Sir Syed on Jihad

Sir Syed on Jihad

There is a striking similarity between the uprising of 1857 in India and the 9/11 terrorists attacks on WTC in USA. Both events sparked a heated public debate on the question of Jihad in Islamic law and the obligation of Muslims in respect of calls to Jihad by clerics or private individuals

After quelling the uprising, the British came down heavily on the Muslims, whom they suspected of being the main fomenters of the revolt in fulfillment of Jihad obligation. In fact Lord Mayo mooted the question “Are the Indian Muslims bound by their religion to revolt against the Queen?

In 1871 Sir William Hunter, who was asked to investigate the causes of widespread disaffection among Muslims, produced a book titled ‘The Indian Musalmans” in which he asserted “The Musalmans of India are and have been for many years, a chronic danger to the British power in India”.

Sir Syed wrote a review of the book and strongly refuted the allusions of Hunter with particular reference to his poor understanding of Jihad in Islam. He emphatically asserted that “as long as the Muslims can affirm their faith in One God and preach it in peace, the religion does not permit them to rise against the rulers irrespective of their faith or race”.

In addition to this review Sir Syed wrote extensively to elucidate the concept of Jihad in Islam and in commentary of Quran Sir Syed wrote that Islam has permitted only two eventualities in which Muslims may resort to armed action. First if enemy motivated by the desire to annihilate the religion attacks the Muslims, then they can take to arms to repulse such attack. But this measure of self defense shall be qualified as Jihad only if it is certain that the aggression has been committed purely on account of enmity towards Islam and not for any territorial or worldly gains. Any other conflict, be it between the two contending Muslims parties or between Muslims and non-Muslims, is strictly a temporal affair and has nothing to do with religion.

The other ground that justifies armed action is when Muslims on account of their religion are denied safety and security and freedom of religion and its practice. In this context Sir Syed points out that armed action can be taken only by a free people to help the oppressed not by the oppressed themselves if they are living as a subject people. Their option is either to endure the oppression or migrate to some other land.

Sir Syed describes it as the beautiful way out shown by Islam and asserts that this is the armed action that Islam permits and has named it as Jihad. He then asks, can any fair-minded person describe this action to be against the principles of morality or justice.

Further he asserts that Islam admits no scope for mischief, treachery, mutiny or rebellion. In fact, whosoever guarantees peace and security, be he a believer or disbeliever, is entitled to Muslim gratitude and obedience.

Sir Syed describes the laws of war in Islam as just and noble but blames the Muslim rulers for their barbarism and profaning these pure laws.  He also accused the Ulema (clergy) of violating the noble spirit of Islam by defending these rulers.  Sir Syed held that rulers like Mahmood Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb who oppressed people, did so in breach of Islam, their accountability is personal and individual and their evil deed must not be attributed to Islam.

The Indian herb that went to Persia

Law, History & Order

Arif Mohammed Khan

The Indian herb that went to Persia

Verily there exists in this world no purifier like knowledge. Gita 4.38

The 10th century Iranian poet Firdausi in his epic Shahnameh gives an interesting account of how the Indian classic Panchatantra — the embodiment of sensible counsel for wise conduct in the form of fables — travelled to Persia in 550 AD. He gives an idea of the importance that is attached to knowledge and wisdom in Indian tradition.

According to Shahnameh, during the reign of Anushirvan, his chief physician Burzoy informed the king that he had heard about the existence of a herb [Sanjivni] in the mountains of India, which could bring the dead back to life. He sought the king’s permission to go to India and find the miraculous herb. King Anushirvan readily approved the proposal and wrote a personal letter to his Indian counterpart, requesting him to extend the necessary assistance to his envoy so that he could find the herb.

The Indian king welcomed Burzoy on his arrival, and after learning about the nature of his mission, deputed a large team of scholars and officials to help him locate Sanjivni. With the local team in attendance, Burzoy went to the Himalayas, and after moving from one valley to another and after covering large areas, he finally succeeded in locating the herb. Burzoy prepared the potion according to the manual and sprinkled it over various corpses provided for his experiment. To his utter disappointment, the potion failed to produce the promised results. Burzoy was extremely distressed and worried how he would face the king and his people on his return.

A crestfallen Burzoy asked his Indian assistants to find some way to salvage his mission. They took him to an old sage who lived in a secluded place. After Burzoy explained the purpose of his visit, the sage said, “O Burzoy, you did not understand the allegory of the ancients. By the mountain they meant the learned, by the dead they meant the ignorant and by herb they meant knowledge and wisdom.”

The sage explained to Burzoy that when the learned man imparted knowledge and wisdom to the ignorant, then only was he revived to life: “The herb [wisdom] you have been looking for is not in the Himalayas but it is in the safe custody of your host the king, in the form of a book called Panchatantra. If you seek this book and accumulate its wisdom, then it will be the real miraculous herb that will become a source to bring back your dead to life.”

After hearing this new interpretation, Burzoy approached the king once again and told him that the metaphorical herb he was looking for was actually a book of wisdom kept in the royal treasury. Burzoy expressed his desire to see the book. The king agreed reluctantly, on the condition that Burzoy attended the court daily to read and understand the book in royal presence. Burzoy did accordingly and on each following day he read the book, memorised it and wrote it down in his own language, Pahalvi.

This was how the Panchatantra was first translated into Persian, and then in 750 AD Ibn Muqaffa translated the book into Arabic under the title of Kalilah wo Dimnah. The impact of the book can be judged from the fact that scholars hold it responsible for the rise of a new eclectic sect in Islam, known as Ikhwan al-Safa [Brethren of Purity]. Today, with more than 200 versions in 60 languages, the Panchatantra continues to bring the dead back to life.

Arif Mohammed Khan is a former Union Minister