An Open Letter to Hilal Ahmed [Reviewing Siyasi Muslims] Part – II

Dear Mr. Ahmed,

I am continuing to review your book, Siyasi Muslims. In the previous post (https://cvedant.wpcomstaging.com/2024/02/16/an-open-letter-to-hilal-ahmed/), I had pointed out some flaws in the book (as a whole) and Chapters I, (in specific) in the previous post. This post discusses some flaws I found in Chapters II, IV, and VII of the book.

Chapter Two

Chapter two of your book primarily focuses on the tenets of Islam. The aim of this chapter was to argue that the practice of Islam and its rituals differ among Muslims in India. Although your efforts here are not satisfactory, I am happy this chapter does not hold objectionable material. Although I am certain your circuitous language would have most certainly caused nuisance to any reader.

All you had to do in this chapter was:

1. Show us some customs/rituals/practices in Islam; and
2. Prove to us that across India, these rituals are practiced differently.

Believe it or not, professor, that is how simple this chapter could have been! I must say, you did begin the chapter on the right foot. You explained that Islam has five tenets. And that was it. This is precisely where you went astray, professor. From this point onwards, the chapter felt like an evening stroll with a talkative septuagenarian. You went explaining the five tenets of Islam, what they mean. You explained what Namaaz is. If that was not enough, you gave me a diagram, on the occasion I could not understand Namaaz. Professor! Answer me! Why was this required? How does understanding the tenets of Islam, and the procedure of doing Namaaz help the progression of this chapter? You do not mention so much as a word on these in the following pages in this chapter!

Nevertheless, I continued to read. I expected now, that you had explained the procedure of Namaz, you would to tell me how, for example some sect A of Muslims performed their Namaaz differently, from some other sect B in India. But oh boy was I wrong!

Having lectured the reader on the theoretical aspects of Islam (which was unnecessary) you proceed to pick up a research, where Muslims have commented on how religious they themselves think they themselves are.

I understand you may have been overly eager to use and cite the research considering it is from CSDS, but as I will point out shortly, there is a serious flaw in the research that you should have considered before citing it.

Commenting on One’s own Religiosity

The researcher has made the samples (all Muslims) comment on their own religiosity. No true follower of any religion can be boisterous about his worship. To call oneself “Very Religious” is definitely a conceited opinion. My argument in short is – a question “How religious are you” is a self-defeating question, all of its answers are inaccurate. I can say very safely that no religion can promote its followers to be boisterous or arrogant about one’s worship. And Islam is no exception.

To cite authority, let me bring to your attention, the Quran at 16:23 (Surah An-Nahl) and 4:36 (Surah An-Nisa)

لَا جَرَمَ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَعۡلَمُ مَا يُسِرُّونَ وَمَا يُعۡلِنُونَۚ إِنَّهُۥ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُسۡتَكۡبِرِينَ

[…He [Allah (PBUH)] certainly does not love those who are steeped in arrogance.] – Abul Ala Madudi

[…verily He[Allah (PBUH)] loveth not the arrogant.] – Yusuf Ali

Quran 40:60 Surah Ghafir Ayah 60; Translations from – https://myislam.org/surah-nahl/ayat-23/

AND

۞وَٱعۡبُدُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَلَا تُشۡرِكُواْ بِهِۦ شَيۡـٔٗاۖ وَبِٱلۡوَٰلِدَيۡنِ إِحۡسَٰنٗا وَبِذِي ٱلۡقُرۡبَىٰ وَٱلۡيَتَٰمَىٰ

وَٱلۡمَسَٰكِينِ وَٱلۡجَارِ ذِي ٱلۡقُرۡبَىٰ وَٱلۡجَارِ ٱلۡجُنُبِ وَٱلصَّاحِبِ بِٱلۡجَنۢبِ وَٱبۡنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ وَمَا

مَلَكَتۡ أَيۡمَٰنُكُمۡۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ مَن كَانَ مُخۡتَالٗا فَخُورًا

Translation of relevant portion –

[…Allah (PBUH) does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful] – Sahih International

[…For Allah (PBUH) loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious] – Yusuf Ali

[…Allah (PBUH) does not love the arrogant and the boastful] – Abul Ala Madudi

Quran 4:36 Surah An-Nisa Ayah 36; Translations from – https://myislam.org/surah-an-nisa/ayat-36/

The point I am trying to make is, to ask a Muslim “Are you a devout Muslim?” is a question which is doomed to give incorrect answers. No “Pukka Musalman” would be conceited enough to answer that he is “Very Religious”. Therefore, looking at the “Very Religious” group we can most certainly conclude they are not the most devout/ religious group.

Chapter Three

Chapter Three – “Islamization since Independence”, once again, a chapter title that suggests to the reader one thing, and ends up explaining and furthering quite a different argument. The rational expectation of a reader opening this chapter would be, to expect an explanation/justification to the popular “misconception” that since 1947 Muslims of India have been in the effort to Islamize India.

Wonderful! I would love to read literature on this theme. However, unfortunately once again you do not fail to disappoint the reader.

My rational expectation was, your argumentation would be on:

1. Is proselytization a limb/requirement of Islam?
2. Are Muslims on a mission to proseltyize non-Muslims?
3. On those lines, is there any justification or explaining or reality of the theory of love-jihad?

Unfortunately, you choose a new route for arguementation. Once again, saddening. You fling all the three possible arguments out the window and choose to explain to me the meaning of one “Dawat-e-Islam”, which is a facet of Islam (inviting non-Muslims to Islam). As if this was not enough, you choose to quote/cite four big names and their interpretations of “Dawat-e-Islam”. And as a cherry on top, while reading this I recall a claim you make earlier in this book, that, the Islam practiced by the common Muslim differs from the Islam that is propounded by clerics/scholars and Muslim elites.

Tell me now professor, evaluate your own arguments in light of what I have placed before you. How strong is your argument?

Further, I was surprised when I found the chapter to be silent on the question on Love Jihad. You should have dealt with love jihad in this chapter. Isn’t that a major misconception concerning the prosletyzation actions of Muslims? You should have written on that. I noticed you have conveniently avoided this topic, which is extremely important particularly in a chapter titled – Islamization since Independence. A simple CTRL + F showed me that the word has been mentioned only twice in the entire book!

With that I conclude this issue. Now I call your attention to the pages of this chapter where you have quoted and I daresay, advocated and defended Dr. Zakir Naik. I will not pain my hands by recalling the number of times Naik has transgressed his freedom of speech. Let me be very straight here. It hardly matters to me how Naik interprets the rules of Islam. Naik’s claim that the law of Shariat stands above the constitution is his sole opinion. Unfortunately, the Indian legal system is such that the Constitution is above the Shariat. Further, his bravado of accepting the tag of a “fundamentalist” is certainly nothing to defend. Every citizen of this country shall live by its laws, and fundamentalists are certainly unwelcome in India. And I am sure you agree with me on this. What saddened me is, I noticed your writing here reeked with empathy for Naik.

Chapter Seven

The seventh chapter of your book is based on the politics behind Triple Talaq. I am with you on this point. It is a poorly drafted law. Useless, uneccessary, infructous and harsh insofar as the criminalization of Triple Talaq is concerned.

However, insofar as your second criticism of the Triple Talaq law is concerned, I am afraid I object. You are trying to argue here that, the interpretation of Muslim clergy/ulemas on the point of Triple Talaq is, (i) varied and diverse, (ii) not decisive and (iii) does not represent the practices of the common Muslim. My problem is, you do not back these claims.

Prove to me that:

1. What the ulema says is disobeyed by Muslims, and moreover, not by a minority of Muslims but a majority of Muslims; AND
2. prove that the common Muslim can go about his life peacefully without fear of reprimand or punishment even after disobeying the clergy

I do not find any proof of this in the chapter, and therefore once again I find it to be a weak argument.

Conclusion

That is all, I have to say professor. sdf. Reading your book, was in itself a difficult work. One can only imagine how difficult it has been to go back once again in the book, and

I hope you take my criticism in good spirit. You needed honest feedback. There is a lot of necessary adulation with respect to your book. This review should hopefully part the curtains and let some light in.

As I conclude my review, I also find myself compelled to call out the indolence of the editor or editorial team (whoever) worked on this book. From any view this is a very poorly edited book. I have tried to single out the person/team that worked on this book but could not find them. I request you to also forward this review to them.