Requiring one's spouse to convert to one's religion is barbaric and shows disrespect for one's spouse.
In a mixed marriage, children should be either exposed to both religions or to neither religion.
In any case, religious transmission to children should exclude transmission of prejudice, intolerance, segregationist tendencies and assumptions of superiority of one religion over others.
Aayina, you should be ashamed of
yourself for bringing my personal life into the comment box. That is none of your
However, now that you have and if my
memory is serving me right, this is perhaps the second or third time, I
must explain for the benefit of neutral readers.
I never advertised my marital life.
However, if somebody asks me or makes allegations of personal nature, I have to
state the facts. When I was sacked from the editorship of a magazine being run
by the "secular" Muslim leadership of the country for not having
converted my wife even after 12 years of marriage, the media got wind of it and
asked me questions. I told them what had happened. I had to. Then the Delhi Union of Journalists
of which I was a member went to court, to secure justice for me, as I had not been
paid my salary even for the month in which I had been sacked, not to speak
of the additional six months for which I should have been paid as per then government rules for such situations. The managing director Mr. Yunus Dehlavi deployed his
lawyer, incidentally from the RSS stable, to contest the case. After ten years,
in which the judge did not even heard me once, the DUJ lawyer stopped informing me of the dates. I stopped going to court every
second/third month. The case got dismissed.
This was the Islam of such luminaries like
Messrs. Salman Khurshid, Late Syed Hamid, A M Khusro, Kamal Farooqi and Yunus
Dehlavi, to which they wanted me to convert my wife. The Islam that I know of
asks employers to pay their employees before the sweat of their brows have
dried, and doesn't force anyone to convert, allows Muslims to marry any one from any faith, without requiring either of them them to convert. In my understanding of Islam, all human beings are ahl-e-kitab, as they have all received prophets of God.
However, the point is I did not
advertise all this. My employers didn’t even know that I had not converted my
wife for 13/14 months that I worked for them because I saw no reason to
advertise this. However, things happened. My marriage to a Hindu girl was no secret. I had faced Hindu
goons from my area in Delhi at one time who gheraoed my house for weeks with
the help of the local SHO, who used to harass my wife in my absence, until the
DCP intervened and rescued me and my wife?
This was known to many people. So,
somebody told my employers and they immediately scheduled a breakfast meeting of
the Board and asked me to convert her. As I read la ikraha fid Deen to
them, and told them that Hindus are ahl-e-kitab, like all other nations of the world
who have received prophets of Islam and have books of revelations, and we are
allowed even by orthodox Islam to have the most intimate relations with them, the
meeting broke and I was sacked the same day. I did not issue a press release to
advertise my problems or the nature of my marital life. It would be absurd to
As for my children, they are free to
choose their religion. I fought with my father as a young boy for my right to
choose my religion. I objected to his waking me up every morning for morning
prayers to a God I did not know and could not know at that stage in my life. As
a rational Maulvi, that he thankfully was, he agreed and accepted my promise
that when I grow up I would study all religions and choose mine or not choose
any if that’s what I feel.
I don’t think religion or philosophy of
life is something that can be inherited. How can then I possibly ask my
children to adopt my present religion. Like any thinking human being who is constantly learning new things and growing, I may change my own views on any subject tomorrow. So how can I ask any one else, much less my own children, to accept my present views as the Gospel truth. I was an agnostic for decades of my conscious
life. God blessed me with faith.
However, I have no right to share with you and make
public what my freethinking children think about religion and even about shamelessness
of people like you who would force me to talk about my personal life
experiences. [Of course, people write autobiographies and share their life
experiences. But that should be their choice.}
respect my children’s right to choose their life and their religion or
philosophy of life or not choose anything, which is also a choice. I fought for
my own rights to choose or not choose any religion as a young person and I
continue to fight for every human’s right to choose.
Much of what is wrong with the world is
because religion has become hereditary. Had you been born in a fundamentalist, obscurantist,
intolerant, exclusivist Muslim family, you would have probably been a shameless,
intolerant Muslim now, spewing hatred for Hindus. Start thinking for yourself,
maybe you will come out of the intense hatred of Muslims, particularly moderate,
liberal, progressive Muslims that informs your life and present thinking. You
have inherited this hate from the society in which you have lived since you were
born. Anyone able to think for himself can perhaps never be so full of hatred
for fellow human beings, from whichever religion or caste or colour or community.
Dear shahzad, you can also look at the following characterization to understand the areas covered in the classical study of the Usul al-Fiqh (Science of Islamic Laws).
Usul al-Fiqh (Science of Islamic Laws) has four main sections of study and their sub-sections:
1. Al-hukm (Rulings/Legal Values)>>>>>>>(1) Al-hukm at-taklifi (Primary law) (2) Al-hukm al-wadi’I (Declaratory law)
2. Rules of interpretation (Istinbaat)>>>>> Al-dalalaat (implications) commands and prohibitions: General and Specific, absolute and qualified
3. Al-Mujtahid and Ijtihad>>>>>> Proof of ijtihad, conditions, procedure, classification
4. Adillah Naqliyyah (Transmitted evidences) and adillah naqliyyah (rational evidences)>>>>>>>> (1) Naqliyyah (transmitted): Quran, Sunnah, Revealed Laws, Preceding Sharia, Ijma and Fatwa of companions (2) Aqliyyah (rational): Qiyas, Istihsaan (equity), consideration of public interest, customs, presumption of continuity
You can also study the components of Islamic Law; (1) The lawgiver (hakim), (2) the law (hukm) derived either of wahi jali or wahi khafi, (3) the objectives of law (mahkum bihi) and (4) the subjects of law (mahkum alaihi) that is those to whom the law applies or persons.
If you study all the areas of Science of Islamic laws and the components of Islamic law, you shall have a better understanding, facing any Islamic issue revolving around the relative subjects.
There was nothing
like confusing statement in MY previous comment. What I wrote therein is
unanimously accepted view among Islamic scholars.
I said, the ‘Hukm’
(Islamic rule/legal value/ruling) is not the revealed Arabic word of Allah Almighty but is that legal value
which is established and deduced from the revealed words of Allah Almighty.
A famous Islamic
scholar writes in his book “Al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam”,
ان الحكم المصطلح ما ثبت بالخطاب
terminology, Hukm [Islamic ruling/law/rule] is not the revealed words [of
Allah] but it is proved and deduced from the revealed speech [of Allah].
I got confused when you
said, “It should also be noted here that ‘Hukm’ (Islamic rule) is not the
Arabic word of Allah Almighty but is that legal value which is established and
deduced from the revealed words of Allah Almighty”.
Please give evidence for
what you say
modern Western terminology, what is known as ‘Law’ is recognized as ‘Ruling’
(Hukm) in Islamic terminology.
terminology what is known as “Legal Science” is recognized as Ilm al-Ahkam or ‘Al-Fiqh’
(Science of Islamic Laws) in Islamic terminology.
incorrect to translate ‘Law’ as ‘Fiqh’. Al-Fiqh is not Law. But rather it is “Science
of Islamic Laws”.
terminology what is known as Jurisprudence is recognized as Usul al-Fiqh
(Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) in Islamic terminology.
have wrongly used Islamic Sharia and Islamic law to mean the same thing. The fact
is that Shariat is a whole and Islamic Law is a part of it.
study the definition of ‘Law’ in the writings of the western scholars, you will
find a huge difference among them. Each of them has differently defined ‘Law’.
read the definitions of ‘Law’ made by St. Thomas, Richard Hooker, Immanuel
Kant, Savigny, Friedrich Engels, Black Stone, John Austin, Holland, Sir Fedrick
Polloc, Sidney Hartland, Professor G. C. Lee and Salmond etc, you will find
difference. Robson W.A has rightly said, “It is difficult to define law in a
satisfactory manner, it is still harder to find the beginnings of it. The origins
of law are shrouded in obscurity and are, perhaps, impossible to discover”. The
western scholars made their efforts in defining ‘Law’ after playing ‘trial-and-error’
In his book “The Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam, page 17”, Dr. Riyaz ul Hasan Gilani says “It is possible
for God Almighty alone to know with precision what rules of conduct are most
expedient for the human beings in this world. He therefore blessed the human
beings with the divine Revelation and gave them the body of rules of conduct
which are most suitable for the maximum number in this world. The conformity to
those rules causes good effect (the Heaven) in the Hereafter, while the
non-conformity leads to bad results (the Hell)”. (End of quote)
one Quranic verse which is translated into English as, “So do they wish a
judgement of ignorance? And whose judgement is better than that of Allah, for
the people who are certain? (5:50)
says, “Law is neither contrived nor decreed by man; it is an eternal principle
which rules the whole universe, commanding what is right and prohibiting what
is wrong. Hence law is no mere artefact but is the divine reason bestowed by
the gods on the human race”.
western scholars says, “In Islam, the most conspicuous fact about Muhammad
(peace be upon him) is that he was not merely a divine prophet but also a
temporal ruler who governed, judged, punished and legislated. After the great
flight in A.D. 622 to Madina, when Muhammad (peace be upon him) acquired
political power he was sovereign as well as Divine prophet, but only sovereign
because of his prophetic office. The mosque was his council-chamber and hall of
audience; the Friday sermon his opportunity for declarations of policy and when
he uttered his most far-reaching injunctions he spoke as the very mouthpiece of
the Islamic terminology of ‘Hukm’ (Islamic Ruling or Law), the Islamic scholars
belonging to various schools of thought, unanimously agree upon its definition.
As per the Science of Islamic Laws (al-fiqh al-Islami), the definition of ‘hukm’
(translated in English ‘Ruling’ or ‘Law’) is universal and unchangeable. What is
Islamic Hukm (Law/Ruling) is one upon which all the scholars unanimously agree.
What is Ruling and what is not Ruling is another subject and hence should not
be confused with the unanimous definition of ‘Hukm’ (Ruling/Law).
Islamic Ruling or Islamic Law is defined as;
الله المتعلق بأفعال المكلفين بالاقتضاء او التخيير او الوضع
Law (hukm) is that which is established by a communication (khitab) from Allah
Almighty with reference to men’s acts, expressive either of demand or indifference
on His part, or being merely declaratory”.
also be noted here that ‘Hukm’ (Islamic rule) is not the Arabic word of Allah
Almighty but is that legal value which is established and deduced from the
revealed words of Allah Almighty. The main source of Islamic
hukm/Law/ruling/rule is the holy Quran and next to it is Sunnah and then Ijma
qati’, as these sources are ways of knowing the will of Allah Almighty on many
The article takes the bigoted view of the theologians and is therefore hopelessly confused and full of contradictions. For example, if only defensive war is permitted, why do you need a treaty with your minorities to live in peace with them? You need all the people to abide by the constitution and live together as a single nation or as Ummat-e-Wahida.
First, war is not only permitted but ordained against the oppressors. It must be preceded by negotiations and all acts of diplomacy to resolve issues failing which war may be resorted to, if that is the only way left to end oppression and injustice. Is such war offensive or defensive? It does not matter what it is. That is not important. What is important is that oppression must be ended.
Why was permission to fight not given while the Prophet was in Mecca? This has nothing to do with numbers. The Quran does not promote civil war or a situation where the leader is unable to protect his people. Only a ruler with territory under his control can protect the territory and the people residing in his territory. He can also fight only with the help of people under his control or with allies who are also such rulers with a territory under their control. The verses regarding fighting were inapplicable to the Muslims who continued to reside in Mecca after the Prophet’s migration and applied only to those under his political authority. War is permitted but not acts against one’s own government. The Prophet owed no responsibility of protection to the Muslims who continued to live in Mecca and these Muslims were expected to migrate to Medina and join the Prophet, but not expected to remain in Mecca and indulge in acts of aggression.
There is an unqualified command of Allah “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. A Muslim government must therefore remain secular in all matters of governance. The Muslims and the non-Muslims do not form separate nations, but are a single nation, or Ummat-e-Wahida. Treaties are with equals. The Minorities with their weak numbers, are not equals to be considered as a separate nation, but must be protected and treated as equals and as part of a single nation. If there is any discrimination at all, it must be positive discrimination to ensure that they are never treated unjustly. For example, reservations for the minorities is a safeguard against hidden discrimination against them.
There is no command to fight the non-Muslims nor is the Quran vague or ambiguous about the justification for waging war. There is only one cause for which fighting is permitted/ordained and that is to end oppression of any kind, against any oppressor, to protect any oppressed. The faith professed by the oppressor/oppressed is immaterial.
وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا
الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ الطَّاغُوتِ فَقَاتِلُوا أَوْلِيَاءَ الشَّيْطَانِ ۖ إِنَّ كَيْدَ الشَّيْطَانِ كَانَ ضَعِيفًا
(4:75) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
(76) The Amanu fight in the cause of Allah, and the kafaru Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
The only cause of Allah for which fighting is permitted, is to end oppression and anybody who is fighting for such a cause, is “Amanu” irrespective of the faith they profess, and the oppressor is “kafaru” irrespective of the faith they profess. The bigots, by reserving kafaru for non-Muslims and Amanu for the Muslims, distort the clear message of the Quran. The Quran does use kafaru/kafirin for the believers as well, and Amanu are not Muslims alone, but all those who satisfy the following criteria:
بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَلَهُ أَجْرُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ
(2:112) Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
In the context of war, they who fight for a just cause are fighting in the cause of Allah, and are therefore the Muminun, and the oppressors are the Kafirun.
The Ayats of Allah outside of the Quran
The Ayats or the Signs of Allah are not only in the Books of Scriptures but also in the natural phenomena that the Quran constantly points out to. It is also in the happenings around us or in the events that take place around us. For example:
(2:246) Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? they said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah." He said: "Is it not possible, if you were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?"
(2:251) By Allah´s will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not Allah Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds.
(252) These are the Signs of Allah: we rehearse them to thee in truth: verily Thou art one of the messengers.
The Ayat of Allah here is the defeat of a powerful enemy who were the oppressors and the fact that Allah checks one set of people by means of another. The faith professed by the people used by Allah to check the oppressor and the faith professed by the oppressor are immaterial in these Ayats. Now let us look at another powerful Ayat and the very important lesson it teaches us.
The Indian army fought against Pakistan’s army in 1971 and defeated them liberating Bangladesh. Without doubt, the Pakistan Army was the oppressor which practiced great oppression on the people of Bangladesh and the Indian army was used by Allah to check them.
وَلَن يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا
(4:141) ….And never will Allah grant to the Kafirin a way (to triumph) over the Mominin.
We have an Ayat of Allah in the defeat of the Pakistani army who were oppressors by the Indian Army which went to help the oppressed and an Ayat of the Quran which says the Mominin will always triumph over the Kafirin. In this situation, the Indian army which went to help an oppressed people and fight an oppressor are the Mominin and the oppressing Pakistani army the Kafirin. If there is difficulty in accepting that the Indian Army were the momineen because their objective may not have been very pure, then the Pakistan army may be considered as the worst in kufr because of which they suffered the humiliating defeat. Allah also says in Al-Hajj 22:40 that He checks one set of people with another.
The Kafirin suffered a humiliating defeat.
This event clearly demonstrates the meaning of Momin and Kafir in a situation where the battle is between those who uphold what is right and the oppressors. The event is an Ayat of Allah outside of the Quran which must be reconciled with Ayat 4:141 from the Quran, to take the correct meaning that an oppressor is a kafir no matter what faith he professes and those who fight to end oppression, fight in the cause of Allah and are the Momineen in the limited context of the battle.
The Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting
The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (Pbuh) In the Qu’ran (Part 4): The Medinian Period
The Story of the Prophetic Mission of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qu’ran (Concluding Part) Summary
The bigoted theologians make a big deal out of making a distinction between those who recite the kalima and those who don’t. The Message of the Quran is far more nuanced and is from the Lord of all of us. The God of Islam is not the parochial god of the theologians.