Muslims need to reclaim Islam from all interpreters, not only bad ones

Muslims for Secular Democracy activist and Communalism Combat co-editor Javed Anand wrote an important article on political Islam and how the Quran’s interpretations by Abd al-Wahhab, Hassan al-Banna, Syed Qutb and Maulana Maududi have led Muslims to this place where they must bid ‘farewell to the state of denial’ and say “no more” to conspiracy theories.

Javed Anand is a fiercely secular man, who has fought Hindu fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism alike. He minces no words in telling Muslims that they cannot just condemn a killing in the name of their shared faith and consider their duty done. To cry out not-in-my-name is one thing. But to insist that the perpetrators of terror cannot be Muslims is to deny personal agency, evade moral responsibility for what some Muslims do in the name of a shared faith, he writes.

He makes an argument that I totally agree with and wrote about here. "The Quran, the Bible or the Gita promote neither peace nor violence. It is the believers who choose to interpret passages of their holy texts one way or the other." Javed Anand then falls in the same trap that he, without saying so, accuses the moderates of being in. He upholds the book that the “certain elements” hold up. “For believing Muslims, the primary sources of Islamic law are the Quran and the Ahadith (plural of hadith, words and deeds of Prophet Mohammed). Do the Quran and the Ahadith promote peace or violence?” He is clear that the Quran and the Ahadith do not do so.

So what’s my peeve here? Well, for one, he avoids talking about the solution. Second, he brings up the Book itself. Every time scholars, both Muslims and non-Muslims, want their stance against non-violence heard, they use the book to make the argument. Glad that Javed Anand avoids quoting a verse. He himself is a (non-practicing) secular man, and believing Muslims wouldn’t believe him even if he did quote a verse. The trouble with moderate Islam is that they do not call out political Islam as the enemy of Muslims. In spite of the dead bodies piling up because of the madness unleashed by political Islam. Critics like Javed Anand believe, if not fear, that saying something negative about the religion should hurt Muslims. Hurting religious sentiments is a taboo, even if it hurts the religious in the end.

“Not one of the US, UK and French leaders who have invaded Muslim countries in the last 20 years was acritic of Islam. Of each of them, pro-Islamic statements can be quoted. Yet between them, they have killed numerous Muslims," Koenraad Elst wrote here recently. It's mostly those who appease by closing their eyes who are responsible for the killings of people in the name of Islam, an overwhelming majority of the dead happen to be Muslims.

It is time Muslims stood against political Islam and said it aloud that the Quran must not rule their lives and their countries. Not even one's personal life. The Quran is a holy book, and must not, in the modern world, be part of politics and governance, matters hardly holy at the best of times. It’s time to stop citing the Quran as the final word on everything. It’s the final word of faith, if you believe so. It’s a moral guide. It must be respected and kept on the rehal, for recitation in the prayer room. There is no reason for people to swear on the Quran or the Gita or the Bible when standing in a court of law. What the book says shouldn’t matter. All that should matter is what the law says.

Because if you put the god-made law (if you believe) above the man-made law, then no one would believe in the latter and the former is subject to interpretation by all kinds of men to suit all kinds of intetests. God hasn’t sent any clarifications or amendments to the mortals, in spite of various instances of deadly misinterpretations. It’s futile to argue against the Taliban by saying that the book doesn’t condone senseless violence. The Taliban also have the same book, and they have guns, too.

There are a lot of people who say Islam and democracy are not compatible. It’s illogical, because Islam is a faith, and democracy is a system. The problem arises when Islam is allowed to be a part of the system; when the system begins respecting religion more than its people. That’s when the completely illogical statement begins sounding logical. Democracy is the will of the people; Sharia is the will of God. If you believe God is above people, you will not represent the will of the people. Hence, the Islamic world’s experiments with democracy mostly fail.

Javed Anand’s commitment to secularism makes him exhort Muslims to do more than just condemn. He, however, falls short of saying what more Muslims need to do. He wants them to come out of the state of denial, but doesn’t guide them to the state of confirmation. He, instead, asks them to get acquainted with al-Banna’s brother al-Gamal, who wanted Muslims "to reject sayings attributed to Prophet Mohammed, which are not consonant with the teachings of the Quran".

Throwing the "Middle Age interpretations of the Quran into the sea" will not help, simply because the Modern Age interpretations are no better. We have Zakir Naik interpreting it in his own way on the onehand, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in his own way on the other. Both are virulent, the latter is only overtly so.

Muslims do not need to reject anything. All they need to do to tackle political Islam is take Islam back from the interpreters. If faith is essential for the soul, as believers believe, then let it be in your hearts.

The same for the Hindu books, the Christian book and whatever book you follow. If you consider them sacred, don’t quote them where worldly deeds of worldly men and women are discussed. Memorise every verse, every shloka and every commandment; but do remember, they are between you and your god. It’s not for here, because this ain’t the hereafter where god’s will shall rule. This is the world with its own set of rulers; Obama in America, Modi in India, Kim Jog-un in North Korea, Putin in Russia, a certain Mr Baghdadi in a not-so-certain Islamic State. None of them were appointed by God. Some by people, some by themselves. God’s writ doesn’t run beyond the boundaries of your heart. Let God be. Get on with life.