Notes

Dear Mr. Ahmed,

I recently finished reading your book, “Siyasi Muslims – A Story of Political Islams in India”. I will be direct – I found the book unimpressive. This post, and a subsequent post are an objective review of your book.

I made the unfortunate decision of reading your book, a couple of months after completing S.Y. Quraishi’s “The Population Myth: Islam, Family Planning and Politics in India.” I must point out Dr. Quraishi’s book is much more thought out, and well argued. I compare Dr. Quraishi’s book with yours, since both these books argue on similar themes. I noticed some good reviews of your book (which motivated me to read it). But I can now safely say they were all mere summaries of your book peppered with mild praise. And even where these reviews criticsed your book, the only criticism was that, you could have written more about “Muslim Mobilization in India.”

One of the important points that the book misses is Muslim mobilization. There are political parties led by Muslims in India that claim to represent Muslims both at the state level and the national level. The book does not deal with such parties and only mentions the BJP and the secular parties.

Haris Rashid, 2022 (https://kashmirobserver.net/2022/04/13/siyasi-muslims/]

AND

The book majorly explores how Muslims have responded to contemporary issues surrounding them, but remains silent on their mobilization by parties such as AIMIM, and movements. This limits its exploration and analysis specific to legal matters and does not go beyond that.

Durdanah Masoodi, 2024 (https://thedaak.in/2024/02/15/siyasi-muslims-a-story-of-political-islams-in-india/)

I am writing this review to bring to your notice a number of logical errors, and weak argumentation I noticed in your writing. I hope you can take my review in good spirit and implement the same in your future writings. Please do not hesitate in telling me if I have been overly harsh or incorrect while reviewing your book.

Overview of the Book

Before I indulge into specific chapters of the book, I will give you a brief review of the book as a whole. All in all, the book is verbose and circtuious. I firmly believe the arguements in the book may have been very well fit for a feature article, a short commentary or a short book (albeit half or one-third of its current size).

As I reached three or, four of the book I began to notice a very familiar style in which you have organised the book. This is the pattern that I noticed.

1. Quote a recent news item/political speech & Pose a question arising from the speech/news
2. Try to break down the question by breaking it down into parts [provide a framework to the reader]
3. Invoke some theoretical aspect of Islam & Explain the same [In one chapter it is the five tenet theory & the procedure of Namaaz; In another chapter it is the principle of Dawat-e-Islam etc.]
4. Diffuse the issue by concluding in your favour. [I note that having explained Islamic philosophy, you follow a tendency to conclude something distinct.]

The above structure will become more evident as I walk you through your reasoning in the subsequent sections.

Another general comment- try to provide references for every assertion made in the book. As a law student I have been taught to provide citations for every single statement made in the course of any writing. I find this missing in your book. Let me give you a few examlpes.

“First, Muslims are often described as a politically conscious community.”

Chapter 1 (Siyasi Muslims) p. 28 [Page Number may differ]

Where are you getting this from? It is very important that you back up such a broad claim.

Let me give you a few more examples.

“It is true that these kind of polemical documents are mainly published
and disseminated by Hindu nationalists to carve a space for themselves in
the public sphere.”

Chapter 3 (Siyasi Muslims) p. 73 [Page Number may differ]

Who said so? Where did you find this? If you found this in a independent research, cite the research. Is the research published? Tell us more about this.

“In contrast, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is often recognized as a ‘progressive and liberal’ Muslim religious leader.”

Chapter 3 (Siyasi Muslims) p. 75 [Page Number may differ]

My question again to you would be, who said so? Where have you derived this from? I am not denying the credibility of your statements, but I have the right to expect more reliability from an associate professor.

Let me now take the pleasure to take you through a more detailed anaylsis of your book, chapter by chapter. I urge you once again to take my review in good spirit. I may have used strong language at times in the book, I hope you can see beyond it.

Chapter One

The first chapter is titled – “Muslims, We know as ‘Numbers’”

Your arguement is that, Muslims cannot and should not be seen purely as numbers, and definetely not as one, single homogenous entity.

Very fair. Completely valid point. Now the rational method of going about to establish this would have been to:

1. Establish there are divisions within Muslims in India; or
2. That there is a social hierarchy [There is a rich/elite and a poor]; or
3. Establish that there are different practices that Muslims across India follow (Deobandi/Hyderabadi etc.); and
4. That historically, we have failed to recognise Muslims as a diverse group. [Give us proof of historians/scholars etc.]

Had a reader found all these elements in your arguement. It would have explained your arguement, and perhaps even convinced him/her of your view. However, you missed the bus here. Of the four plausible arguements, the first three are missing in your chapter. [Though you may have aruged traces of the same elsewhere in the book]

I did, however find a half-hearted attempt to argue on the weak foundation of the fourth arguement, i.e., establishing a historical tradition of treating muslims as one homogenous entity.

Now, I call this a weak arguement because to establish that some notion has existed historically, is not of much use. The aim of this chapter was to prove beyond doubt (to the reader) that Yes! there are classes within Muslims, divisions, variations in rituals etc. (in short – not all Muslims are the same) Where this was the aim, showing to us that scholars of yesteryears have treated all Indian Muslims as one is a very arguement. Putting my words differently, it would suit your chapter better if you either (i) change your arguement, or (ii) provide more relevant reasoning to your arguement.

The specific relevant content for this request, if necessary, delimited with characters: Furthermore, I call your attempt a half-hearted attempt because, while you have cited historical sources treating all Muslims as one single entity, you have faltered in calling out their flaws. Let me tell you what I mean and why this is important. When I say – “All Muslims believe in one god”, I need not point out different practices of different sects or classes within Muslims. But when I make the outrageous statement – “All Muslims consider Triple Talaq as a valid divorce”, this is incorrect, and I need to explain the Sunni Hanafi school and its acceptance of talaq-e-biddat.

Coming back to my main argument – The mere usage of the term “Muslims,” does not by itself constitute a mistake. One must actively explain why Muslims, as a single entity, cannot be used in that specific context. You may have condemned the scholar while citing them, but you have not shown where they went wrong.

Having explained my argument, this brings me to the final step of my reasoning, which is to show you the exact flaws in your argument. For this, I will quote from the chapter, the pages where you have quoted the disgraced scholar James Mill. (more on that later)

Mill has categorised Indian history into three parts. The Hindu, the Muslim and the British time periods.

1. The Hindu era – Age where most rulers were Hindus [Think Gupta, Maurya etc.]
2. The Muslim era – Age where Muslim empires were powerful. [Delhi Sultanate, Mughals]
3. The British era – Simply put, India under the British rule

Your concern is, Mill has categorised the second era as “Muslim era?” And you raise the objection to Mill treating all Muslims as one? I don’t see what is wrong? Mill has clearly mentioned that Muslim era is a time where Muslim empires commanded control over India. Must he mention which muslim empires and the differences between these empires? That is irrelevant to his discussion.

The only thing that is wrong with Mill’s categorisation (which any tenth standard history book can explain) is the names he has given to the eras. Calling an era a Hindu era or a Muslim era implies that all rulers were Hindus, or Muslims respectively. Which we know is not correct. And that is precisely what is wrong with Mill’s book.

The mistake that you are trying to point out – that Mill treats all Muslims as one, and is therefore wrong, is illogical. And that brings me to argument. When you quote historical scholars, you must point out where they have gone wrong. If you can point out, how Mill’s reference of Muslim era is incorrect, I take by my argument in this regard. But again, I found that missing in your texts. It appears you were on a hunting mission to search for texts that refer to all Muslims as one, you found Mr. Mill’s book, and voila, you quoted him.

In addition to the above error, I believe you make a serious, unecessary and dangerous digression while quoting Mill. You have quoted Mill arguing:

1. India under Muslim rule was better and more civilised than India under the Hindu era
2. Muslims are more masculine, civilised, have better mannerisms than Hindus.

Let me very categorical here. There was no need to quote these excerpts from Mill’s text. (An author whom you yourself have disregarded.) You have yourself written-

“It is worth noting that Mill—who never visited India…”

Ahmed (2019) [Siyasi Muslims – A Story of Political Islams in India]

Why then are you bent upon using his text? Moreover, this is much beyond the scope of your argument. How does the comparison of Muslims with Hindus add any weight to your arguement? We all know Mill was wrong. And to choose to quote him without pointing out the flaws in his argument is dangerous.

———

This post has grown longer than I had expected. I will continue this review in a subsequent post.

---