I donÂ’t have a nifty video-clip to embed, but this afternoon, cornered by my mother, I sat down to watch a television show that she swore was essential viewing for anyone who wanted to be a good Muslim.
“But I don’t want to be a good Muslim,” I muttered under my breath, keeping a watchful eye out for potential hurling of chappals. “And I certainly would much rather spend this time playing Final Fantasy XII.” But when I saw that Very Special Look that Mothers Have, I shut up and sat down. An hour later, I was actually rather disappointed to find that the show was over.
Meet Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, described on Wikipedia as “a well-known Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educationist”. Other than having a head of hair so thick that I’m convinced it’s capable of deflecting armour-piercing shells, the man actually impressed me. I don’t necessarily think he’s going to be storming the bastions of the unfaithful or anything, but after seeing some of the raving loonies on channels such as “QTV” (Quran TV), or “The Muslim Channel” and listening to them explain to the adoring masses that you have to have faith because if you don’t you’ll burn in Hell forever, I was taken aback to find someone with a functional brain on a mainstream TV channel.
As you may be able to imagine, in Pakistan critical analysis of any sort—particularly when it involves matters theological—is frowned upon most severely, and to find someone sitting calmly (albeit on an absolutely hideous set) on TV while happily dissecting a few dozen-odd “religious truths” is something of a mind-boggling experience, not entirely unlike being savaged by a goldfish.
I came into the programme as it was about halfway done, and so am a little bit hazy on the minutiae, but apparently some bearded guy sits on one side of a table, with this Ghamidi fellow on the other, and on the third side there’re a man and a woman who ask him what seem to be very rote-memorised questions. They’re also a bit daft, I must say—I caught myself wondering, do people REALLY sit at home wondering if they’re allowed to eat poultry that may or may not have been given a bit of meat in its feed, or laughing at the man who wondered if “it was OK to eat food caught by dogs because the dog is an unclean animal”. But Ghamidi’s approach towards answering these questions is actually very interesting, and involves a very…holistic, and common-sense approach towards religion. My favourite part was, I think, when he moaned out loud: “But all the things you’re saying, none of them are actually in the Quran! You’re using man-made rationales and reasons to justify your own cultural beliefs and customs, and that’s just WRONG. The Quran has nothing about dogs written in it, and you can’t just pick blanket phrases and apply them to things without actually thinking about it! ”
I’m interested in seeing how far this particular “reformist” movement will have an impact on popular notions of Islam, particularly in a domestic context. Half the radicals of whom I know or DO know tend to have picked up their notions from the media—I wonder if they’ll pick up the notion of moderation or critical thinking as well. I think it’s a good sign that it’s on TV, and that it apparently has a number of supporters; in particular, I find myself incapable of disliking a man who actually uses logic and rational arguments rather than reverting to tautological theology.
IÂ’m still reserving judgement though. Just in case.
Rational thought and analysis, trying to be a good person, remebering and thanking God occasionally. In my opinion, thats all the religion anyone needs. I’m glad that person you mentioned is on TV so that more people start to wake up and think like that too. Age old customs, ‘traditions’ and superstitions are passed off as religion currently and that is why a lot of the things very ‘religious’ people do are contradictory and hypocritical.
Sin – is this him?
The same goes for the “holy” book of any organized religion.
Give the man a Nobel! Even better, hide him somewhere safe so the idiots don’t off him. Common sense is at a premium these days.
Ennis – Yes, that’s him. I haven’t seen this clip (and streaming it takes forever on a Pakistani ‘net connection), but that’s the man.
My favourite part was, I think, when he moaned out loud: “But all the things you’re saying, none of them are actually in the Quran! You’re using man-made rationales and reasons to justify your own cultural beliefs and customs, and that’s just WRONG. The Quran has nothing about dogs written in it, and you can’t just pick blanket phrases and apply them to things without actually thinking about it! ”
that would probably be my favorite part too!
a more serious take: 1) the media is absolutely awful at finding moderate (muslim or otherwise) voices to highlight whenever something remotely religious comes up. its always the people who are preaching/shouting “death to infidels!” or “death to heathens!” or whatever, that get on airtime. no fair. 2) there is a huge difference between religious scholars and religious leaders. appealing to the head–the intellect– is a much harder sell than appealing to the heart, the gut. 3) people really want to told what to do. they are so desperate for answers to their questions (should i eat X or Y? is this ok? is that ok?) that they read into things, even though there isn’t anything to read into. 4) the world needs more thoughtful, insightful, philosophical people.
The Quran has nothing about dogs written in it, and you can’t just pick blanket phrases and apply them to things without actually thinking about it! ”
Yes, but the Quran did ask Muslims to follow the Prophet (pbuh) and the Prophet did believe that the dogs were unclean. If we just follow the beloved prophet, we will recreate Medina in all corners of the world and lead great lives.
Thanks for pointing this guy out, Sin.
It’s truly refreshing to see someone use logic in a religious argument.
I agree with Maitri..he needs to be hidden before someone gets to him.
Also, Sin, your mom might be on to something with her efforts at making you watch this guy. 🙂
hey’re also a bit daft, I must say—I caught myself wondering, do people REALLY sit at home wondering
LOL. Reminds me a anecdote in ‘Lipstick Jihad‘ of the question asked to a cleric on TV that went something like this; “If there is an earthquake and a man falls though his floor on top of a woman in the floor below and impregnates her, is that a sin?” Apparently, the clerics used to answer such questions on Iranian tv. 🙂 [I’m sure it must be sent by one single Iranian college student who ROFLs everytime his question is picked up.]
A cleric who was bigtime on subcontinental tv was Zakir Naik. You can watch his videos on youtube. A superb take on Zakir Naik can be found in Zak’s blog.
Aaaaaah, damn you. You should never post a Wikipedia link that early in a post. From that link, I went to Maudoodi>Khawaja>Shaikh and then some more and now I am reading about difference between various castes, tribes and clans. The result is that I haven’t read your post yet.
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi is a President of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences and an editor of a monthly Renaissance. Well, God knows how long they will able to continue their quest of knowledge as a while ago editor of Ishraq (Al-Mawrid InstituteÂ’s magazine), been shot.
This sort of thing is not new. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh University, showed that slavery was not truly Islamic. “Â… the deadly arguments he used to drive home his point that slavery was against nature and against the will of God, that no human being could own or be owned by another, and that the clear and final injunction of the Qu’ran was that prisoners of war should either be set free or ransomed. He showed that he was not the first to hold this view, and quoted orthodox literature in support. The scholars of his day were aghast at the discovery that a clear injunction of the Qu’ran had been overlooked, and a whole code of law relating to slavery built up in a manner that betrayed the intention of making worldly interest override the word of God.” (M. Mujeeb, The Indian Muslims, 1967)
Every religion is beset by these contradictions between the original Word and worldly customs given a religious gloss by corrupt priestly classes. Mohammed said, “Women are the twin-halves of men;” if that isn’t a statement of equality, what is?
He also said, “I am like a man who has lighted a fire, and all the creeping things have rushed to burn themselves in it,” a comment perhaps germane to this discussion.
And he also said, “Whoever has no kindness, has no faith” — which is germane to most all discussions.
sin – Just curious: what is your definition of a “radical”?
Though I appreciate the need for critical analysis, the discourse of “progressive” or “reformist” Muslims is too often fraught with vague statements and blanket assertions that are no more logically substantive than than the ideas they attack. Specifically, many people often have a tendency to dismiss long-standing concepts without much analysis simply by appealing to one ayah or hadith or what they see as common sense notions of justice and mercy in Islam. Now it’s true that there are indeed certain practices that have developed over time that have absolutely no basis even in traditional Islamic jurisprudence, such as female genital mutilation. But others, such as the law of apostasy, have their bases in long-standing legal principles derived from the Quran and Sunnah by the likes of Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Malik. It’s easy for me to completely gloss over them by quoting the Quranic ayah “La ikraha fid-deen” (“There is no compulsion in religion”), making some vague statements about justice and freedom in Islam, blaming “the mullahs”, and declaring the matter settled. But that kind of analysis is no more convincing than that of the long-bearded Mullah who blanketly declares that any “apostate” should be killed under the Shari’ah. The difference is that in today’s liberal climate, the former passes for “critical analysis” whereas the latter does not.
Now I’m as liberal as the next guy; no fist-length beard or burqa-clad wife here. But I often wonder whether liberal movements in Islam really derive their appeal from a reasoned and logical approach.
I have always been curious about this. Heroes set up as examples are part of every culture. but does the Quran ask muslims to follow the Prophet literally in every sense? Or is it just a general moral injunction that has been exaggerated?
For example, people might tell their kids to emulate Washington and tell the truth if they cut down a tree, but not to powder their hair or wear a denture because he did.
its a bit sad that muslims in general are so quick to judge others and in turn get irritated when someone judges them. keep an open mind is all im saying.
You know what really bothers me about most ideas of “moderate” Islam? That it’s still not liberal Islam. Umm right. I will expand on this. Most moderate Muslims still rely on sharia of the Prophet. There are many problems with sharia. The first being that there really is no real record of any saying, traditions other than oral links. So, Muslim and Bukhari sat down centuries after the death of the Prophet and determined that sharia x was right because it had a strong chain and someone else knows that one too. How is this perfectly dependable so that we are willing to go to war to protect a tradition that is most probably true as determined by someone who lived centuries ago and studied traditions passed down orally. Even if you are convinced that The Prophet was completely human and also completely infallable, do you also believe that everyone who every heard and passed the hadith down was also infallable? And yet, if you don’t have hadith, you’re left wondering, so… it’s ok for a man to beat his wife, right?
the world needs more people who have a rational and logical approach on relegion, all the trolls who call themselves the real “BELEIVERS” should be made to look at their egghead decisions and statements
hector:
Something really bothers me about this statement. Does this mean that, if he had not shown that slavery was not truly Islamic, it would be okay for muslims to have slaves?
Does submitting to a religion have to mean submitting your basic sense of decency and common sense?
SM Intern: Could you please delete my previous comment (#17). I missed a bracket and it came out all wrong. Thanks.
You are confusing Hadith with Sharia. Sharia is Islamic Law, and it is based on the Quran and Hadith.
Fact is the Quran itself commands muslims to obey Mohammad and follow his example. To do that you need the Hadith. If you reject the Hadith you have to admit that the Quran was either wrong to tell muslims to take Mohammad as their example or that Allah was negligent in providing authentic hadiths. In other words you commit blasphemy.
You dont need the Hadith for the answer to this question. The Quran itself commands muslims to beat their wives if they are disobedient, if words and banishment from the conjugal bed do not end the disobedience.
If slavery is unislamic then muslims have been disobeying Allah from the very beginning, for Mohammad and his companions were all slavers. Will Allah burn his own prophet in Hell for disobeying him?
Fact is the Quran itself allows slavery. How Sayyed Ahmed Khan “proved” that slavery was unislamic is beyond me.
Slavery wasnt made illegal in the birthplace of Islam, now called Saudi Arabia, until 1962. The Bible too sanctions slavery. And slavery was made illegal in christendom only in the 19th century, after the Enlightenment had introduced liberal, humanistic values to the West.
Koran came to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as a revelation when he was 40. So Muslims can follow his examples before forty..
Personally, I think some strong dictator/monarch like Ataturk needs to clean up with Muslim world. It’s not mere coincidence that the U.S. has always favored dictators who align with U.S. thinking over democratically elected chauvanists. Picking up from where Ataturk left off, Europe is now determining how compulsory modernization ought to be for immigrants. It’s a difficult question, since one side asks for respecting other cultures and providing freedom of religion, but the other side asks for respecting societal harmony and providing freedom to escape religious barbarism. The unfortunate thing is, even this Ghamidi fella’ who’s the poster-boy for progressive Muslim thinking would be dead-opposed to women priests and such. There are Christian churches and Hindu temples with women priests (in fact, the Hindu temple I attended in upstate NY had women priests) — albeit women priests are still a rarity. When will there be women sheiks in mosques?
Queenvish, I agree — ‘moderate’ Islam is still way too conservative for most people’s tastes.
Quizman,
Better than The Onion!!!! If the question was truly posed by a prankster, that prankster is a comedic legend — no, no, a comedic demi-god!
@ Sakshi – You made a mistake in comparing Prophet Muhammed with Washington! [:)]
And the comment about beating your wife – that is for big sins that are classified as such… not because she doesnt cook food… or sleeps late… or something like that. That is the biggest problem in understand the Holy Book… there is no attention paid to the context.
And i have this incident to relate. I was travelling in a bus which has ‘islamic teachings’ blaring (yes! blaring) through its speakers instead of the old bollywood songs that usually do. Now, I am a conservative muslim and I like to follow the right path. But the ‘mullah’ in that recording was preaching about how we should send our little daughters to these ‘westernized’ schools wearing little frocks. That would have been ok to ignore… but in a bus that has women and weird pathan men (I have nothing against Pathans) the mullah kept on and on about how he was traumatized by the fact that he saw this little primary school girl going off to school in a frock… with her ‘tangay nangi/kaandhay nangay’ (naked legs/naked shoulders) and he repeated the word ‘nanga’ so many times… I swore I wouldnt use the word again!
umm…why?..I don’t have a problem with your remark…I am just curious about where you are coming from… 🙂
Sin, I think you will really like the “Peace TV” brigade if you like Ghamidi. I am personally not a huge fan of Dr. Zakir Naik (He has too argumentative a stance), but people like Hussain Ye (Chinese convert) and Yusuf Eustis (Christian convert) are really good and make a lot of sense. Islamic scholars who have converted to Islam tend to make more sense. I suspect that is because they have made an effort to understand religion and not accept it at face value.
For people who have posted comments above, I would encourage them to research Islam further. Islam, while a simple religion to understand, is extensive and requires a certain amount of research to grasp. For example, in the discussion on the issue of slavery, we all tend to confuse “slavery” in Islam with slavery that took place in the west (especially with regards to slaves from Africa). “Slavery” in Islam requires the slave owners to mete out the most humane of conduct including equivalent clothing, education, human rights and food quality to that enjoyed by the owner. In such a situation if all rich people in the world took poor people as slaves, they would actually go a long way in reducing human poverty, especially since the offspring of poor people will be better educated and healthier. For better understanding one needs to pick up a book on Islamic history and see the quality of life enjoyed by slaves during the time of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h)
@ Sakshi – how do I explain? Ah! How about you look up the list of Time Magazines list of the 100 Most Inflential Men of all times. Though I personally think Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) shouldnt be compared to the rest of the people in the list… it does help in providing me with a way of explain what I mean. All I wanted to say is… He is the perfect example for the rest of the humans to follow. Explaining all this takes away the edge in that sentence! 🙂
But again there is room for maneuvering… sunnah isnt compulsory. We arent expected to follow him to the dot. We should try… but not compulsory.
I hope I am clear…