Am I A Skeptical Muslim?

The Muslim Times’ Editor’s comment: A lucid case for Separation of Mosque-Church and State.

By Saeed Qureshi

I am a Muslim yet I am a skeptical Muslim? There should be countless like me. My skepticism remains stuck up in several intellectual roadblocks that I keep clearing. I believe in the six basic articles of Islamic belief which are: belief in one God, belief in his angels, belief in his prophets, or messenger, belief in his books, belief in the Judgment Day, belief in God’s pre- knowledge and determination of all things.

I believe in the five pillars of observance which are: Kalima Tayyab (confession of faith in one God and Muhammad as his prophet), Prayers, Zakat (Islamic Tax or charity), Fasting, pilgrimage to Mecca. I believe in three sources or authorities of Islamic guidance, which are The Holy Qur’an, The Sunnah and Hadith.  The Shariah or Islamic law as I understand is based upon five principles, 1. Fard (absolute duty), 2. Mustajab (good deed), 3. Mubah (permissible deed), 4. Makruh (vile deed), 5. Haram (completely forbidden)

There are about 48 Muslim majority countries on the planet. The Muslims’ population is more than a billion. The Muslims possess most of the oil reserves and other precious natural resources. Many Islamic countries such as Pakistan have strategic importance. The Muslims have an ideal religion that encompasses and regulates their whole life and even ensures a place in paradise depending upon one’s conduct in this world.

With all these boons and attributes, the whole Islamic bloc is mired in myriad problems ranging from poverty, illiteracy, poor civic conditions to appalling economic, political, social and good governance problems. Islam and the Islamic countries have always been kept on the receiving end by their rivals, be it Communism, Christianity or Imperialism.

The suffering of the Muslim world keeps compounding and aggravating. Should the failings and miseries of the Muslim states be attributed to some inherent deficiency in Islamic teachings or the ruling classes’ deliberate efforts and intentions to block the true implementation of Islam’s code of life? Despite Islamic teachings and discourses being disseminated by Muslim clerics, round the clock, from countless religious seminaries and mosques, the character of Muslims from a ruler to a common man generally remains uninfluenced. The deep cleavages and glaring disparities in the Islamic societies among the rich and poor, privileged and unprivileged, high and low between Muslims by virtue of their wealth and status are encompassing.

Someone should guide me by naming a functional model of Islamic state after the demise of the prophet of Islam. The twenty nine years of the Khilafat-e-Rashida period is too primitive to be quoted as a model. It was the formative stage of Islam and Islam was yet to come in contact with other civilizations and to be put to test of its resilience and moral tenacity. But the fact is that out of four successors of the prophet, three died at the hands of assassins.

So apart from the personal piety and rectitude of the caliphs, the society was in a lingering turmoil. Islam could not have survived if after the death of the prophet, the first caliph had not suppressed with sword, the heretic dissident movements. The annoyance of Hazrat Ali, the son in law and cousin of the prophet, over the choosing of Abu Bakr as the first caliph led to the unbridgeable division in Islam that continues to this day.

The murder of Hazrat Osman, the third caliph of Islam and a prominent scion of the powerful Umayyad clan was the clear demarcation between the supporters of Banu Hashim and those of Umayyad.  One of the assassins of the third caliph Osman was the son of the first caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr. His name was Muhammad Ben Abu Bakr. The brutal assassination of the third caliph took place in full view of the all Islamic nobles and stalwarts living in the city of Medina.

Osman’s murder triggered two fierce battles between the close companions and relatives of Prophet Muhammad. The first took place between Hazrat Aisha, the youngest wife of the prophet on one side and Hazrat Ali, (who by that time became the fourth caliph) on the other. The second battle was between Hazrat Ali and the Syrian Ummyad governor Muawiyah. These wars resulted in thousands of Muslims killed on both the sides.

Now Hazrat Aisha was the most beloved wife of the prophet and Ali too was very dear to the prophet. Aisha fought Ali to avenge the death of caliph Osman because Hazrat Ali was reluctant to bring the assassins to justice. The second bloody feud continued for five years between Muawiyah (also caliph) and Caliph Hazrat Ali causing countless deaths of the Muslim faithful in the battlefields. The caliphate also got divided into two contenders and that sadly wrecked the unity of Islam both ideologically and territorially.

How come that these pious people who grew up under the direct flawless and divine guidance of the prophet could not live in peace with each other and instead of deciding their mutual disputes through peaceful means, chose the battlefields? The son-in-law of the prophet and the most exalted wife of the prophet drew sword against each other although both belonged to the same house.

Why they were not influenced by the chaste upbringing of the prophet and instead violated his exhortations to the effect that it was “forbidden for a Muslim to kill another Muslim”. Why the assassins of caliph Osman were not punished? And with these initial battles in which thousands Muslim faithful perished, leading to the similar bloody conflicts that could be termed as power tussle.

Thereafter, the split of Islamic believers into two main branches of Shia and Sunni is manifest in the entire Islamic world from the day Caliph Osman was killed. It was further intensified when Muawiyah’s son and his successor Yazid, cold bloodily massacred Ali’s son, Hussein and the male members of his family near Baghdad. This gruesome incident happened because of Hussein’s challenge to the caliphate of Yazid whom they thought was a usurper and a sinner.

The Shia and Sunni conflict somehow exists even now between Iran as Shia state and Saudi Arabia as the Sunni state. Besides, in other Islamic countries these two sects run as confrontational parallel faiths. Where had gone the Islamic pristine teachings to remain fastened to the rope of Allah with steadfastness as one Muslim nation? Never was there an Islamic issue than the caliphate that brought about more bloodshed among the Muslims. Fighting with enemies of Islam was all right but how can the fight among Muslims be justified?

Yet in the present day world of technology, humanism and social liberalism, the Islamic religious zealots, the fuming preachers from the pulpit and the militant Islamic bands like Taliban, exhort the ordinary Muslims to remain united in the face of enemies. The fact is that Muslims were never united between themselves. So to ask them to unite against the enemies of Islam is asking for the moon.

The story of Islam from the rift on the succession of the prophet, to the end of the Muslim glory in Spain in 1492, to the pillage of Baghdad by Hilaku Khan in 1258 and finally to the end of Ottoman caliphate in 1924 is all about the struggle for power. It started with the tussle between Banu Hashim vs. Umayyad, then Umayyad vs. Abbasids, followed by trail of Muslim dynasties snatching lands and ascendancy from their Muslim counterparts by dint of sword and carnage. Islam’s grand and pious teachings were completely set aside by those caliphs or kings who established fearsome despotic regimes in the name of Islam. They had the least regard or care for Islamic lofty values of tolerance and fraternity.

For power and land, these Islamic dynastic rulers killed millions of simple common Muslim believers. On both the sides were Muslims rulers. How they should be labeled: as good Muslims or the violators of Islam? In Islamic dynasties the monarchs who called themselves caliphs, lived majestic and glorious lives with countless women and concubines brought to their harems from the defeated countries as slaves. They built huge and grand palaces and lived like pharaohs despite Islam’s emphasis on modesty. They wallowed in unbridled luxury and dazzling opulence which was just the opposite of the life of the prophet characterized by simplicity and self- denial.

As stated earlier, practically there is not a single model Islamic state ever established during the 15 centuries of Islam’s existence. The Islamic history is replete with Muslims killing fellow Muslims. The renegades and traitors from among the Muslims had been joining the enemies of Islam, against their own Muslim rulers either for replacing them for power or sectarian reasons. Baghdad was decimated and burnt to ashes by Mongol hordes in 1258 because of the sectarian rift between a Sunni caliph and a Shia prime minister or grand vizier.

In the present times, the radical pontiffs of Islam want to revive the golden era of Khilafat-e Rashida. Now if these attempts never fructified in the past, how can these succeed in the modern times when religion is losing its appeal because the modern societies offer better life, dignity and equality to humans than the religions? For Muslims the basic unremitting dilemma is that any Islamic state will have two parallel competing faiths of Shiaism and Sunnism, not to mention other sects. So religious peace in an Islamic country would always remain elusive and religious feuds would always pose threat to the social harmony and stability of the state.

That is what is happening in Pakistan. With brute force and an iron clad tribal despotism, the religious factionalism can be rooted out or subdued. But the peace thus obtained would always remain hostage to the simmering unrest by the religious minorities. Such a system of government even otherwise cannot be permanent because as long the rulers are repressive they would stay in power. The moment they are weak, the fissiparous tendencies would reappear. For sectarian harmony either a state should be completely a Sunni or Shia state as we can see in Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. Otherwise the Islamic states should be repressive like Syria and Bahrain or rigidly secular.

The theocratic governments are run in the pattern of old dynasties by the kings as in Arab countries or as divine imamates as in Iran. These are islands of Isolations and, therefore, cannot function for long time, in today’s world, shaping up as a global village. This obscurantist, tribal, monarchical cum religious outfits are out of sync with the emerging dynamics of the changing time. These are clumsy dispensations as compared with the modern democratic nation states and civil societies.

The kind of Islam practiced in autocratic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan and many others is not Islam in true sense. The royal families, and their filthy rich members otherwise as custodians of Islamic heritage are usurpers of the country’s wealth and their conduct is a slur on the fair name of Islam. These hereditary rulers, in fact, are extension and perpetuation of the despotic Islamic dynasties that dot the entire history of Islamic governance.

I shall be a good Muslim if the Muslim rulers present an example of being good and practicing Muslim first. Is it possible for the ordinary Muslims to meet King Abdullah or kings and despots of other Islamic countries as they could do it during the period of the first four caliphs? After their death, the prophet or the caliphs did not leave any assets or money behind them. Can there be any remotest comparison of that absolute self abnegation with   the prodigious wealth of the Muslim rulers from the Umayyad to this day?

From the parameters set by Islam and the glorious examples presented by the early Islamic caliphs, these worldly rulers have no right to proclaim them as Muslims. These outposts of obscurantism are destined to vanish. An enlightened version of Islam that is responsive to and compatible with the needs of changing times is the recipe to the doctrinal and faith based dilemmas, factionalism and retrogression of the Muslim polities.

So I shall be a good practicing Muslim without skepticism if kings and the royal families as well as fearsome autocrats ruling the Islamic states adopt a simple life, shun their glamour and grandeur and distribute their excessive wealth among the poor Muslims around the world. My apprehensions about Islam would dilute when the opulent among them will share their wealth with the indigent and the poor among the Muslims. They should, in line, with the teachings and instructions of the holy prophet stop living in the fortified palaces and indulging in the dubious and lewd activates that Islam does not allow.

The poor Islamic states will stop looking to the west for aid and to become subservient to them, if a portion of the rich Islamic countries’ wealth is given to them. Mere lip service by the Muslim demagogues to ask the ordinary Muslims to adopt the way and conduct of Islam is counterproductive. A common Muslim is nevertheless, a better and sincere practicing faithful than the rulers and even the Islamic hypocritical preachers and clerics.

I shall be a clear-headed Muslim when Shia and Sunni and other sects within Islam will sink their canonical differences and say prayer along with each other in the same mosque and when they would love instead of cutting each other’s throats? That would be a great day of rejoicing for me when the regional and tribal schisms like Arabs and non Arabs and Muslim of east and west and Africa and Asia would disappear? If a Muslim pontiff asks someone to be a good Muslim, he in return should be asked which brand of Muslim: Shia or Sunni, Wahabi, Brelvi or Naqshabandi, and so on.

So in Islamic societies, faith -based unity and accord is difficult to achieve because there are deep and unbridgeable differences between various sects. The very teachings of Islam and Qur’an become controversial because of the variety and multiplicity of their interpretations.  Shias can never recognize the first three caliphs as the legitimate successors of prophet nor can Sunnis believe in the 12 imams of Shia.

The Shias’ slanderous and filthy vituperation against Hazrat Aisha, the most preferred wife of founder of Islam and the first three caliphs is an unpardonable sin for the Sunnis. Wahabi consider it as their bounden Islamic duty to destroy and raze the shrines and tombs of the dead saints, while their protectors decree it as abhorrent sacrilege against the sinless ascetics. So where do we go from here?

The answer to the religious ambiguities, the galore of militating beliefs and colliding sectarianism within Islam is the establishment of the modern, secular, liberal Islamic states resplendent with democracy, constitutionalism, humanism, and civil society, accountability, rule of law and where free observance of all shades of beliefs is permissible. One may call it a secular Islamic state. Malaysia and Turkey offer a pragmatic model of a modern Islamic secular state where the state religion is Islamic but all sects and denominations are free to pursue their religious obligation without any let or hindrance or state coercion.There prevails an exemplary religious harmony between Islam and Unislamic faiths on one hand and among the sects within Islam. Can Pakistan and other Islamic countries beset with sectarian strife take a cue from these successful modern Islamic societies?

The Islamic Sharia needs to be radically modified and modernized so as to conform to the needs of the changing times and to fit into the paradigm of a modern nation state. There is a dire need to modify the Islamic religious legal system by bringing about radical changes in to such laws as rape, property, polygamy, accumulation of wealth and family laws.  Turkey was the first country to bring about a complete overhaul in the religious law in 1924. Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco have modernized Islamic legal system up to the level of enlightened modern standards.

The framework and tradition of reinterpreting Islamic laws are manifest in the four orthodox school of Fiqa or Islamic jurisprudence that revitalized and updated the shariah in new environments and the subsequent times. Pakistan’s stability and social harmony depends upon transforming it into a modern secular, nation state, where though official religion is Islam but religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed to all minority faiths. A civil society can ensure peace and stability of Pakistan.

The writer is a senior journalist, former editor of Diplomatic Times and a former diplomat

This and other articles can also be read at

The Muslim Times’ Disclaimers.

Categories: Asia, Separation of Church and State

Tagged as:

15 replies

  1. ashra-e-mubashira are those who were given the good news of being blessed with jannah in their lives these khulfa were among those but it is due to the rifts between these very people that the bloody conflicts between shia and sunny sects have caused countless killings how can people so clean to be ushra-e-mubashira be the cause of such a bloodshed it means that the story of jannah and prophetism and religion is wrong comprising lies

  2. what does the writer mean by radically changing the islamic shariah. does he imply that the shariah is incomplete and not ‘up to date’?

    also secularism doesnt solve all the problems. even bashar al assad’s regime is secular, so was gadaffi, hosni mubarak, and other dictatorial regimes.

  3. Are there six articles of faith?

    amanto billahi wa malaikathee, wa kutubihee, wa rusulohee, wa-qadr khaaire sharryehee.

    these are five.

  4. Zia Shah’s essay is thoughtful and thought provoking. I have questions about some of the historical statements, but will wait to read comments from people who know more than I do.

  5. I am a skeptical Muslim too, in the sense that whatever has been happening after the death of Prophet Mohammad does not match at all with the universal core moral values of Quran. But I am not a skeptical Muslim concerning ISlam and Quran, I am skeptical only about Muslim scholars, who though failed to change Quran, but succeeded in marginalizing and overshadowing some verses in Quran by false interpretations and spins borrowed from non-divine tens of thousands of Hadith compiled centuries later by men.

    The tragedy is that Taqwa, the #1 principle in Quran, that incorporates values, such as personal integrity, respect for human dignity, human rights, especially those of minorities and women, justice and respect for the rule of the law, became the first casualty in Islam within few years after the death of Prophet Mohammad.

    It was these core values inherent in Taqwa, that are considered in modern times as “secular values” in the Western world, and got hijacked right during the time of of first Caliphs. In exchange of Haqooq-ul-Ebad, the traditions and moral values of pre-Islamic pagan culture as well as Judeo-Christian traditions were re-claimed by Muslim scholars, such as beheading, stoning of women and men to death, immediate execution of “apostates”, re-adoption of (Christian) hijab for women, lowering the status of freed Muslim women by Islam of Prophet to second class citizen by latter scholars, racist ideas of Arabs Vs non-Arabs, or one Muslim tribe Vs another Muslim tribe became the criterion of choosing who would lead the Umma instead of who is best in Taqwa; also polygamy and concubines and female slaves, and on the top of that sidelining and trivializing the Quranic verse “there is no compulsion in the Deen of Islam”.

    It would not have been possible to revive and practice pre-Islamic pagan values and Pre-Islamic Judeo-Christian values without bluntly putting aside the verse of “no compulsion in Islam”. Those who have the ability to think and reflect would understand that this verse of “no compulsion in Islam” is the only foundation stone on which one could establish a real ‘civilized society” with the fundamental core Quranic moral values, such as personal integrity, respect for human dignity, including minorities and women, respect for human dignity, justice and respect for the rule of law. However, these core Quranic values today are considered as Satanic “secular values” by most of the Muslim scholars. With such core Quranic moral values, there can never be any need to have an Islamic State, just like for moral values’ like respect for the rule of law, the Christians in the West do not need Christian State. Prophet Mohammad did not establish Islamic State as most Muslims believe, he established a Secular Society in which every citizen enjoyed religious freedom, justice and didn’t worry about discrimination of any kind as was agreed upon by several treaties made by Prophet and different tribes, including pagans, idolators, Christians and Jews. Muslims practiced Islamic values by choice with no compelling binding laws, other than what were agreed upon in writing by every group that resided there.

    If one just removes only this particular verse or completely ignores this verse of “No compulsion in Islam” in Quran and keep the rest of Quran unchanged, the whole Deen of Islam instantly becomes not worth more than the religions and pagan traditions that existed in Pre-Islamic era.

    If compulsion was necessary, God would have stated so, but He didn’t. He made it haram, more haram than alcohol and pig.

  6. ahadith are part of islam since its the religious teaching of prophet Muhammad (saw).

    quran says to obey the prophet. also it says that the prophet explains the quran.

  7. @Parvez
    Yes, Ahadith are also used as a source for information about Islamic norms, and is also true that Muslims should obey and follow Prophet’s Sunnah. Prophet’s Sunnah was to strictly follow Quranic principles. Quran was Prophet’s Sunnah. Quran is Divine, its principles are divine and are sources of Islamic Shariah.

    Ahadith are not divine, because they were written by human beings. Quran is not equal to Ahadith. There is a difference between Quran and ahadith. The former is perfect, the latter has errors and many are unreliable.

  8. secularism means seperation of religion (including islam) from state.

    prophet Muhammad (saw) did not establish a secular state since he judged the muslim affairs by the Quran and sunnah.

    also the quran commands muslims to judge by the quran and if there is disagreement over the affairs of the muslim ummah, then refer to the quran and sunnah

    • Separation of religion from the state is essential mainly due to the Mullahs. Islam by itself would be very much compatible with the state, however, we can see how today’s Mullahs are destroying the very fabric and essence of religion. That is why the separation is necessary and much better for all.

  9. Quran is the very first hadith. If we take whatever the prophet s.a.w.s. said as Hadith, i.e. his words, then the Quran is the most important hadith. Because it came from the prophet s.a.w.s. He dictated it. He spoke those words to the scribes.

    Hadith is different to Quran and Sunnah. Hadith is to serve the Quran and Sunnah, if it passes the various test, of Darayat (technicality) and Rawayat (the chain of transmission).

    If any hadith fails the first test of technicality i.e. being in accord with the teaching of Quran and fails to be in accord with any well known true hadith, then the second test in not to be applied. That Hadith will be rejected.
    Much care is to be excercised in the matter of Ahadith.

  10. @Ghulam Sarwaar:
    Well said. Hadith is different from Quran and Sunnah. Any hadith that conflicts with any principle laid out in Quran by SWT must be rejected.

    @Rafiq T.
    You are absolutely right. Quranic verse Surah AI-Bakara 2:256 “There is no compulsion in Deen of Islam” means no physical or legal force can be applied to enforce Islamic values. This is the commandment of Allah SWT. One cannot legislate morality. Allah SWT gives a choice to mankind to use their intellect and choose Islam, or remain arrogant and face the consequence in Hereafter.

    While Quran expects Muslims to establish Islamic society, most of the Muslim scholars and extremists want to use force and establish Islamic State, which is not the same thing as Islamic society, which recognized the importance of the rights not only of majority of Muslims, but also the rights of minorities, respect for human dignity (both Muslims and non-Muslims), respect for human rights, without excluding non-Muslims, rights of non-Muslims to practice their own religion and even rights of non-believers, respect for justice for all, including non-Muslims, and the biggest of all, respect for the rule of the law. And these principles were the essential components of FIRST ISLAMIC SOCIETY (not Islamic State) that Prophet Mohammad established in Madinah in the form of various treaties with Jews, Christians, and other tribes, many of whom were idol worshippers. And these principles also underline what the West calls “Secular” (not atheistic) society. Secularism translates respect for human dignity and human rights that were present inherently in Islamic spirit; only the
    English word “secular” was not used.

    People generally confuse separation of State and religion (secularism) with atheism. Islam is more than a religion; it is the Way of Life (Deen) and is different from all organized religions. Only Allah SWT has the exclusive authority to be a “Keeper” and a “Guardian” over all the affairs of people, and allows no one to take over that divine authority under any pretext, not even His Prophets. That is Allah SWT’s Sunnah. No human being has the Islamic authority to manage people’s religious beliefs (both Muslims and non-Muslims) and to compel them to be ‘righteous’.

    Allah SWT said:

    And if Allah had willed, they would not have associated partners with Him. And We have not made you a guardian over them nor are you a manager over them. Surah Al-Anaam 6:107

    Allah SWT repeated the same to Prophet Mohammad PBUH in another two verses in the same Surah:

    Allah SWT says: “Then remind, you are only a reminder. (O Prophet) You are not a watcher/controller over them.” Al-Quran:Surah Al-Ghashiyah 88:21-22

    “Follow what is revealed to you from your Rabb; there is none worthy of worship but He, and turn away from the mushrikeen. And if Allah wanted they would have not committed shirk. We have neither appointed you their keeper nor made you their guardian.” Al-Quran: Surah Al-Anam 6:106-107

    Quran is not the same as Hadith. Quran’s principles are Allah SWT’s Sunnah that Prophet Mohammad followed. Prophet Mohammad’s real Sunnah is his character and universal moral values and consistent 100% compliance with all the Quranic principles that Muslims are generally very ignorant and derive their moralities from reading only ahadith and following the ways of their religious leaders (their Sunnah) as if that was the Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)

  11. The original article by Saeed Qureshi sahib is excellent exposition of the true state of affairs amongst Muslms for the last 1400 years. It is true even today.
    It is more of a plea, more of an appeal than any criticism of Islam.

    @ Rafiq sahib.
    It is true. The maulvis version of Islam is not fit for any implementation. That is the hinderance.

    @ Jaseem Pasha:

    You have explained everything correctly. Your words are very useful for the Muslims. Excellent. May Allah bless you with much more wisdom and increase your knowledge.

    I will save the original from Saeed Qureshi sahib and the words of Jaseem Pasha sahib for future reading and passing it on to my relatives /friends.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.