By Yoginder Sikand - Countercurrents.org - India
Tuesday, 26 September, 2006
In media discourses and in the shrill rhetoric of some fringe radical Islamist spokesmen, Kashmiri Muslims are often presented in stereotypical terms: as allegedly wedded to a stern and strict version of Islam that is viscerally opposed to peaceful coexistence with other faiths and their adherents.
Sometimes, although this is rare, the media does talk about other forms of Islam practiced in Kashmir, particularly the deep-rooted popular Sufi traditions. On the whole, however, media reporting on the Kashmiri Muslims in the context of their faith is almost inevitably in terms of the dramatic, the sensational and the violent. Radical Islamist outfits slaying innocent people in cold blood, insisting that Muslim women should don the veil on pain of death or declaring that voting in elections is 'un-Islamic' and so on constitutes much of what we hear in the media about Islam in contemporary Kashmir.
In this way, these minor radical Islamist groups are presented as the spokesmen and representatives of all Kashmiri Muslims or as commanding such authority and power, based on intimidation and fear, that all Kashmiri Muslims are somehow forced to bow before their dictates.
In academic and media discussions about Islam in Kashmir, a distinction is sometimes made between scripturalist, shariah-centred Islam, on the one hand, and 'syncretistic', popular Sufi forms of Islam, on the other. The former is presented in monolithic terms, as somehow inherently opposed to peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths. The latter is projected as not really or properly 'Islamic', as a hotchpotch of Islam and Hinduism, and, therefore, as more accommodative of Hindus. This distinction is useful, but only in a limited sense. While the latter traditionally provided a matrix that helped develop a cultural universe in which Muslims and Pundits could participate together in a limited way, it is not that the former is by definition wholly opposed to peaceful co-existence.
Scriputralist, shariah-based forms of Islam have, for a variety of reasons, gained additional prominence in Kashmir over the last several decades, although they have been unable to eradicate the deeply rooted popular Sufi forms of the faith.
It is true that some variants of the sternly scripturalist and literalist version of Islam are irreconcilable with genuine religious pluralism. But that does not merit generalizing for this form of Islam as a whole. There are numerous different ways in which this broad tradition is actually defined, interpreted and practiced, some of which can indeed be somewhat more accepting of people of other faiths even while rooted in the belief that Islam is the only way to salvation.
In seeking to promote dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict, it is crucial to recognize the distinction between votaries of popular Sufism and shariah-centric, strictly scripturalist Islam. But, in addition, the different shades within the latter category, some of whose proponents are more amenable to dialogue than others, must also be recognised.
On a recent trip to Kishtwar, a town in Doda district, I met a Hasan, a supporter of the Jamaat-i Islami, one of the leading Islamist groups active in Kashmir. I mentioned to him a statement I came across in a book by a well-known Jamaat ideologue to the effect that it is as difficult for a fish to live in a desert as it is for a Muslim to live in a Hindu environment.
'If all Hindus were enemies of Islam and if Muslims simply cannot live with Hindus', Hasan replied, 'then how and why was it that numerous Sufi saints came to Kashmir and lived and preached here centuries ago, at a time when there were hardly any Muslims in the area?' 'It is wrong to say', he carried on, 'that it is virtually impossible for a Muslim to live in a Hindu society. If that were the case, then how are there more Muslims in India than in Pakistan? Are they in any way lesser Muslims than Pakistani Muslims? '.
(...)
The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. He moderates an online discussion group called South Asian Leftists Dialoguing With Religion, which can be accessed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saldwr/
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Kashmir, between Scripturalist and Sufi Islam
By Yoginder Sikand - Countercurrents.org - India
Tuesday, 26 September, 2006
In media discourses and in the shrill rhetoric of some fringe radical Islamist spokesmen, Kashmiri Muslims are often presented in stereotypical terms: as allegedly wedded to a stern and strict version of Islam that is viscerally opposed to peaceful coexistence with other faiths and their adherents.
Sometimes, although this is rare, the media does talk about other forms of Islam practiced in Kashmir, particularly the deep-rooted popular Sufi traditions. On the whole, however, media reporting on the Kashmiri Muslims in the context of their faith is almost inevitably in terms of the dramatic, the sensational and the violent. Radical Islamist outfits slaying innocent people in cold blood, insisting that Muslim women should don the veil on pain of death or declaring that voting in elections is 'un-Islamic' and so on constitutes much of what we hear in the media about Islam in contemporary Kashmir.
In this way, these minor radical Islamist groups are presented as the spokesmen and representatives of all Kashmiri Muslims or as commanding such authority and power, based on intimidation and fear, that all Kashmiri Muslims are somehow forced to bow before their dictates.
In academic and media discussions about Islam in Kashmir, a distinction is sometimes made between scripturalist, shariah-centred Islam, on the one hand, and 'syncretistic', popular Sufi forms of Islam, on the other. The former is presented in monolithic terms, as somehow inherently opposed to peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths. The latter is projected as not really or properly 'Islamic', as a hotchpotch of Islam and Hinduism, and, therefore, as more accommodative of Hindus. This distinction is useful, but only in a limited sense. While the latter traditionally provided a matrix that helped develop a cultural universe in which Muslims and Pundits could participate together in a limited way, it is not that the former is by definition wholly opposed to peaceful co-existence.
Scriputralist, shariah-based forms of Islam have, for a variety of reasons, gained additional prominence in Kashmir over the last several decades, although they have been unable to eradicate the deeply rooted popular Sufi forms of the faith.
It is true that some variants of the sternly scripturalist and literalist version of Islam are irreconcilable with genuine religious pluralism. But that does not merit generalizing for this form of Islam as a whole. There are numerous different ways in which this broad tradition is actually defined, interpreted and practiced, some of which can indeed be somewhat more accepting of people of other faiths even while rooted in the belief that Islam is the only way to salvation.
In seeking to promote dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict, it is crucial to recognize the distinction between votaries of popular Sufism and shariah-centric, strictly scripturalist Islam. But, in addition, the different shades within the latter category, some of whose proponents are more amenable to dialogue than others, must also be recognised.
On a recent trip to Kishtwar, a town in Doda district, I met a Hasan, a supporter of the Jamaat-i Islami, one of the leading Islamist groups active in Kashmir. I mentioned to him a statement I came across in a book by a well-known Jamaat ideologue to the effect that it is as difficult for a fish to live in a desert as it is for a Muslim to live in a Hindu environment.
'If all Hindus were enemies of Islam and if Muslims simply cannot live with Hindus', Hasan replied, 'then how and why was it that numerous Sufi saints came to Kashmir and lived and preached here centuries ago, at a time when there were hardly any Muslims in the area?' 'It is wrong to say', he carried on, 'that it is virtually impossible for a Muslim to live in a Hindu society. If that were the case, then how are there more Muslims in India than in Pakistan? Are they in any way lesser Muslims than Pakistani Muslims? '.
(...)
The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. He moderates an online discussion group called South Asian Leftists Dialoguing With Religion, which can be accessed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saldwr/
Tuesday, 26 September, 2006
In media discourses and in the shrill rhetoric of some fringe radical Islamist spokesmen, Kashmiri Muslims are often presented in stereotypical terms: as allegedly wedded to a stern and strict version of Islam that is viscerally opposed to peaceful coexistence with other faiths and their adherents.
Sometimes, although this is rare, the media does talk about other forms of Islam practiced in Kashmir, particularly the deep-rooted popular Sufi traditions. On the whole, however, media reporting on the Kashmiri Muslims in the context of their faith is almost inevitably in terms of the dramatic, the sensational and the violent. Radical Islamist outfits slaying innocent people in cold blood, insisting that Muslim women should don the veil on pain of death or declaring that voting in elections is 'un-Islamic' and so on constitutes much of what we hear in the media about Islam in contemporary Kashmir.
In this way, these minor radical Islamist groups are presented as the spokesmen and representatives of all Kashmiri Muslims or as commanding such authority and power, based on intimidation and fear, that all Kashmiri Muslims are somehow forced to bow before their dictates.
In academic and media discussions about Islam in Kashmir, a distinction is sometimes made between scripturalist, shariah-centred Islam, on the one hand, and 'syncretistic', popular Sufi forms of Islam, on the other. The former is presented in monolithic terms, as somehow inherently opposed to peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths. The latter is projected as not really or properly 'Islamic', as a hotchpotch of Islam and Hinduism, and, therefore, as more accommodative of Hindus. This distinction is useful, but only in a limited sense. While the latter traditionally provided a matrix that helped develop a cultural universe in which Muslims and Pundits could participate together in a limited way, it is not that the former is by definition wholly opposed to peaceful co-existence.
Scriputralist, shariah-based forms of Islam have, for a variety of reasons, gained additional prominence in Kashmir over the last several decades, although they have been unable to eradicate the deeply rooted popular Sufi forms of the faith.
It is true that some variants of the sternly scripturalist and literalist version of Islam are irreconcilable with genuine religious pluralism. But that does not merit generalizing for this form of Islam as a whole. There are numerous different ways in which this broad tradition is actually defined, interpreted and practiced, some of which can indeed be somewhat more accepting of people of other faiths even while rooted in the belief that Islam is the only way to salvation.
In seeking to promote dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict, it is crucial to recognize the distinction between votaries of popular Sufism and shariah-centric, strictly scripturalist Islam. But, in addition, the different shades within the latter category, some of whose proponents are more amenable to dialogue than others, must also be recognised.
On a recent trip to Kishtwar, a town in Doda district, I met a Hasan, a supporter of the Jamaat-i Islami, one of the leading Islamist groups active in Kashmir. I mentioned to him a statement I came across in a book by a well-known Jamaat ideologue to the effect that it is as difficult for a fish to live in a desert as it is for a Muslim to live in a Hindu environment.
'If all Hindus were enemies of Islam and if Muslims simply cannot live with Hindus', Hasan replied, 'then how and why was it that numerous Sufi saints came to Kashmir and lived and preached here centuries ago, at a time when there were hardly any Muslims in the area?' 'It is wrong to say', he carried on, 'that it is virtually impossible for a Muslim to live in a Hindu society. If that were the case, then how are there more Muslims in India than in Pakistan? Are they in any way lesser Muslims than Pakistani Muslims? '.
(...)
The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia. He moderates an online discussion group called South Asian Leftists Dialoguing With Religion, which can be accessed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saldwr/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment