YOGINDER SIKAND

ASGHAR ‘ ENGINEER’S QUEST FOR A CONTEXTUAL ISLAMIC THEOLOGY

In coming to terms with the challenges of the modern world, Muslims have had to deal with their own religious traditions to develop responses to what are seen as novel circumstances. Issues such as secularism, democracy, human rights, gen- der parity, religious pluralism and the nation state, and the relation between each of these and the broader Islamic tradition have been hotly debated and various dif- ferent understandings have emerged. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a breed of what Farish A. Noor calls “new Muslim intellectuals,” distinct from the traditional ‘ulama and the Islamists, on the one hand, and secular Muslims, on the other, who, while rooted in their own traditions, seek to develop visions of Is- lam that take the questions posed by modernity seriously. They are, Noor remarks, often branded as “heretics” and “outsiders’ in their own societies and as apologists for in the West, straddling the seemingly “precarious border between different worlds” (Noor 2002: 1).

One such scholar is the well-known Indian Muslim writer-activist, Asghar ‘Ali Engineer. Engineer’s principal concern is to evolve a theology of Islam that seeks to grapple with while at the same time being firmly rooted in the modern condi- tion. Engineer’s main contribution is the articulation of a contextual hermeneutics of the Qur’an, one that, he believes, can help guide Muslims in dealing with the challenges of contemporary life.

Asghar ‘Ali Engineer: The Man Asghar ‘Ali Engineer was born in 1939 in the town of Salumbar in the Udaipur district of the western Indian state of Rajasthan. His father, Shaikh Qurban Hus- sain, was the priest of the town’s Shi’a Isma’ili Bohra community. From his father he learnt the language, Qur’anic commentary (), Islamic jurispru- dence () and the sayings of or about the Prophet Muhammad () as con- tained in the books of the Bohras. Alongside this, he was also provided with a sec- ular modern education. He earned a degree in engineering from the University of Indore and then worked for some twenty years as a civil engineer with the Bom- bay (now ) Municipal Corporation.

In 1972 Engineer quit his job and immersed himself in the struggle against the Bohra head priest, Sayyedna Burhanuddin, protesting against what the reformers saw as his exploitative practices. Along with other reformers, Engineer was instru- mental in setting up the Central Board of the Community to carry

211 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 on the reform campaign. The reformers did not seek to challenge the Bohra reli- gion as such. Rather, they defined themselves as believing Bohras and argued that their sole concern was that the Sayyedna and his family should abide strictly by the principles of the Bohra faith and end their tyrannous control over the commun- ity, which they branded as “un-Islamic” (for details see Engineer 2000c and 1991). In the course of the struggle against the Sayyedna, Engineer developed his own understanding of Islam as a means and a resource for social revolution. One can discern in his thought and writings a multiplicity of influences: Mu’tazilite and Isma’ili rationalism, Marxism, Western liberalism, Gandhism, and Christian liberation theology and the impact of the Iranian Ali Shari’ati as well as Indian Muslim modernists such as Sayyed Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Iqbal.

His active involvement in the Bohra reformist movement led Engineer to establish contact with other progressive groups working for social transformation in . Gradually, the focus of his activity broadened from activism within his own com- munity to embrace several other causes. Of particular concern to him was the growing conflict between Hindus and Muslims in India. Engineer wrote extensively on Hindu-Muslim relations, insisting that new understandings of religion were needed to help promote better relations between the two communities. In 1980, in order to promote new, more progressive understandings of Islam, he set up the Institute of Islamic Studies in Mumbai, through which he established links with progressive Muslims in other parts of India and elsewhere. In 1993 he established the Centre for the Study of Secularism and Society, also in Mumbai, in order to investigate incidents of Hindu-Muslim conflict, to promote new interpretations of both Hinduism and Islam as a means to promote communal harmony and to network with activists and the media.

Engineer is best described as a public intellectual or as a scholar-activist. Lacking a traditional Islamic education, his understanding of Islam grows out from his close involvement with movements struggling for social justice and reform and from his own study of the Islamic tradition. For him, new understandings of Islam must address themselves to changing social contexts and religion, if it is at all to remain true to what he sees as its inner spirit, must make a positive contribution to progressive social change. Muslims struggling for social transformation should, he insists, take their religion seriously and actively intervene in the struggle for discursive hegemony by offering progressive understandings of Islam. To abandon the task, he argues, would allow for “reactionaries,” including both the conservative ‘ulama as well as militant Islamists, to monopolise the terrain of Islamic discourse. Hence, progressive Muslim intellectuals must also seek to establish close and organic links with the masses and involve themselves in mass movements and activist groups working for social change. Islamic scholarship, then, is not to be seen as a mere intellectual exercise, but, rather, one deeply rooted in praxis. Engineer exemplifies this best himself. His own writings are geared to a mass readership, generally published in newspapers and popular

212 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST magazines, and use a simple and easily understandable language that can readily appeal even to a non-Muslim reader with little or no previous knowledge of Islam.

Engineer’s Hermeneutics of the Qur’an and the Islamic Tradition The Qur’an forms the basic source for Engineer’s hermeneutical project. In his writings, the hadith or the prophetic traditions and the formulations of medieval fiqh play only a very limited role. Occasionally, references to stray hadith are made to reinforce or legitimise a particular stance, but this is done on a very selec- tive basis. Hadith that go against his own position are ignored. As Engineer sees it, the Qur’an, like any other text, can be interpreted in diverse ways. It is not a closed book with only one set of clearly specified meanings. Being rich in sym- bolism, it can be interpreted in different ways by different people in order to pro- mote different political projects. New ways of understanding the text also emerge as a result of and response to the development of human knowledge in other spheres and the maturation of human experience (Engineer 1998: 3). While the Qur’an itself is eternal and God-given, the interpretation (tafsir) of the Qur’an is always, he insists, a human product. Like all other human products, he argues, interpretations of the Qur’an carry the imprint of their times. They may, to varying degrees, reflect the truths of the Qur’an but cannot claim to represent the divine truth in its entirety. Since the interpreters of the Qur’an, like other human beings, are members of certain social groups, located in specific spatio-temporal and social contexts, their understandings of the Qur’an are naturally coloured by their own location. Hence, their own interpretations of the Qur’an cannot be said to be free from human biases. Indeed, to claim that one can gain access to the total truth of the Qur’an and to insist that the historical shari’ah, which is a product of hu- man reflection on the divine commandments, represents the Will of God, has no justification in Engineer’s understanding of Islam (Engineer 1999e: 1-2). It is, he obliquely suggests, tantamount to committing the biggest sin in Islam, that of claiming infallibility, which is akin to shirk or the crime of giving God partners.

Since all Qur’anic interpretation, which includes the formulation of the historical shari’ah, is, by nature, partial and therefore incomplete, reflecting the context in which the interpreter is located, the search for a total and complete understanding of the Will of God as expressed in the Qur’an is fruitless. Rather, Engineer con- tends, Muslims can only hope to gain further, but always limited, understanding of the Divine Will by engaging in constant reflection on the Qur’an in the light of new and unfolding circumstances. The hermeneutical key to this contextual under- standing of the Qur’an is to be found in the distinction that Engineer makes be- tween the “spirit” and the “letter” of the Qur’an, which he sometimes also refers to respectively as the “normative” and the “contextual” aspects of the divine revelation. The foundation of the Qur’an is provided by a set of values that infuses the entire revelation. Four key values are said to form the basis of the entire divine document: justice (‘adl), benevolence (ihsan), reason (‘aql) and wisdom (hikmah) (Engineer 1999a). The basic intention of the Qur’an, Engineer argues, is to bring

213 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 human beings into close communion with God, while at the same time inspiring them to work actively for a society that is based on these cardinal values. Engineer notes that while the Qur’an is replete with general exhortations to believers to submit to God and to struggle actively for a just and peaceful social order, it contains only a few detailed legal statements as to exactly how the cardinal divine values should be actually implemented. This, he says, is hardly surprising, for the Qur’an is not meant to be a book of detailed law. Rather, it is, above all, a call for a just social order based on a new value system, and the institutional forms that express these values can, and indeed must, radically differ across space and time.

Since it is the divine values that are the cornerstone of the Qur’an, they must in- fuse any contemporary interpretation of the divine revelation if it is to be truthful to the Will of God. Engineer contends that any truthful attempt to understand God’s Will for humanity as expressed in the Qur’an must be firmly grounded in this set of values. This has particular relevance in interpreting the clear legal com- mandments of the Qur’an on contentious issues such as women’s rights or rela- tions with non-Muslims. For Islamists, the Qur’anic commandments on these is- sues have eternal validity. Engineer, on the other hand, appeals to a contextual reading of the Qur’an, arguing that the legal pronouncements in the divine revela- tion, as well as in the historical shari’ah, do not have universal validity across space and time. Thus, unlike the basic values that infuse the text, they are not of fundamental importance. Rather, Engineer insists, they are specific to the particu- lar context of seventh-century Arabia when the Qur’an was revealed. To seek to impose them in today’s world would not only be anachronistic, it would also be a violation of the Divine Will. Any divine revelation has to take into account the particular social context in which it is revealed if at all it is to take root. Thus, for instance, the Qur’an accepted slavery as an institution and tolerated a degree of male supremacy, for in the society in which it was revealed slavery and patriarchy were deeply rooted. Were it to have condemned both outright, it would have been rejected completely. Yet, Engineer argues, the fundamental values that infuse the Qur’an are at odds with both slavery and patriarchy and actually encourage Mus- lims to struggle to overcome them. Accepting, as a temporary provision, the exist- ence of slavery and patriarchy, the Qur’an appealed to the believers to struggle to transcend them and work for a society where these would be finally abolished. Thus it sought to improve the condition of slaves and women, as evidenced by the numerous commandments in the Qur’an regarding their rights. Because of the spe- cific context in which the Qur’an was revealed, it could not abolish slavery and patriarchy completely or all at once, but the fundamental values of the Qur’an clearly suggest that this is indeed God’s Will. Hence, Engineer contends, Muslims today must struggle to translate the Divine Will into actual practice by doing away with social inequalities and patriarchy (Engineer 1999c). The commandments in the Qur’an that seem to militate against women’s rights or social equality must then be understood as specific to the context of seventh-century Arabia and not

214 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST as having universal validity. To attempt to fossilize them and impose them today would be a violation of God’s plans for humankind, for while the fundamental values of the Qur’an are valid for all times, the forms that these values have taken in the Qur’an by way of detailed laws and legal pronouncements are not, for the notion of what is just and equitable changes over time. While the laws for women, for instance, as given in the Qur’an were a considerable advance over the practices of pre-Islamic Arabia, they were, Engineer insists, specific to a particular time and place. The Qur’an itself wills that these be transcended to accord with new understandings of justice. To insist that these laws must be applied in today’s world would be to go against God’s Will, for they do not represent justice as we understand it today (Engineer 2000a).

Engineer submits the other sources of Islamic law, including the hadith and the historical shari’ah in the form of the formulations of fiqh to a similar critical con- textual reading. The corpus of hadith is seen, on the whole, as suspect and thus not wholly reliable. Engineer reminds his readers that the Prophet himself had warned his followers not to take anything from him but the Qur’an and that the first caliph of the Sunnis, Abu Bakr, had strictly forbidden the collection and com- piling of hadith. Despite this, the early Muslims began collecting the hadith and some even concocted a large number of sayings to legitimise their own vested in- terests. This is said to have been actively encouraged by the Umayyad and later the Abbasid rulers, to bolster their own claims to rule. In other words, the corpus of hadith as it exists today is, as such, not reliable and cannot be said to be com- pletely faithful to the message of the Prophet. Engineer does recognize the exist- ence of genuine (sahih) hadith but argues that not all genuine hadith have eternal relevance (Engineer 1999e: 2-5). Like the legislative sections of the Qur’an, they too were relevant for the particular social context of seventh-century Arabia. To imagine that they can be mechanically applied in today’s context is to go against the Will of God and the intention of the Prophet. Engineer sees the task of the be- liever in dealing with these hadith, as with the legislative pronouncements of the Qur’an, as being to extract the fundamental values that underlie them rather than following them to the letter. Based on these values, new laws and structures need to be evolved in accordance with the needs and demands of today’s times that may indeed differ in form from those of seventh-century Arabia but which would be based on the same ethical impulse.

The historical shari’ah, Engineer contends, arguing against those Muslims who see it as divinely mandated, is actually a human product, based on a human read- ing of the Qur’an and the sunnah or practice of the Prophet. The founders of the four schools (mazahib) of Sunni law, as well as the Shi’a imams, were, after all, human beings, products of their times, and, although presumably well inten- tioned, were not infallible. To claim that they could not err is to attribute divinity to them, which is contrary to the Qur’anic insistence on monotheism (tauhid). They were influenced by their own social location and by the standard of

215 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 knowledge of the world available to them, and these were reflected in their own understandings of religion. Further, medieval fiqh and theology did not remain immune to political compulsions, and numerous ‘ulama, employed or patronized by the state, developed interpretations of Islam to suit the interests of the dominant classes, often at the expense of the true import of the Qur’an. To accept their understandings of Islam as normative and binding, Engineer insists, would thus be to betray the Qur’an itself (Engineer 2001h: 179-90). Hence, he argues, Muslims today must develop a new understanding of their faith, a new theology and a new jurisprudence unencumbered by past precedent.

In Engineer’s scheme of Qur’anic hermeneutics, a constant dynamic and dialec- tical relation is sought between the particular social context on the one hand and the Qur’an, as the fundamental source of Islam, on the other. Praxis, active in- volvement in changing society for the better, must be related to new understand- ings of the Qur’an. Likewise, new visions of Islam must be developed in order to promote or legitimise practical action in working for social transformation in- spired by the fundamental ethical impulse or foundational values of the Qur’an. This way of reading the Qur’an uncovers new meanings of the divine revelation in the process of actively intervening in the world in order to transform it. In turn, this inspires Muslims to work in new directions and in new ways to change society in accordance with the Divine Will. The ever-evolving understandings of Islam that emerge from this process of praxis-reflection-praxis are said to be a sign of the Qur’an’s eternal validity, not in terms of its detailed and context- specific legal pronouncements but in terms of the values on which the entire scripture is based. In this dynamic, the constantly evolving understandings of Islam are to be rooted in reason, for the “word of God” cannot contradict the “work of God” as expressed in the laws of science. Hence, as human knowledge expands, the understanding of Islam must also be accordingly transformed (Engineer 1993).

The distinction that Engineer makes between what he describes as the normative core and the context-specific portions of the fundamental sources of Islam (the former being seen as valid for all times and the latter being specific only to the context of the Prophet’s times) enables him to produce a vision of Islam that is dy- namic, open and, as he sees it, eternally relevant. By going directly to the Qur’an, he bypasses centuries of tradition as developed by the ‘ulama. He views the schools of fiqh of the traditional ‘ulama as representing a fossilized religion that stresses the letter of the law above its spirit and lacks the capacity to come to terms with the challenges of modernity. The ‘ulama are seen to have assisted dominant groups in developing a “feudalised Islam” that has totally betrayed the true values of the faith (Engineer 2001e). Engineer’s understanding of Islam also naturally puts him at odds with the Islamists, whose call for the creation of an Is- lamic state and the imposition of the historical shari’ah he considers as extremely regressive and, in fact, “un-Islamic.” The Islamists see the shari’ah as a fixed

216 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST body of laws and, although they admit the need for or a creative inter- pretation of the law on matters where the Qur’an and the hadith are silent, they insist that the clear legal pronouncements of these two principal sources cannot be overruled. Engineer’s ijtihad is far more radical and embracing in its scope. He argues that ijtihad must, if need be, also extend to the legal pronouncements of the Qur’an and the hadith. Hence, aspects of the historical shari’ah as well as certain legal pronouncements in the fundamental sources of Islam that might seem to militate against modern sensibilities must be critiqued and new legislation should take their place if required, so that the laws that govern society are in accordance with the fundamental values of the Qur’an, even though the forms that these laws take might well differ radically from those found in the historical shari’ah.

Towards a Contextual Islamic Theology for India As Engineer sees it, the Qur’an is open to a variety of interpretations and can be used to justify a diverse range of political projects. His primary concern is to de- velop a theology of Islam that is rooted in and relevant to the particular context in which the Muslims of India find themselves placed. To imagine that a vision of Islam developed elsewhere or in a different period of history, and this includes the historical shari’ah as formulated by the medieval jurists, could be arbitrarily imposed in today’s Indian context is not just poor sociology. It is, above all, En- gineer insists, poor theology and, in fact, goes against the Will of God. The par- ticular situation in which the Muslims of India find themselves today, which forms the basis on which Engineer’s formulates his own contextual theology, is characterised by multiple oppressions, including that of caste, class, gender and religion. Traditional understandings of religion are, as Engineer sees it, part of the problem rather than the solution, for these, he argues, have been formulated by dominant groups to justify their own interests, to preserve the status quo and to justify these multiple oppressions. These understandings of religion have also been employed to promote conflict between people of different faiths. For Engineer, a truly Islamic theology for contemporary India is one that takes the context of multiple oppressions and the existence of religious plurality seriously and is at the same time based on what he sees as the cardinal values of the Qur’an.

In Engineer’s view, since the foundational values of the Qur’an consist of justice, benevolence, equality and peace, a meaningful contextual theology for India, faithful to the Qur’an and God’s Will, must be constructed in such a manner as to promote social justice in terms of relations between castes, classes and genders and peaceful relations between Muslims and people of other faiths. Aspects of the Qur’an, the hadith and the historical shari’ah that seem to militate against these objectives are seen as having no relevance today, being applicable only to a previ- ous historical context. This enables Engineer to present an understanding of Islam that he sees as appropriate for the particular historical context in which the Mus- lims in India find themselves.

217 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2

Islam and Interfaith Relations Promoting better relations between Muslims and people of other faiths is one of Engineer’s principal concerns. He has been involved in several interfaith dialogue initiatives both in India as well as abroad and has written extensively on the sub- ject. Engineer argues that a faithful understanding of Islam in today’s context must take the pluralist predicament seriously. To be religious today is, in fact, to be interreligious. To ignore the question of religious pluralism and the need for harmonious relations between people of different faiths, as the traditional ‘ulama seem to have done, he warns, is to consign oneself to complete irrelevance.

In fashioning a theology of religious pluralism, Engineer addresses the central question of the nature of truth. Is truth one or many? Is truth absolute or relative? Are there different degrees or levels of truth? Can one religion claim to possess the whole truth? Are all religions other than Islam without any truth? Can non- Muslims be saved by following their own religions if Islam is the one true reli- gion? In answering these questions Engineer examines the Qur’anic perspective on humankind and the universality of revelation. He writes that all human beings, irrespective of religion, are creatures of God, made from one set of primal parents and, in that sense, equal in His eyes. All human beings are “of inestimable divine value” and hence must be not just equally respected (Engineer 2000d: 3) but also equally loved (Engineer 2001f: 8). He argues that all religions come from the same source, the one God, and reflect the Truth in different ways. As the Qur’an insists, God has sent prophets to all nations and all of them have taught the same basic religion or din, al-Islam or “submission” to God. Further, the Qur’an also clearly lays down that a Muslim must believe in all the prophets of God, including those whom it does not mention by name, and hold them in equal respect (Engin- eer, “Resolving Hindu-Muslim Problem”). The various prophets taught the same religion, but some prophets were assigned to teach a new law (shar’iah) which was meant to suit the particular conditions of the people to whom they were sent. It is, however, the din and not the shari’ah that is the fundamental message of God as expressed through the prophets (Engineer 1997a: 3). While the din remains the same, the shari’ah can differ and hence the latter is subordinate to the former.

All historical religions, therefore, are emanations from this primal din of God and hence they are, at root, the same and none can be dismissed as “illegitimate” or “false” (Engineer 2001h: 149). Although he does not state it explicitly, Engineer appears to suggest that there is little to choose from among the various religions, as they are all, he seems to believe, roughly identical to one another. They are seen to share a common set of value orientations, such as truth, non-violence, love, justice, equity, tolerance and compassion. He recognizes that in terms of doctrine and ritual practice they do differ from one another as well as in matters of prayer and ritual. These, however, are to be treated as strictly secondary and, in God’s eyes, as ultimately of little or no importance. For God, Engineer argues,

218 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST what is important is the ethical orientation and action of a person and not the con- tent of his belief or the ritual forms in which that belief is expressed. Engineer seems to suggest, therefore, that ultimate salvation hinges on good deeds and not on “correct” belief or ritual action. While recognising that rituals “have a signifi- cance of their own” as “psychological supports,” he contends that they are “not central to a religion” and that therefore they “can be neglected,” unlike the fund- amental values. Thus, a “truly religious person” is one who, inspired by these val- ues, does good deeds, irrespective of whether or not he or she follows a particular set of rituals (Engineer 2000e).

While Engineer’s argument for the universality of revelation and the unity of the din is strictly Qur’anic, he does not pay sufficient attention to the Qur’anic ac- count of how and why the different historical religions differ from one another, despite their common origins in the primal din. He does not seriously engage with the Qur’anic understanding of tahrif or the “corruption” by people of the scrip- tures given to them by prophets before Muhammad. Engineer’s answer is that the differences between the different historical religions, which he sees as different forms of the same din, are not to be denied, for that would be to ignore the very real differences between them as well as the uniqueness of each religion. How- ever, he argues, it is for God alone to judge where the religions differ and to de- cide which one is true or possesses a greater degree of truth. This would come about only on Judgment Day. Until then, the best course for human beings is to focus on what the different religions share in common rather than on what divides them from each other, and to work, in accordance with the Will of God, for social justice and peace for all (Engineer 2001a: 7). Meanwhile, human beings should shelve all religious and doctrinal disputes, desist from trying to prove the superi- ority of one religion over the others and, instead, “vie with each other in good deeds” (Engineer 2001h: 149).

This, then, calls for people of various faiths to dialogue with one another on the basis of what they have in common. Participants in interreligious dialogue, En- gineer insists, must abide by certain basic rules. They must not assume that their religion is superior to those of others. In addition, they must not simply tolerate other faiths but, in fact, respect their teachings and their integrity. They must also not be motivated by any desire to convert others to their faith. Rather, dialogue must be impelled by a desire to move towards discovering the Truth, which can be approached by being open to multiple expressions of truth which one en- counters through dialogue. Finally, even if the dialogue partners fail to agree on every point, they should not allow the encounter to take the form of polemics (Engineer, “On Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue”).

For Engineer, peaceful dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths is seen as integral to the Qur’anic message. Islam is seen as positively exhorting Muslims to dialogue with people of other faiths. Thus, dialogue is actually a di-

219 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 vinely ordained duty for Muslims and not something they can treat as an after- thought. The basic framework of the dialogue project is seen as having been laid down in the Qur’an itself. Thus, the Qur’an insists that Muslims must recognize that God is “The Sustainer of the Worlds” (rabb ul-‘alamin) and not just of Mus- lims alone (Engineer 1997a:3). The Qur’an accepts religious pluralism as a sign of God’s Will (Engineer, “On Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue”). Indeed, it is, Engineer suggests, a part of God’s plan for the world, for if He had so willed he could have made all humans follow just one religion. Thus, the Qur’an says that, although God could have made all people one, He has, in His wisdom, “ap- pointed a law and a way” for different communities, so that he can “try them,” de- spite their differences. This is said to suggest that the different historical religions in all their diversity have been created by God Himself (Engineer 2001c: 3). To attempt to destroy this plurality by insisting on the truth of one religion alone, even if that religion be Islam, is thus said to be “against His will” (Engineer 2001h: 259). The Qur’an adds immediately that people, following different laws and ways, must vie with one another “in virtuous deeds.” This implies, Engineer argues, that the Qur’an “clearly discourages believers to [sic] enter into theolo- gical polemics” and, instead, encourages them to “excel each other in good deeds.” In other words, what pleases God is not so much “correct” belief as “cor- rect” ethical action. Since God has created a multiplicity of religions, Muslims must not just tolerate them but, indeed, “respect” them (Engineer 1997a: 3). Fur- thermore, the Qur’an insists that Muslims preach their message through “gentle words” and in a manner that does not provoke hostility or conflict (Engineer “Key Terms”). Then again, the Qur’an reminds Muslims that there can be no compul- sion in religion, for it recognizes the inherent right of all people to believe in what they want (Engineer 1997a: 3). Engineer exhorts Muslims to seek inspiration from the Sufis in order to relate to people of other faiths and sees Sufism as containing valuable resources for developing an appropriate Islamic theology of religious pluralism.1 Thus, he writes that many Sufis believed in the concept of “unity in existence” (wahdat al-wujud), which he describes as a form of pantheism that allows for a recognition of the innate oneness of all humankind and the presence of God in all religions (Engineer “Resolving Hindu-Muslim Problem”). They preached the “welfare of all” (sulh-i kul) and universal love as well and in this made no distinction between Muslims and people of other faiths (Engineer 2001f: 2).

Dialogue can take various forms and be taken up for several reasons. The first is what Engineer calls the “dialogue of life.” This is a form of dialogue that is not formally articulated in theological statements. People of different religions interact with one another informally, as friends or colleagues at the work place and attend

1 He does not, however, deal with the plurality of understandings on the issue within Sufism, and takes it as a monolith.

220 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST one another’s religious festivals. The second, more structured, form of dialogue is the exchange of views between theologians, in the course of which each comes to learn about the religious beliefs of the other. In the course of such dialogue one deepens and enriches one’s own faith, for in the process one gains insights from other faiths that one’s own religion lacks or does not seem to stress adequately. No religion, Engineer argues, is completely sufficient by itself. Rather, through dialogue one realizes how, in many respects, religions can be “complimentary” to one another. Thus, he writes that while Islam stresses justice, Buddhism stresses non-violence and Christianity love. By dialoguing with Buddhists and Christians, then, Muslims can gain new insights that can be used to evolve new interpretations and understanding of their own religion (Engineer, “On Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue”). In this sense, all religions are invited through dialogue to a form of “conversion.” This does not, however, mean that in the process of theological dialogue all differences between the religions would be negated or denied. Rather, partners in the dialogue process should first try to reconcile their differences and Engineer offers the example of numerous Sufi and Bhakti saints of India who attempted to do this. If, despite this, certain doctrines or beliefs of one religion cannot be accepted by the followers of another, the dialogue partners must learn to live together in amity and respect their differences (Engineer, “On Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue”).

The third, and more promising, form of dialogue is when social activists, along with socially engaged theologians, come together, each inspired by his or her own religion, to work for common social projects and causes, such as social justice, peace, love and harmony between people of different faith traditions. Islam, and, indeed, other faiths, are seen as having a divine mandate to transform social struc- tures radically, to end poverty and the multiple oppressions of caste, class, eth- nicity and gender (Engineer2001h:169-78). Hence, a major goal of the dialogue project is seen as bringing Muslims together with people of goodwill from other faiths to struggle jointly for a new, socialist society where the fundamental social contradictions are resolved. Engineer thus seeks to develop an Islamic theology of liberation and pluralism which he regards as having been the essential mission of all the prophets of God but which Muslims, like others, have long forgotten, having reduced religion to a set of sterile doctrines, dogmas and rituals (see, for instance, Engineer 1988c and 1988a). The role of true religion, Engineer stresses, is not simply to interpret the world but also to transform it, to create a new society based on the cardinal values that he sees all religions sharing in common: justice, equality, benevolence, compassion and freedom (Engineer 1999c: 4).

Since Engineer’s principal concern is to develop a relevant theology rooted in the Indian context, dialogue between Muslims and Hindus is seen as particularly ur- gent. New understandings of Islam and, for that matter, Hinduism are regarded as essential to promoting better relations between Hindus and Muslims and to coun- ter groups in both communities that seek to promote conflict between the two

221 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 based on their own distorted understandings of their religion. In formulating a rel- evant Islamic theology of religious pluralism for India, Engineer is forced to come to terms with traditional Muslim understandings of Hinduism as a religion and of Hindus as a faith community. These understandings, he argues, are rooted in a “feudal Islam” that developed at a time when political power was in the hands of Muslims in India and when Hindus were seen by many ‘ulama as political and, hence, religious enemies of Islam and Muslims. Therefore, he claims, these tradi- tional understandings do not actually reflect the “true” Qur’anic position and must be adequately revised. Since God has sent prophets to teach his din to all peoples, He must, Engineer argues, have sent prophets to the people of India as well. In- deed, as he points out, several Muslim scholars and Sufis have argued that Rama and Krishna, worshipped as gods by the Hindus, might actually have been proph- ets of God. Consequently, Muslims must hold these figures in high regard (Engin- eer, “Muslims and Mainstream”). Further, even if these figures were not prophets of God, the Qur’an insists that Muslims must not revile or abuse the objects of worship or reverence of people of other faiths. If Muslims were thus to abide by the Qur’an in this matter, Engineer suggests, they would be able to clear many misunderstandings that Hindus have of Islam, and thereby help promote intercom- munal amity.

For many Muslims, the ambiguous status of Hindus in Islamic law constitutes a major hurdle in promoting dialogue with them. Unlike the Christians and the Jews, they find no mention of Hinduism in the Qur’an and have often seen Hindus as idolaters, with whom dialogue is ruled out. While noting that many ‘ulama have described the Hindus as kafirs and mushriks (polytheists), Engineer argues that this is misleading, for the Hindus, he contends, are actually monotheists and that their holy book, the Vedas, might actually have been a divine revelation. Hence, they must, he insists, be treated as “People of the Book” (ahl-i kitab), sharing a status similar to that of the Christians and Jews (Engineer, “Resolving Hindu-Muslim Problem”).2 Recognising the inability of traditional fiqh to provide positive images of the Hindus, Engineer suggests that Muslims should seek inspiration and guidance from the teachings of certain Indian Sufis as well as Hindu Bhakta saints who wanted to explore the similarities rather than the dif- ferences between Hinduism and Islam. He argues that in today’s India the “openness” of Sufism and Bhakti Hindu devotion are essential resources in help- ing to promote interfaith harmony (Engineer 1995b: 4).

In order to help develop more positive images of each other and to bring them closer, Engineer is at pains to stress the cultural elements that many Indian Mus-

2 Elsewhere (“Islam and Pluralism”) he writes that even kafirs, whom he defines as people who “refuse to accept truth in any form and negate the good completely and advocate evil,” are to be treated with compassion and follow their religion.

222 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST lims share with their Hindu neighbours. He strongly opposes advocates of a “pure” Islamic culture, arguing that no such thing exists. Rather, he says, Islam has taken different forms in different parts of the world as it has sought to root itself in different cultural contexts. He goes so far as to negate the notion of a singular Islam and instead speaks of a multiplicity of “,” such as “Arab Islam,” “Indonesian Islam,” “Indian Islam,” and so forth (Engineer 2000a). In advocating an “Indian Islam” he stresses what he describes as a “composite culture” shared by Indians of different faiths. This appeal to a “composite” Indian culture leads him to a form of syncretism and relativism that appears to deny the autonomy of each religion in a very fundamental sense. Thus, for instance, he cites approvingly such instances of “composite culture” as a Muslim saint’s devotion to Krishna, a Muslim who officiates as a priest in a Hindu temple (Engineer, “Composite Culture: Celebration of Indian Unity”), and the Meo Muslims of northern India whom he celebrates as the “best example of composite culture,” being, he says, “part Hindu and part Muslim” (Engineer 1997b). Elsewhere, he refers to his wife as a model of this, as one who worships in mosques, temples and churches, believing that “God was equally present in all the religions” (Siddharta 2000).

For Engineer, interfaith dialogue is an urgent necessity, not simply because the Qur’an mandates it but also in order to promote peace actively in a society that continues to witness unrelenting violence between people of different faiths. As Engineer sees it, Islam encourages its followers to struggle actively to promote peaceful relations with people of other faiths. One of Engineer’s major concerns, therefore, has been to promote an Islamic theology of peace. He argues that peace is a central tenet of Islam and points out that the one of the meanings of the word “Islam” is “peace.” Peaceful relations, he says, are seen as the norm in Islam and Muslims must work to establish peace in society and in the relations between dif- ferent religious communities (Engineer 2001b: 8). In addressing the question of peace in Islam he pays particular attention to the notion of jihad. Grappling with verses in the Qur’an that refer to jihad, he writes that the term refers to any form of struggle for the sake of God, in particular for upholding what he sees are the cardinal values of the Qur’an: peace, justice and equality. To struggle through peaceful means to establish social justice and equality is thus one of the highest forms of jihad (Engineer 2001g: 4). He makes a crucial distinction between jihad as any struggle to implement God’s Will on the one hand and qital, or the use of physical force, including violence, on the other. It is true that the Qur’an does not advocate complete non-violence, he says, but it considers it as a weapon to be used only in self-defence and not for aggression. Further, one is to resort to it only when all peaceful means for defending oneself have been exhausted. Even here strict conditions are to be observed, and innocent non-Muslims cannot, under any circumstances, be attacked (Engineer 2001d: 49). Engineer concedes, however, that the roots of conflict in many cases have little to do with religion per se or with differences in religion. In large parts of the Muslim world, he writes,

223 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 economic inequalities and political authoritarianism, combined with various economic, political and cultural policies of the Western powers, have bred a situation conducive to violence. To preach peace and harmony in such a situation can only help promote the oppressive status quo that would, in turn, engender even more violence. Efforts at establishing peace, Engineer argues, must go hand in hand with the quest for social justice if peace is to be indeed long lasting and firmly rooted (Engineer 2000d: 4).

Islam and Secularism In formulating a theology of Islam suited to the contemporary Indian context, En- gineer deals at length with the debate on the relation between Islam and politics, in particular with the notion of the Islamic state. Engineer argues that the Qur’an contains no mandate or blueprint for an Islamic state, for its main concern is not with the state but, rather, with society. It speaks, he says, of an “ideal society” and not of an “ideal polity.” The Prophet Muhammad was not commissioned by God to establish a state, although he did so in Medina (Engineer 1999b: 1-2). To insist on an Islamic state either where Muslims are a minority, as in India, or in countries where Muslims are in the majority is thus against the Divine Will, for the historical shari’ah, the corpus of law that Islamists see the “Islamic state” as charged with implementing, has little or no relevance in today’s age, having been formulated in a completely different context.

This does not, however, mean that Islam has nothing to say about politics. Engin- eer argues that although the forms of the state might, and indeed, must, change over time, the political structures that are devised must be infused with justice, be- nevolence and equality—fundamental Islamic values. Thus, what is important is not the form the state takes but rather its foundational values. Indeed, Engineer points out, neither the Qur’an nor the early history of Muslims provides any model for the form of polity. The four “righteous” caliphs of the Sunnis were chosen in different ways and barely thirty years after the Prophet’s death the “democratic” caliphate was transformed into a hereditary monarchy. Hence, since there is no such thing as the “Islamic” form of polity, Engineer asserts that the task for Muslims today is to work towards developing new political structures that can best express the core Islamic values. He believes that these values are best served today by the modern, secular democratic state (Engineer 1999d: 1-2).

Secularism and democracy have been seen by some Muslims to be antagonistic to Islam. For them, secularism is regarded as the negation of religion, if not out- right hostility to it. Likewise, democracy is seen as usurping God’s right and pre- rogative to rule by replacing the shari’ah with humanly devised laws. Engineer seeks to rebut this argument, insisting that the historical shari’ah is itself largely a human creation and cannot be said to represent God’s Will for all times. In En- gineer’s own reading of Islam, secularism and democracy, in fact, truly represent the Divine Will. According to him, secularism is based not on hostility to religion

224 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST but rather on mutual respect for all religions. A secular state is one that, while not against religion as such, is neutral vis-à-vis the various religions. He contends that such a state is not a novel one for Muslims, for the polity established by the Prophet Muhammad in Medina did envisage equal rights for people of all faiths, including Muslims, Jews as well as pagan Arabs. Each was granted full religious freedom, including the right to be ruled according to their own personal laws in internal matters (Engineer, “Pluralism and Civil Society”). Hence, he argues, Muslims can—indeed must—be willing citizens of a secular, plural state that guarantees freedom of religion and equality to all its members. In the specific Indian context this means that they must reconcile themselves to being citizens of what is, at least in theory, a secular state.

Likewise, Engineer seeks to argue that democracy is not only not foreign to Islam but actually contained within it. He draws parallels between democracy and the Islamic notion of shur’a or rule through consultation and argues that while the form that consultation took in the period of the Prophet may not be replicated to- day, its fundamental spirit, based on opposition to authoritarianism, is of continu- ing relevance. He contends that in the present age the most appropriate form for shur’a is political democracy, which, while it differs in form from the shur’a prac- tised by the Prophet and the early Muslims, preserves and promotes its funda- mental values and spirit (Engineer 1995a). Thus, for both countries with a Muslim majority as well as countries where Muslims are a minority, the most Islamically acceptable form of the polity in today’s context would be a secular, democratic state in which all religious groups are granted equal rights and freedoms and gov- erned according to laws made by the representatives of the people.3 The scope of the historical shari’ah in this scheme of things is strictly limited, at most being of relevance only in the personal sphere, though even here radical reforms are called for. The entire sphere of the mu’amilat or “worldly affairs’ is taken out of the pur- view of Islamic jurisprudence, as the fiqh formulations in these matters are seen as either limited to the time of the Prophet or else a reflection and outcome of an outdated, “feudal” understanding of Islam. In place of the laws of the historical shari’ah on matters related to the mu’amilat, the state must formulate new laws that may well depart from traditional shari’ prescriptions but which would be in accordance with the fundamental values of the Qur’an. Since the scope of the shari’ah is effectively restricted to the private sphere, the secular, democratic state is able to legislate on matters that traditional ‘ulama as well as Islamists consider as having already been covered by God’s laws.

What, then, of nationalism and notions of national identity? Engineer contends that nations are products of shared culture, history and locality (Engineer 2000b:

3 See the website http://www.isim.nl/isim/activities/conferences/intellectuals/en- gineer.

225 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2

1-2). Religion alone cannot be the basis for national identity. The Muslim ummah is then purely a religious unity and not a political unit that includes all Muslims (Engineer 2002: 6). The treaty of Medina between the Prophet and the Jews and pagan Arabs of Medina defined all of them as members of one single ummah, the denizens of Medina. This clearly suggests, Engineer argues, that nationality is not determined by religion. Hence, projects to create a pan-Islamic polity based on the notion of the Muslim ummah as a political unit are not only impractical but, in fact, contrary to the practice of the Prophet. Since nationality is thus seen as based on shared locality and culture, Muslims can, indeed must, willingly accept the fact that they belong to different nationalities and that in most cases, as in India, they share their nationality with people of other faiths (Engineer 1997a: 3).

Engineer’s Hermeneutical Approach: A Critique Engineer’s understanding of the Qur’an as divine revelation is premised on the distinction that he draws between the essential value system of the text on the one hand and the legal pronouncements contained in the text that he sees as context specific on the other. While the former are said to be of eternal relevance and hence to represent the essence of the Qur’an, the latter are seen to be rooted in the specific context of seventh-century Arabia and thus not necessarily valid for all times. Any religion, Engineer argues, must operate in a given context and, accep- ting many of the institutions and practices of that context, must seek to modify or transcend them gradually. Hence, for instance, the pronouncements of the Qur’an on women or slavery are to be seen in relation to the context in which the divine text was revealed. Although patriarchy and slavery are seen as going against God’s plan for the world, the Qur’an had to accept them as they were deeply root- ed in the context of the society in which it was revealed. Yet this was no passive acceptance or whole-hearted legitimation. Rather, Engineer argues, that the Qur- ’an tried to modify the harshness of these institutions and its essential value sys- tem clearly suggests that God wills that they should be gradually done away with over time. Using this contextual approach to understanding the Qur’an, Engineer attempts to fashion a new way of interpreting the text which he sees as relevant for our times.

Engineer’s hermeneutical project emerges from his own involvement in groups struggling for social change and the essential values that he discovers as being the core of the Qur’an are precisely the values that he seeks to promote in the course of his social intervention: peace, justice, compassion and equality. This reading of core values into the Qur’an is, while not completely arbitrary, determined es- sentially by Engineer’s own politics. It is quite conceivable that other Muslims, pursuing other political agendas, could construct a completely different set of core values and read them into the Qur’an, values such as militancy, power and dom- ination. Although Engineer does admit that multiple readings of the text are not just possible but, indeed, inevitable, he implicitly suggests that his own reading of the text is normative. At the same time, he fails to grapple seriously with the

226 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST claims of other Muslims who might offer radically different readings based on a different set of values that they see as underlying the Qur’anic text. In the final an- alysis, all readings are arbitrary, human products that cannot claim to represent the Divine Will in its entirety, and this applies to Engineer’s own understanding of the divine revelation as well.

The distinction that Engineer draws between what is normative in the Qur’an and hence of lasting relevance and what is contextual and thus limited in its applica- tion is a product of his own political agenda and of the purposes for which he seeks to employ the text. Hence, aspects of the text that are seen as militating against his own project are treated as purely contextual, to be seen as limited to their application to seventh-century Arabia, while others, which are seen as posi- tively legitimating his agenda, are deemed as normative and as of eternal signifi- cance. Here again, no strict rules are applied and the sifting between the norma- tive and the contextual appears somewhat arbitrary, determined by an external agenda. The struggle for social justice, peace and harmony, Engineer’s principal concerns, thus determines how he reads the Qur’an, rather than the Qur’an determining his principal concerns. Critics could argue that in this case the divine text is used in an instrumental fashion to legitimise an agenda that emerges from elsewhere. However, as Engineer’s principal purpose is to develop a contextual understanding of the Qur’an, this is inevitable, for the manner in which the both the context and the political project are defined inevitably influences how the text is read.

The dialectical tension between text and context and the problem of reading into the text understandings that emerge from an external agenda are well illustrated in Engineer’s examination of the issues of religious pluralism and secular nationalism. Thus Engineer argues that the Qur’an itself states that God has sent prophets to all peoples and that all of them have taught the same basic religion, the din, al-Islam or the “religion of submission [to the one God].” Hence, he says, Muslims must respect all religions and not consider their own as inherently superior. Since one of his principal concerns is to promote better relations between Muslims and people of other faiths, he conveniently glosses over those verses in the Qur’an that admonish Christians, Jews and others for having distorted the teachings of the prophets that had been sent to them. By thus remaining silent on the Qur’anic notion of tahrif or the “corruption” of the scriptures of the pre-Muhammadan prophets by those who claim to be their followers, he seems to argue that these scripturalist traditions as they exist today remain in their pristine purity, as revealed to their prophets, and that, hence, Muslims must regards them as true, a notion with which not many Muslims would agree (Engineer, “Islam and Pluralism”).

This selective reading of the Qur’an as it relates to other faiths does scant justice not only to the Qur’an itself but also to the notion of the self-identity of Islam as

227 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2 well as that of other religions. This leads to a relativism that effectively denies the autonomy and integrity of each religious tradition. As Samuel remarks, it works to “reduce the importance of the truth claims of one’s own tradition for its adher- ents,” these being dismissed by Engineer as a product of “egoism.” Rather than recognizing these competing truth claims and the very real differences between the various religions, Engineer either ignores them or else relativises them. Samu- el rightly comments that this way of attempting to promote interfaith harmony seems “shallow” (Samuel 2001: 86-87). If all the historical religions (as opposed to the primal din, which, as the Qur’an sees it, was taught by all the prophets) are true, then what remains of the Muslim claim that Islam represents a greater degree of truth or, indeed, the absolute truth? By identifying a set of common value ori- entations that all religions are seen to share as the root of religion and by di- vorcing salvation from dogma, religious belief is thus ultimately rendered imma- terial in God’s eyes. Hence, Engineer is led to suggest that “Paradise is not the monopoly of any religious group whatever. Whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and is a doer of good, he has his reward in heaven” (Engineer 1988b: 6). Further, by claiming that what is essential to religion are the core values, which all religions seem to share, and that the forms in which these values have been ex- pressed, the various shar’iahs, are contextual and therefore malleable and dis- pensable or ultimately irrelevant in God’s eyes, all religions are steamrolled into one and syncretism is accorded a positive value. By limiting the essential core of the Qur’an to faith in God and commitments to a set of basic values, the rest of the Qur’an and the Islamic scripturalist tradition is treated effectively as of little or no ultimate concern. Islam is thus reduced to a value orientation and a system of rituals, although even the latter is seen as part of the historical shari’ah, with little or no ultimate value in itself.

Not only does this approach to Islam undermine the specificity and autonomy of Islam, it also does scant justice to the way in which other religions see themselves. Thus other religions are also reduced to a set of values that they are seen as sharing in common with one another and with Islam. This is well illustrated in En- gineer’s examination of Hinduism, which amounts to a personal redefinition of Hinduism that differs markedly from the way in which many Hindus would under- stand their own faith. Since Engineer’s primary concern is to promote better rela- tions between Hindus and Muslims, he focuses on what the two faiths seem to share in common rather than what divides them. Hence, he pays little or no atten- tion to aspects of Hinduism, as many Hindus would understand it, that are clearly opposed to the fundamental teachings of Islam, such as polytheism and the caste system. Indeed, he engages in a process of construction of a form of Hinduism that bears little resemblance to the historical forms that it has adopted, in order to stress what he regards as the common teachings of Hinduism and Islam. Thus, for instance, he argues that, since the Qur’an states that prophets have been sent by God to every community, it is possible that figures such as Rama and Krishna were indeed prophets and that the Vedas are revealed scriptures which Muslims

228 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST too must accept. He ignores, however, the very different notion of revelation in Hinduism and Islam and indeed of the role of scripture in both traditions, while also eliding the question of tahrif in the Vedas if they are indeed to be treated as divinely revealed texts by Muslims. In constructing a notion of Hinduism that ap- pears to share much in common with Islam, justice is hardly done to the actual forms that Hinduism has taken, particularly in its Brahminical varieties, which seem clearly to militate against the values of justice and equality that Engineer sees as fundamental to all true religion.

In his analysis of the relation between Islam and politics, likewise, Engineer’s commitment to secularism and democracy determines his own reading of the Qur- ’an and the Prophetic example. He pays scant attention to the role and status of the Prophet as the actual head of the state of Medina and, by focusing instead on the content of the treaty of Medina and the reciprocal rights that it granted to all communities, is able to gloss over the fact that the constitution of the Medinan state was itself premised on the de facto and de jure rule of the Prophet himself. Thus he insists that the Prophet “never aspired for political power,” while conven- iently ignoring the role of the Prophet as the head of the political community of Medina (Engineer 2001h: 109). Similarly, his invoking the principle of shu’ra to legitimize political democracy is also inspired by his own politics, and does not emanate directly from the Prophetic example itself, for, although the Qur’an ad- vised the Prophet to consult his followers, he was not bound by their advice. Likewise, in order to provide “Islamic” sanction to political democracy he reduces Islam to a set of values and restricts the application of Islamic law to the personal sphere, paying scant regard to the concept of law in early Muslim history.

In short, then, it appears that Engineer’s own theology of Islam is determined, above all, by considerations that emanate from outside the Qur’anic text and in several crucial respects bears little relation to the ways in which Islam has been understood by Muslims throughout history. His understanding of Islam is a pro- duct of his own political agenda, of course, but he is hardly novel in this. There can be no politically neutral interpretation of a text, even though many, if not most, interpreters of sacred textual traditions would imagine themselves free from the influences of their own social location.

LITERATURE Engineer, Ashgar ‘Ali. “Composite Culture: Celebration of Indian Unity.” http://ecu- mene. org/IIS/csss05.htm. “Pluralism and Civil Society.” http://www.islam21net/pages/keyissues/key3-2.htm. “Resolving Hindu-Muslim Problem: An Approach.” http://www.prerana. com/pviews/viewpoint/resolving_hindu. “On Religious and Inter-Cultural Dialogue.” http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss01.htm. “The Key Terms in the Qur’an.” http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/perspective/ main- stream.htm.

229 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 15 (2005) 2

“Muslims and Mainstream.” http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/ Mus- lims.. “Islam and Pluralism.” http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key3-1.htm. (1988a). “Islam and the Challenge of Poverty.” In: Asghar ‘Ali Engineer (ed.). “Religion and Liberation.” Islamic Perspective 4: 149-72. (1988b). Muhammad as a Liberator. Mumbai: Institute of Islamic Studies. (1988c). “Religion, Ideology and Liberation Theology: An Islamic Point of View.” In: Asghar ‘Ali Engineer (ed.). “Religion and Liberation.” Islamic Perspective 4: 136-48. (1991). The Issues in the Bohra Reform Movement. Mumbai: Central Board of Da- woodi Bohra Community. (1993). Faith and Rationalism in Islam. Mumbai: Institute of Islamic Studies. (1995a).”Islam, Liberalism and Democracy.” Progressive Perspective 4 (November). (1995b). Sufism and Inter-Faith Harmony. Mumbai: Institute of Islamic Studies. (1997a). Religion and Secularism. Mumbai: Institute of Islamic Studies. (1997b). “Saving the Soul Through Prayer.” The Times of India (8 December). (1998). “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and His Concept of Unity of Religion.” Islam and Modern Age 1 (December). (1999a). “The Basic Values of Islam.” The Times of India (8 March). (1999b). “The Concept of Islamic State.” Islam and Modern Age 2. (1999c). Islam on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century, Mumbai: Asian Muslims’ Action Network. (1999d). Islam and Secularism. Mumbai: Centre for Study of Secularism and Society. (1999e). “Islam, Women and Gender Justice.” Paper presented at the seminar on The Problems of Muslim Women in India (6-7 July). (2000a). Muslims, Modernity and Change. http://www.milligazette.com/ Archives/15-8-2000/Art18.htm. (2000b). “Nation, State, Religion and Identity.” Secular Perspective 1-15 May. (2000c). “The Reformists and the Bohra Priesthood.” Islam and Modern Age 3 (June). (2000d). “Twenty First Century, Religion and Peace.” Islam and Modern Age 3 (January). (2000e). “Values, Not Rituals Are Essence of Religion.” Islam and Modern Age 3 (June). (2001a). “The Concept of ‘Other’ in Islam.” Islam and Modern Age 4 (September). (2001b). “On Developing Theology of Peace in Islam.” Islam and Modern Age 4 (October). (2001c). “Islam—Its Teachings and Muslim Practices.” Islam and Modern Age 4 (March). (2001d). “Jehadi Leaders Misinterpret Islam.” Indian Currents (4 March). (2001e). “On Absence of Democracy in Muslim World.” Islam and Modern Age 4 (April).

230 ASHGAR ‘ALI ENGINEER’S QUEST

(2001f). ‘On the Concept of Compassion in Islam.” Islam and Modern Age 4 (No- vember). (2001g). “On the Multi-Layered Concept of Jihad.” Islam and Modern Age 4 (Sep- tember). (2001h). Rational Approach to Islam. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. (2002). “The Political Universe of Islam.” Islam and Modern Age 5 (February). Noor, Farish A. (2002). New Voices of Islam. Leiden: International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World. Samuel, K.J. (2001). An Islamic Understanding of Inter-Religious Relations: An Assess- ment of Dr. Asghar ‘Ali Engineer,. M.Th. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Senate of Serampore College. Siddharta, (2000). “A Man For Our Times.” Deccan Herald (27 February).

231