Is Islam Arab? Is Islam universal? Or is Islam-and-Arab a blend, presenting itself in different Muslim societies with varied proportions? These questions are raised across Muslim world. The connection between Islam, as a faith, and Arab, as a culture, is seen through different prisms, from different perspectives, and employed for different purposes.
In Kashmir, this discussion is now very old. Some insist there is a Kashmiri version of Islam, and the Muslim society of Kashmir has its own peculiar identity. Culturalists! Others insists there is nothing as Kashmiri version of Islam, and it is only a wily construct to wean away the Muslim society of Kashmir from the larger Muslim world. Islamists!
The relationship between Islam as faith, with a distinct religious content, and culture, with a marked manifestation in people’s patterns of interaction, is a subject of academic interest. Interestingly, it is not just in the sub-continent where this debate wore a political costume.
In the Arab lands also this debate saw some exhibition in political arena. In Egypt, some would emphasise the Pharaonic majesty, and the thousands of years old local culture, as a prime possession of Egyptians; and Islam should not be employed to wipe off the deep cultural foundations of the place. In this culturalist perspective, the Muslim Brotherhood, was a disruption, an incursion, may be a perversion. The Islamist in the Brotherhood, on the other hand, saw it as anti-Islam, part of conspiracy to dislodge Muslim political power.
Even in a country like Pakistan this debate is a long timer in the finer politico-cultural space. Some people in this country openly speak of Harappa civilisation being the core content of its cultural identity. Muhammed Bin Qasim being an invader, and a party like Jamat e Islami antithetical to the cultural harmony inbuilt in the historical society living there.
An interesting shade in this discussion is the emphasis on Sufi Islam. It is considered as closer to local culture, less exacting, more spiritual, and at ease with political powers. Now we have three threads in this discussion.
One, Islam as a puritan construct, or at least puritans preaching this form of Islam. Two, culture as a pervasive presence. Third, Sufi-Islam, a sort of workable alliance between the two. Thus Islam becomes exclusionary, and violent. Culture becomes inclusive, and peaceful. And Sufi-Islam, a mutual fund of sorts that minimises risk.
In Kashmir, all the three shades are present, like in any other part of the Muslim world, particularly sub-continent. We have some who are irked by the idea of Islamic Kashmir, if we can put it that way, but may be comfortable with Kashmiri Islam.
To them, our culture, our language, our relations with the non-Muslim of Kashmir, have shaped the Kashmiri Islam. They blame those who appear to them as insisting on a puritan form of Islam, of bringing in alien words, alien expressions, and alien practices to Kashmir.
In this framework, Urdu appears as a competitor to Kashmiri, Ramadhaan a displacement of Mah-siyam, and any ‘Arabised’ mannerism an assault on the syncretic culture of Kashmir. As if Islam is less compassionate that we have to save the non-Muslims by raising ramparts like Kashmiriyat and sufi Islam.
The debate over what constitutes Islam, what constitutes local culture, and how the two are related or un-related is not that simple. It needs an un-agitated mind to approach the themes, and an academic rigour to develop a decent understanding. Besides, an interaction between Islam and a particular culture is not frozen in time, it is always a state of flux. The tumults in politics, economy, communication, and technology impact such an interaction.
What is crucial for a human society is to save a drift to extremes. In Kashmir, there was a time when Deoband could be seen as a representative of Islamist, then came a time when Jamat e Islami replaced it, onwards Ahle Hadith were seen competing in the space. There was a brief spell when even Black flags tried to take hold. But a keener insight into all these trends would tell us a different, and nuanced story.
On the other side, secularism, syncretism, harmony, and Kashmiriyat were presented in ways that was seen as undermining the natural Muslimness of the Kashmiri society. It had a context to it, and it had a purpose mounted on it. There was a certain political ring to it, and it impacted the political journey of Muslim in Kashmir.
One wonders, we read libraries on culture, we talk too much about Sufism, we say so much about ‘syncretism’, but we hardly take the trouble of reading the text of Islam – the Quran. While we look at Kashmir from Kashmir, we look at our culture from within our culture, there is a God that looks at us from above, from below, from right and left; He talks to a human, no matter he lives in Khanyar or Khybar, Kabul or Kerala, Abu Dhabi or Ayodhya, Mecca or Dhaka. All languages belong to him, and all peoples, Kashmiri Muslims or Kashmir Pandits, are His.
The notion that Islam spoils cultures, or Muslim politics is at the expense of cultural traditions common to Muslims and non-Muslims of a territory, is a lazy conclusion, to put it mildly. It, at times, becomes crafty. This mounting of culture against Islam, has also contributed to distracting the democratic politics in Muslim territories; even dismantling it.
Shah e Hamdan gave us culture, he was not a culturalist. He taught us Islam, he was not an Islamist. So the themes are not that simple.
Tailpiece: Extremes on a spherical planet actually merge. An Islamist and a culturalist are friends in disguise.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
