understanding of Qur'anic imperative in Surah Fatiha to remain on the straight path, and not be led astray. No wonder, he continuously used Surah Fatiha from the Holy Qur'an as part of his daily prayer service:

"Gandhi also advised the Hindus as well as the Sikhs to read the Koran as they read the Gita and the Granth Saheb. And to the Musulmans he would say that they too should read the Gita and the Granth Saheb with the same reverence with which they read the Koran." (Abdul Waheed Khan, India Wins Freedom: The Other Side)

While discussing Suddhi and Sangathan movements Gandhi even went to the extent of asking: "Why cannot Hindus believe in the divinity of the Qur'an and say with us that there is no God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet? Ours is not an exclusive religion, but it is essentially inclusive."

Gandhi also believed the teachings about the attributes of God to be very similar in the scriptures of Hinduism and Islam. He did not hesitate to speak of Caliph Ali bin Abu Talib (RA) as a model of restraint, and thus a model for those who would take up the method of satyagraha. (Satyagraha means utter insistence upon truth. When a man insists on truth, it gives him power).

In his own words: "You must know how to restrain your anger, if you desire to maintain non-violence in action for any length of time. Hazrat Ali, the hero of Islam, was once spat upon by an adversary; and it is my conviction that if he had not restrained his anger at the time, Islam would not have maintained its unbroken career of progress up to the present time."

Gandhi also paid eloquent tribute to the incomparable sacrifice made by Imams Hassan and Hussain (RA). The glorious example of Imam Hussain (RA), the grandson of the holy Prophet of Islam (pbuh), who suffered martyrdom at the hands of a cruel and hostile state, is equated by Gandhi with tapascharya, the Hindu belief in the power of suffering to transform consciousness:

"All religions in the world are thus strict in regard to pledges ... Even if only a few among you take the pledge, we shall have reward through them. Muslim students have before them the example of Imams Hassan and Hussain. Islam has not been kept alive by the sword, but by the many fakirs with a high sense of honour whom it has produced ... I have nothing to give you in the way of excitement ... I want to give you quiet courage. I want you to have hearts pure enough for self-sacrifice, for tapascharya."

Gandhi believed that what he called "the Sufi aspect of Islam" taught patience and self-discipline, which Indian Muslims should learn to practice and the bhakti forms of Hinduism preached egalitarianism, which Hindus should learn to understand in its true spirit.

He firmly believed that the Holy Qur'an stresses mercy and patience as essential human virtues. He refused to believe that irrational violence was a particular characteristic of the Muslims or the Hindus. He always interpreted irrational Muslim violence as corrupt understanding of Islam, as Hindu violence was equally a corrupt understanding of Hinduism.

No wonder Gandhi was cut to the quick when a terrible communal riot broke out in Calcutta on August 16, 1946. In the next few years, mutual killing and destruction continued among Hindus and Muslims in many parts of the country.

There were attacks on Hindu villages by Muslims in Noakhali and similar outbursts of violence against Muslim villages by Hindus in Bihar. The grief-stricken Bapu lamented:

"We represented in India (the undivided India) all the principal religions of the earth, and it is a matter of deep humiliation to confess that we are a house divided against itself; that we Hindus and Muslims are flying at one another."

Nothing became him so well as the end of his life. His cherished dream had come true -- freedom had come. But with freedom came communal passions, and Hindus and Muslims massacred one another.

The frail old man, on the verge of his eightieth year, went from place to place, seeking to establish peace and goodwill while there were enmity and strife. He went to Noakhali to soothe the Hindus who had suffered from Muslim atrocities. He went to Patna to heal the sufferings of the Muslims at the hands of Hindus. He went to Delhi, and each day he preached love and communal amity.

In the words of Mcdonough: "Gandhi indeed lived his final years, in the midst of a sort of hell on earth. There can scarcely be a worse kind of hell than outbursts of malicious violence among the very persons one has given one's life to serving."

An insensate fanatic named Nathuram Godse, unable to bear Gandhi's message of goodwill and inter-faith harmony, shot him dead even when he was on his way to his prayers. That day, January 30, 1948, will remain a day of mourning forever, not only in India but in all places where people shun hostility and love peace and harmony between all faiths.

Source: www.ikhwanweb.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamDialogue_1.aspx?ArticleID=3354



--
Asadullah Syed

Why America Needs More Muslims

Islam and the West
28 Aug 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com

Why America Needs More Muslims

By Joshua Holland

There is already a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center -- it's been there since 1985. Men and women pray together at Masjid al-Farah; its services are led by a woman, Sheikha Fariha al-Jerrahi. The New York Times described it as "among the most progressive [mosques] in the city" and "a quintessentially New York combination of immigrants and native New Yorkers, traditionalists and spiritual seekers."

While a small number of Muslims embrace an idealized view of a "pure" Islam that prevailed in the seventh century, most of the world's Muslims are, to varying degrees, like "cafeteria Catholics" -- adhering to some teachings and ignoring others. On one extreme end of that spectrum are the followers of Osama bin Laden and his fellow travelers. On the other extreme are the people behind Park 51 (formerly known as Cordoba House), an Islamic community center that will feature art spaces, a theater, a gym and pool, and a mosque, or prayer space. The Park 51 people are as different from bin Laden's crowd as a Christian extremist who blows up an abortion clinic is distinct from a good Unitarian. That's what makes the contrived outrage over the project especially crazy.

Masjid al-Farah represents the open, tolerant face of modern Islam. This is the brand of Islam represented by the Cordoba Initiative, the organization behind Park 51; the site was chosen, according to the organizers, "for exactly what happened here on 9/11 and what America stands for." They added that the project "is a victory of American tolerance over hatred."

If not for virulent bigotry -- bigotry based on a profound ignorance of Islam and the Muslim world -- the whole thing would be a non-story, an eye-wateringly dull local zoning issue. The ignorance fueling this outpouring of hatred can only thrive because most Americans -- other than those who live in Dearborn, Michigan, parts of New York and New Jersey or Southern California -- have never met a Muslim, or wouldn't know it if they had.

There are fewer Muslims in the United States than there are Buddhists -- they represent only 0.6 percent of the population. Research into how the public views another vilified minority -- immigrants -- tells us that a little firsthand experience with the "Other" goes a long way toward dispelling the cloud of falsehoods that cynical demagogues use to prey on people's fears and anxieties about that which is foreign. According to a Pew survey, citizens who live in areas with high concentrations of immigrants hold far more favorable views of their contribution to American society than do people who live in areas where there aren't many who were born elsewhere. It's not a matter of demographics or politics; the authors concluded that "exposure to and experience with immigrants results in a better impression of them."

Absent personal interactions with adherents of another faith, many people have nothing to go on but media-driven stereotypes. Hollywood invariably depicts Muslims as either violent extremists with AK-47s chattering in their hands, or sex-crazed provincial oil-billionaires throwing wads of cash around while lusting after white women. According to a recent Quinnipac poll, 55 percent of New Yorkers believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and 22 percent think it encourages violence, but among those who personally know a Muslim, the numbers shift 18 points, to 68-17.

Depending on what statistics you prefer, there are between 1.3 and 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, and like Christians, Jews, Hindus and members of all other faiths, the overwhelming majority are simply living their lives and trying to raise their kids right, and they harbor no violent ambitions. Anyone who has counted Muslims among their friends knows -- or should know -- that the United States was attacked not by Muslims, but by violent fundamentalists. Violent fundamentalists are a grave danger, but they aren't unique to any single religion.

In Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective, scholar Lawrence Kaplan notes that fundamentalism -- a term he says is too vague -- "has certain uniform themes."

In the United States, [fundamentalists in the early 20th century] directed their attention to liberal developments within established Protestant churches. They set down uncompromising fundamentals, mainly connected with biblical inerrancy, that defined what they considered the basis of "true Christianity." Clifford Geertz, in his Islam Observed (1968), suggests the use of the term "Scripturalism" to describe the rise of a radical, uncompromising purism that sought to reestablish in both Indonesia and Morocco its version of the original Islam of the Prophet. More recently, as Professor Coleman observes, the Integralism movement shares this same kind of desire to rid the Catholic church of its "false" values and teachings…. Thus, in one of its primary manifestations, fundamentalism arises as a reaction against either the introduction of modern concepts into traditional religions or, more commonly, against the adjustments of doctrine that are often carried out by reformist elements who wish to make long-standing precepts more suitable to contemporary tastes.

There is no such thing as a homogenous "Islamic culture." There is no such thing as "Muslim thought" or "Muslim beliefs." The Islamic world is large and diverse, with modernists, progressives, conservatives and traditionalists. While the Internet is filled with ominous snippets from the Qu'ran that extol violence against infidels, similarly selective quotations can be found in any religion's holy texts. The Christian Bible is replete withinstructions in savagery -- stoning wayward daughters and smiting homosexuals. But very few people adhere to those texts, and that's as true of Islam as it is of other religions.

Consider for a moment how the principles of sharia have been distorted and demonized by people who don't understand what it means. Just as there is no "Islamic culture,"sharia is not a coherent set of laws. The Hanbari school is traditional -- it's the news-making sharia practiced in Saudi Arabia and embraced by the Taliban. But in Central Asia, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans and the Caucasus, the more liberalHanafi school dominates.

There are five "crimes" that are known as Hadd offenses, and these require, according to traditional law, severe punishments. When they're handed out, they get an inordinate amount of media attention in the West, but as the Council on Foreign Relations' Lawrence Vriens noted, "These sentences are not often prescribed… These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient."

Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo.

The same kind of broad brush with which sharia is painted is essential to the entire controversy. While right-wing fear-mongers have tried to ruin Park 51's organizers with libelous claims that they support terrorism -- the go-to smear when Muslims are connected to any issue -- the opposite is true. As the New York Times reported, Imam Faisal Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, "founded a Sufi organization advocating melding Islamic observance with women's rights and modernity." After 9/11 they began "focusing on connecting Muslims and wider American society. They spoke out against religious violence; the imam advised the F.B.I.; his wife joined the board of the 9/11 memorial and museum."

George W. Bush, to his credit, made it clear that Islam was not a threat to the United States. "We respect the faith," he said in 2002. "Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion," he said. In 2006, he asked, "Will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change … or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists? America's made its choice. We will stand with the moderates and reformers."

That year, Bush's State Department chose none other than Faisal Rauf to reach out to the Muslim world on behalf of the United States. A spokesman would later explain that he was selected because, "His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States." As the American Prospect's Adam Serwer noted, "These are the people whom Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney smeared as 'connected to terrorism' and having 'dubious ties to radical Islamist organizations,' whom National Review falsely portrayed as unwilling to give a 'full throated denunciation of terrorism' and Newt Gingrich, with his faulty understanding of history, accused of 'Islamist triumphalism.'"

Last week, Bryan Fischer of the right-wing Christian group, American Family Association,wrote that the U.S should have "no more mosques, period." "This is for one simple reason," he explained: "Each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."

It's a belief that has gained dangerous traction, especially but not exclusively on the Right.

If 3 or 4 percent of the population were Muslim -- if more people saw Muslims living and working in their communities -- the public would react to such deeply un-American sentiments with revulsion. But at just over a half of 1 percent of the population, Muslim Americans remain, tragically, a ripe target for demagoguery by fear-mongers and small-minded bigots.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. Drop him an email orFollow him on Twitter.

Source: www.ikhwanweb.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndWest_1.aspx?ArticleID=3355



--
Asadullah Syed

A Mosque Here And There

A Mosque Here And There

By Gautam Adhikari

Aug 31, 2010

Another mosque, another time, another argumentative democracy. In the US, a dispute has erupted over a proposal to build a mosque; in India, 18 years ago it was about tearing one down. A controversial issue in both cases is: Which central idea forms the essence of any multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation? Must such a society uphold a particular culture that defines the core values of the nation? Or, must it not merely tolerate diverse cultures, but actually celebrate diversity as a defining value?

In December 1992, a band of Hindu militants destroyed an old mosque in Ayodhya, the Babri masjid. Bloody riots broke out between the two communities in several towns, chaos engulfed the nation for days and a fierce argument ensued over what we should understand by the idea of India.

There were those who argued that with the partition of India in 1947 and the establishment of the Islamic nation of Pakistan, specifically created as a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims, the republic of India was free to become a nation primarily for Hindus, with its core values including tolerance and secularism embedded in ancient tradition. In this view, the demolition of the mosque had been a symbolic act to re-establish Hindu primacy in a nation long misled by "pseudo-secularists".

And there were those of us who countered by pointing out that India was imagined by its founding fathers to be what Pakistan was not. It would be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, democratic republic, in which a carefully crafted Constitution would guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The argument continues with the Allahabad high court weighing in with its judgement on Babri masjid.

It is a complex debate, not least because the idea of a diverse, multi-religious democracy is a modern concept incorporated legally, and in writing for the first time, in the American Constitution as updated in 1791 with a Bill of Rights. The framers of India's Constitution studied the US Constitution closely and inserted similar fundamental rights in our document. Those rights have ensured for every citizen the right to be different from every other citizen, and in what we can say or do and in pursuit of religion.

Although on the surface the argument over the proposed Islamic cultural centre in Lower Manhattan is over protecting citizens' constitutional rights versus the raw emotions of those who see it as an affront to the memory of victims of 9/11, the issue is larger. Lurking in the strands of the debate are key questions: What does it mean to be an American today? Is it enough to swear to uphold the Constitution, to enjoy all legally guaranteed freedoms, and to lead life any way you please within the generous limits outlined in the Constitution? Or is it also necessary for all citizens to defer to the preferences and habits of a dominant culture, which is Protestant Christian or, as commonly described nowadays, Judeo-Christian?

The argument has been on for a while. When Irish Catholics began to migrate to the US in large numbers they were not initially welcomed with open arms. It took decades before Catholics could become fully accepted within the mainstream. Ditto for the Japanese; and for the Jewish migrants who escaped European intolerance for a more hospitable society but had to wait a few decades of uneasy coexistence with devout Christians before the term Judeo-Christian could become the preferred way to describe Euro-American civilisation. Hispanic migrants today may be Christian but to many they are the Other.

For Muslims of all hues the case has become immensely more complicated post-9/11. On one hand, they are asked to prove their moderate credentials and condemn the jihadi radicalism of a few. On the other, they are greeted with fury when reformers, like Imam Feisal Rauf, want to set up a cultural centre that will encourage interfaith dialogue, promote moderate Islam and will have a prayer room because it is two blocks away from Ground Zero. A majority of Americans don't want the centre there. They somehow hold, even as they say they don't, the entire Muslim community responsible for 9/11.

The idea of America, like the idea of India, remains a work in progress. For many Americans, national identity is synonymous with a cultural identity; for others, multicultural coexistence forms the essence of American nationalism. But to gain an insight into what the idea of America was to those who founded the nation, we could study the far-sighted spirit embodied in the Bill of Rights. With its guarantee of free speech and the separation of religious preferences from the conduct of public affairs, the US Constitution offers a fine set of principles by which to live in a diverse and rapidly evolving world.

Those who dreamt up the vision of America found no contradiction in endorsing tolerance while remaining true to their faith. Wrote Thomas Paine in his 1776 pamphlet 'Common Sense': "I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness." Today, going by nationwide opinion polls, American common sense seems surprisingly reluctant to accept such ideas.

Source: Times of India


--
Asadullah Syed

Friday, August 27, 2010


رہبر انقلاب اسلامی کی قیامگاہ پر حضرت سبط اکبر امام حسن (ع) کی محفل میلاد / با تصویر

 
فرزند رسول حضرت امام حسن مجتبی علیہ السلام کے یوم ولادت با سعادت کے موقع پر رہبر انقلاب اسلامی کی قیام گاہ پر محفل کا انعقاد کیا گیا۔ اطلاعات کے مطابق کل رات رہبر انقلاب اسلامی حضرت آیت اللہ العظمی سید علی خامنہ ای کی قیام گاہ پر ہونے والی اس محفل میں چوٹی کے شعراء کرام اور ادبا کی ایک بڑی تعداد نے شرکت کی ۔


 

رہبر انقلاب اسلامی کی قیامگاہ پر حضرت سبط اکبر امام حسن (ع) کی محفل میلاد / با تصویر

رہبر انقلاب اسلامی کے قیامگاہ پر ہونے والی جشن کی اس محفل میں شعرا کرام نے اور فرزند رسول حضرت امام حسن مجتبی علیہ السلام کو منظوم نذرانہ عقیدت پیش کیا جسے حاضرین نے سراہا اس موقع پر رہبر انقلاب اسلامی کے اپنے خطاب میں ذوق شعری کو نعمت اور عطیہ الہی سے تعبیر کیا اور فرمایا کہ اس نعمت کا دوسری ظاہری نعمتوں سے موازنہ نہیں کیا جا سکتا ۔
رہبر انقلاب اسلامی نے ایران میں شعری ارتقا کو دیگر فنون کی ترقی و پیشرفت کا باعث قرار دیا اور فرمایا کہ شعر فن کے میدان میں زیادہ توانائی اور گہری استعداد رکھتا ہے ۔ رہبر انقلاب اسلامی نے اپنے خطاب میں اسلامی انقلاب کے بعد کی تاریخ پر ایک سرسری نگاہ ڈالی اور ایران کے سیاسی و سماجی حالات نیز مختلف حکومتوں کے اقتدار و زوال کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہوئے فرمایا اس تمام تر عرصے کے دوران کسی بھی دور میں ملت ایران نے اپنے اردگرد کھڑے کردہ حصاروں کو اس انداز میں کبھی نہیں توڑا اور نہ کبھی اس طرح سربلندی کے ساتھ ترقی و پیشرفت کی راہ پر گامزن ہوئی ۔ رہبر انقلاب اسلامی نے اس سلسلے میں فرمایا اسلامی انقلاب کی کامیابی کے بعد سیاسی فوجی میدانوں میں ملت ایران کی شجاعت ، دلاوری اور ہوشیاری نیز سماجی ترقی و پیشرفت کا ایران کی پوری تاریخ میں مشاہدہ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ رہبر انقلاب اسلامی نے اپنے خطاب میں ، موجودہ زمانے کی تصویر کشی کو شعر و شاعری اور فن و ہنر کی ذمہ دار قرار دیا اور فرمایا: اسلامی انقلاب نے ثقافت ، فکر اور آرٹ کی ترقی و پیشرفت کی راہیں کھولدی ہیں اور فن اس میدان کو مزید عمق گہرائی و گیرائی عطا کرسکتا ہے ۔ رہبر انقلاب اسلامی نے اس موقع پر شعرا کرام کو نصیحت فرمائی کہ اپنے جذبات اور احساسات کے اظہار میں حدود و قیود پر توجہ دیں اور اپنے اشعار میں پاکیزگي فکر و نظر کو برقرار رکھیں ۔
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

تفصیلی رپورٹ:

 رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی:
سیاسی میدانوں میں وارد ہونے کے سلسلے میں ایرانی عوام کی ہوشیاری تاریخ میں بے نظیر ہے
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی حضرت آیت اللہ العظمی خامنہ ای نے ایران میں اسلام کے وارد ہونے کے 1400 سال کے بعد کی تاریخ کی طرف مختصر اشارہ کرتے ہوئے فرمایا: انقلاب اسلامی کے بعد سیاسی اور فوجی میدانوں میں قدم رکھنے اور سماجی پیشرفت کے لئے ایرانی قوم کی ہوشیاری شجاعت اوردلیری ایران کی تاریخ میں بے مثال اور بے نظیر ہے۔
کریم اہل بیت نواسۂ رسول حضرت امام حسن مجتبی علیہ السلام کی ولادت با سعادت کی مناسبت سے کل رات کہنہ مشق اور نوجوان شعرا اور ادبی و ثقافتی حلقوں سے تعلق رکھنے والے افراد کل رات رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی آیت اللہ العظمی خامنہ ای کے ہاں میہمان تھے۔
اس ملاقات میں تیس شعرا نے دینی، ثقافتی ، سماجی، اخلاقی اور رزمیہ موضوعات پر اپنے اپنے اشعار پیش کئے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی حضرت آیت اللہ العظمی خامنہ ای نےاس موقع پر حاضرین سے خطاب میں موجودہ دور میں شعر و ادب کے فروغ اور کمال کی جانب جاری پیشرفت کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہوئے فرمایا: اس وقت ہمارے ملک میں شعرا کی زبان اور ان کا تخیل بہت قوی اور مضبوط ہے اور ان کی نگاہیں  زندگی کے مختلف شعبوں کے متعلق بہت ہی گہری اور عمیق ہیں اور ان کی فکر و سوچ میں وسعت کے جلوے نظر آتے ہیں، جس کی وجہ سے زبان، مضمون اور تحریرات میں ایک نیا انداز ظہور نمایاں ہو رہا ہے، جس کے تمام پہلو آگے چل کر اور بھی واضح ہوں گے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے مشاق قدیمی شعرا کے نئے شعری انداز کی جانب رجحان کا ذکر کرتے ہوئےفرمایا:  یہ نیا انداز روز بروز کمال کی منزلیں طے کر رہا ہے اور بڑی خوشی اور مسرت کا مقام ہے کہ اس نئی شعری تحریک کے تناظر میں بڑے ممتاز اور اہم شعرا اپنےفن کا مظاہرہ کر رہے ہیں۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے اس موقع پر کئی اہم نکات کا ذکر کیا۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے عصری فنون میں شعر پر خاص توجہ کی ضرورت پر تاکید کرتے ہوئے فرمایا: ہمارا ملک بے پناہ شعری میراث اور طویل شعری تاریخ کا آئینہ دار ہے اور اس گرانقدر میراث کی وجہ سے ہمارا ملک دنیا کے پہلے درجے کے ممالک کی صف میں شامل ہے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے ملک میں شعر و ادب کے ارتقاء کو دیگر فنون کے ظہور و ارتقاء کی تمہید سے تعبیر کرتے ہوئے فرمایا: ایران شعر کے نمایاں میدان میں پیشرفت کی توانائیوں اور بنیادی استعدادوں سے بہرہ مند ہے اور اس میدان میں جتنا زیادہ فکر و تدبر، نظم و ضبط اور تحقیق و مطالعہ کا سہارا لیا جائے صلاحیتوں اور استعدادوں کے پیش نظر وہ زیادہ نہیں ہے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے ادبی انجمنوں کی تشکیل کی ضرورت پر زور دیتے ہوئے فرمایا: ادبی انجمن کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ ادبی دلچسپی رکھنے والے افراد ایک جگہ جمع ہوں اور شعری جذبے کے تحت ایک مقام پر اکٹھے ہوں اور اس کے لئے حکومت یا کسی دوسرےادارے کی حمایت کی ضرورت نہیں ہے جیسا کہ کسی زمانے میں شہر مشہد مقدس میں استاد اور بڑے شعراء کے گھروں میں تشکیل پانے والی انجمنوں اور نشستوں سے بہترین شعرا ء پیدا ہوئے اور معاشرے میں داخل ہوگئے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے ادبی انجمن کو پھولوں اور گل و گیاہ کے لئے سازگار زمین سے تعبیر کرتے ہوئےفرمایا:  ادبی انجمنوں میں جدید وارد ہونے والے شعرا کہنہ مشق اساتید کی صحبت سے فیض اور فائدہ  اٹھا کر اپنی خامیاں دور کرتے ہیں اور ان کے اشعار میں روز بروز زیادہ پختگی اور بلندی پیدا ہوتی ہے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے شاعرانہ ذوق کو اللہ تعالی کی خوشنودی کے لئے استعمال کرنے کی ضرورت پر تاکید کرتے ہوئے فرمایا کہ شعری ذوق الہی عطیہ اور بڑی اہم خدائی نعمت ہے جس کا دیگر ظاہری نعمتوں سے مقابلہ نہیں کیا جا سکتا لہذا سزاوار یہ ہے کہ شاعر اپنی اس صلاحیت ، استعداد اور مہارت کو اللہ تعالی کے پسندیدہ امور میں صرف کرے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے اس سلسلے میں مزید وضاحت کی اور شعرا کے نازک و لطیف مزاج کی جانب اشارہ کرتے ہوئے فرمایا: انسانی جذبات و احساسات کی راہ میں شعر کا استعمال ناگزیر ہے لیکن دینی موضوعات کے علاوہ معاشرے، ملک اور انقلاب کے مسائل کے لئے بھی ایک حصہ رکھنا ضروری ہے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے اسلام کی آمد کے بعد ایران کے سیاسی و سماجی حالات اور حکومتوں کے ارتقاء و زوال کی چودہ سو سالہ تاریخ کا مختصر جائزہ لیتے ہوئے فرمایا :  اس طویل عرصے میں ہمارے ملک میں اسلامی انقلاب سے بڑا کوئی واقعہ پیش نہیں آیا اور عصر حاضر کی مانند کبھی بھی ایرانی قوم مختلف اور گوناگوں مصنوعی حصاروں کو توڑنے میں کامیاب نہیں ہوئی اور سر اٹھاکر ترقی و پیشرفت کے راستے پر آگے نہیں بڑھ سکی تھی لیکن آج انقلاب کی برکت سے ترقی و پیشرفت کی شاہراہ پر گامزن ہے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے اسی سلسلے میں فرمایا: انقلاب اسلامی کے بعد سیاسی اور فوجی میدانوں میں قدم رکھنے اور سماجی پیشرفت کے لئے ایرانی قوم کی ہوشیاری شجاعت او ردلیری ایران کی تاریخ میں بے مثال اور بے نظیر ہے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے فرمایا: اس دور کی تصویر کشی کی ذمہ داری فن و شعر پر ہے، اسلامی انقلاب نے فکر و نظر اور شعر و ادب کی پیشرفت کے لئے بہت اچھی راہیں ہموار کردی ہے اور اب فن و ادب کی صنف مستحکم او رمؤثر اقدام کے ذریعے اس دور کو اور بھی گرانقدر بنا سکتی ہے۔رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نےجذبات و خیالات کے اظہار میں پاکیزگی کو ملحوظ رکھنے پر بھی زوردیا۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے شعراء سے سفارش کرتے ہوئے فرمایا: جذبات و احساسات اور دل و ذہن کی کیفیت کو بیان کرنے میں حدود کا خیال رکھیں اور شعر میں حجاب و عفاف کی کیفیت برقرار رکھنے پر توجہ مبذول کریں ۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے اضطراب ، تعجب اور حیرت کی غمازی کرنے والے اشعار کی جانب اشارہ کرتے ہوئے فرمایا : نوجوان اور جدید شعراء کے اشعار میں یہ فکر و تشویش تو پاکیزہ ہے لیکن فکری و عقیدتی بنیادوں کی تقویت کے ذریعہ اس اضطراب کو دور کیا جانا چاہیے۔
رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی نے اس ملاقات اورنشست کو بہت لذت بخش اور لطف اندوز قرار دیا اور یہ جلسہ منعقد کرنے پرشکریہ ادا کیا۔ چار گھنٹوں تک جاری رہنے والی اس ملاقات میں شعرا نے رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی سے بڑے دوستانہ اور صمیمی ماحول میں گفتگو کی۔
اس ملاقات کے اختتام پر حاضرین نے رہبر معظم  انقلاب اسلامی کی امامت میں نماز مغرب و عشاء ادا کی اور اس کے بعد رہبر معظم انقلاب اسلامی کے ساتھ روزہ افطار کیا۔
--
Asadullah Syed

Islamophobia: the new antisemitism

Islamophobia: the new antisemitism

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 August 2010

When I was growing up in Gainesville, Florida, the Klan was still a force. Now a pastor wants to burn the Qur'an, what's changed?

 

oded Ku Klux Klansmen posed for this exclusive picture Sept. 2, 1962 as they burn a cross as part of a statewide demonstration against racial integration in Talluah, Louisiana

The New York Times is reporting that a pastor in my hometown of Gainesville, Florida is planning to "commemorate" 11 September 2001 by publicly burning the Qur'an. The photograph that accompanies the story showed the pastor, Terry Jones, standing in a field of grass behind signs that read "Islam is of the devil."

The tall pines of my childhood tower behind him and I was shocked to see those two images together. From my apartment in Tel Aviv, I searched the edges of the photo for something else familiar, something that would soothe me.

Where is my hometown? I thought. This is not the Gainesville I grew up in. 

Gainesville is quintessential America. It's swimming pools and popsicles. It's kids scooting about on bikes on lazy summer days. It's Norman Rockwell America.

It's also Tom Petty's hometown, the place that gave rise to his famous song "American Girl". If I've had a bit too much to drink and I sing along, I find a southern accent I never knew I had. And if a Jewish girl can discover a southern accent for herself in Gainesville, anyone can find a home there. Right?

Then I remember.

When I was a child, some of my evangelical Christian classmates urged me to convert. Because I was Jewish and didn't accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and saviour, they told me, I was going to hell. 

When I was a teenager, I had a close friend whose father was in the Ku Klux Klan. For years, I hid my ethnic and cultural background from the family. Shame began to seep into me and I learned to hide my roots from everyone.

The summer after 11th grade, we were home alone, watching a movie with an African American friend of ours. The gravel in the driveway rumbled under a car's tires – it was my other friend's father, the Klansman, arriving unexpectedly. Our black friend hid in a closet. He climbed him out the window later and I met him down the road, tucked him into my car, and drove him home. 

My last year of high school, the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in a local park that happened to be less than a mile from my house. As I left to go for a run, my mom warned me to steer clear of the park. Just in case.

An obedient daughter, I respected her wishes. When I heard later that counter-protesters outnumbered the KKK, I felt a thrill in my chest. This is my hometown.

I felt the same this morning when I read that the city of Gainesville had rejected Jones's request for permission to build a bonfire. While the city denied that the decision had anything to do with Jones's intention to burn sacred books, Gainesville's mayor, Craig Lowe, voiced his discomfort with Jones's ideology.

So, which is my hometown? And which is America?

Gainesville's struggle is a mirror for the country. And so are my memories. In the past, there was antisemitism, roiling just below the surface. Now, there is Islamophobia. If Terry Jones burns copies of the Qur'an in Gainesville, he'll leave a shameful scorch on us all.

--
Asadullah Syed