On the day, Ex-Muslims International, a coalition of ex-Muslim groups and activists, is calling on women to remove their hijab and for men to wear it as a humorous way of highlighting a serious violation of women’s rights.

Of course, adults who want to wear the hijab should be able to. (Child veiling is a different matter and nothing less than child abuse.) But it’s important to recognise that on a mass and global scale, innumerable women and girls are coerced into wearing it in order to comply with Islam’s modesty rules. Acquiescence to coercion or religious directives is not the same as choice. Until women are allowed to refuse or remove it, there is no real choice involved. Choice must be preceded at the very least by legal, social, and sexual equality for it to have any real meaning.

Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says that the use of the word ‘choice’ regarding the wearing of the hijab is reminiscent of an old debate on

workers’ ‘freedom to work’ at the time of Britain’s industrialisation, i.e. a time when in order to not actually starve and die, workers’ only ‘free choice’ was to work 14 hours a day in hellish circumstances that also killed many of them, including women and children under the age of 10.

Islamists and the religious right always gift-wrap their rules as ‘choices’ and ‘rights’ to manufacture consent and legitimacy when they are not in power. When they are, their imperatives on women are always backed by threats of hell, shunning, violence, morality police, and even imprisonment and murder. The killing of Jina Mahsa Amini in Iran, which sparked the Woman, Life, Freedom revolution in 2022, is a clear example of the level of violence used by the religious right—and also the contestation of and resistance to it that exists there and everywhere.

To defend the hijab, apologists and Islamists even use the slogan ‘My Body, My Choice’, which came out of the feminist movement in the 1960s during the fight for abortion rights. A more accurate slogan would be ‘Woman’s Body, Man’s Choice’.

The call for men to don the hijab on No Hijab Day is to show that modesty is always the remit of women. How many times have we seen a woman in full burqa walking behind a man dressed in shorts and a T-shirt? This is because men will apparently not cause fitnah, or chaos, in society if they show their hair. Rivers will not run dry. Earthquakes will not follow from seeing men’s bare heads. And men certainly don’t fill hell; immodest and ungrateful women do. Hence why there is never a men’s modest clothing line sold at M&S and Dolce & Gabbana.

Modesty culture sexualises girls from a young age and puts the onus on them to protect themselves. In her 2005 book Bas les voiles! (Veils Off!), Chahdortt Djavann argues that the psychological damage done to girls from a very young age by making them responsible for men’s arousal is immense and builds fear and feelings of disgust for the female body. It also removes male accountability for violence, positioning men as predators unable to control their urges if faced with an unveiled or ‘improperly’ veiled girl or woman. It feeds into rape culture. Women are to be either protected or raped depending on how well they guard their modesty and the honour of their male guardians. Many an Islamist has absurdly argued that modesty is an important deterrent for society’s well-being: if unveiled women mix freely with men, women will lead men astray and will need to be stoned to death for adultery, so better to prevent such an outcome from the get-go by imposing modesty rules on women!

It is important to note that the hijab is the most visible symbol of a broader, all-encompassing system of sex apartheid that uses systematic violence and terror to oppress, persecute, and kill women in order to deny them equality and autonomy and exclude them in every field, including education, employment, health, the law, and the family and from public and political life. It means, for example, that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, that she cannot travel or work or study without her male guardian, that she must use a separate entrance to access government buildings, that she must sit at the back of the bus… In Afghanistan, this system is so heinous that the International Criminal Court Prosecutor has announced this month that he will seek arrest warrants against Taliban leaders over the persecution of women and girls.

Diane Nash, a leader of the 1960s US Civil Rights Movement, once said:

Segregation was humiliating. Just the reality of signs that said you couldn’t use front doors or you couldn’t use this water fountain implied that you were subhuman… Every time I complied with a sign, I felt like I was acquiescing to my own inhumanity. I felt outraged and hated it.

Similarly, sex apartheid is humiliating and deems half the population subhuman. This is why a global campaign is calling for sex apartheid (also known as gender apartheid) to be considered a crime against humanity like racial apartheid.

Despite the cost to the lives of women and girls, criticism of the hijab is often labelled ‘Islamophobic’. But as Egyptian feminist Aliaa Magda El Mahdy has put it, ‘Hijab is sexism, not anti-racism’.

In a recent submission to the Women and Equalities Committee’s session around ‘Gendered Islamophobia’, Southall Black Sisters, One Law for All, and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain stated:

The term Islamophobia…carries a problematic history. Anti-racists may use the term to refer to attacks on Muslims but the term Islamophobia has the effect of moving these experiences from an analysis of structural, systemic, and institutionalised racism to an irrational individualised fear or ‘phobia’ of Islam. It erases the connections with other forms of racism, which are often manifestations of exactly the same axis of power, violence, ideology and policies [thus shutting down much-needed conversations about women’s rights].

No Hijab Day’s theme this year is #HijabSilences (as a subversion of World Hijab Day’s theme #HijabisUnsilence), which speaks directly to the hijab’s role in erasing and silencing women and girls.

As the Ex-Muslims International statement says:

A symbol that has been used to shame, control, and suppress women cannot be used to combat intolerance and racism. A sexist tool to control and erase women is antithetical to women’s empowerment and visibility. Whilst anti-Muslim bigotry and xenophobia are undeniable, racism cannot be combatted with sexism and the hijab, rooted in modesty culture and oppression.

No Hijab Day stands in solidarity with women who resist… [and] calls for global recognition of the struggle against sex apartheid and the hijab and a commitment to supporting the fight for women’s freedom, equality, and rights.

How to take part in No Hijab Day

We are calling on women of all beliefs and backgrounds to take off their hijabs and put them on a man on 1 February. Men should also feel free to don a hijab in solidarity.

Use this opportunity to spark meaningful conversations about purity culture in Islam, challenge sex apartheid, and show your solidarity with ex-Muslim, Iranian, Afghan, and other women around the world who refuse to wear the hijab.

Share your thoughts, experiences, and support using #NoHijabDay and #HijabSilences.

Let your voice inspire real change for women’s rights.

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born campaigner, writer and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All. Author photograph: Emma Park.

Courtesy: The Freethinkers

The post Ex-Muslims observe ‘No Hijab Day’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

History of Kumbh Mela

The history of the Kumbh Mela goes back to the Hindu myths of Samudra Manthan, or the churning of ocean, which was done by the Gods and the Demons, to obtain invaluable jewels and amrita, the nectar of immortality. In the churning, the God Dhanvantari appeared with a pot in his hand filled with amrita. The son of Lord Indra, Jayant, saw the pot and snatched it from the hands of God Dhanvantari and ran to prevent the demons from consuming the amrita and becoming immortal. Jayant ran for 12 days, while taking rest at 4 places in a 3 days interval, Haridwar, Prayag, Nashik – Trimbakeshwar and Ujjain. At all these four places when Jayant stopped, he spilled some of the amrita, giving these places mystical powers. All these four places are located at the banks of holy rivers, Haridwar located on the banks of Ganga, Prayagraj has the confluence of the Ganga, Yamuna and the mythical river Saraswati, Ujjain has the Kshipra, and Nashik – Trimbakeshwar has the Godavari, often referred as Ganga of the South. It is believed that by taking a dip in these holy rivers during Kumbh, washes away one’s sins and helps them gain punya (spiritual merit).

As per divine counting, one day for the Gods is considered to be equal to one year for the humans. And therefore, every three years, Kumbh Mela takes place in one of the four cities of Prayag, Haridwar, Nashik – Trimbakeshwar and Ujjain. Normal Kumbh Mela takes place every three years, whereas the Ardh Kumbh Mela is held every six years at Haridwar and Prayagraj, and the Purna Kumbh Mela takes place every four years in one of the four cities based on the locations of planets. The Maha Kumbh Mela takes place once in 144 years at Prayagraj, after 12 Purna Kumbh Melas, as per the official website of the Kumbh Mela.

The location of Kumbh Mela is determined by the location of the Sun, moon and Jupiter in different zodiac signs in that time period.

Maha Kumbh 2025

The festivities and the celebrations in this year’s Kumbh is expected to be more extravagant than all previous iterations. With the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruling both in the Centre and the state of U.P., the event is expected to be more overt. The festival is viewed by many to be a potential symbol of Hindu unity and power. Backed by huge state resources and widespread PR campaigns, this year’s Maha Kumbh is expected to be the most expensive on record. Estimated 40 to 45 crore visitors are expected to visit the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj, as reported by the Economic Times.

As per reports, a sum of 7,000 crore Rupees has been spent by the U.P. State Government on the Maha Kumbh Mela of 2025 on infrastructure projects and sanitation facilities, with nationwide posters of Chief Minister of U.P., Hindu monk Adityanath Yogi, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on promotional material for the Maha Kumbh, 2025. 

The festival has also become a ground for sowing seeds of communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims thus making it the most polarised Kumbh Mela in history. One of the senior-most priests of the festival, Mahant Durganand Bhramachari, stated that “Kumbh Mela is a great convergence of humans, gods and our sacred rivers”, and expressed concern and dismay over attempts at using the festival to promote sectarianism and religious divide in the country.

He further added stating that “What bothers me this time is how some people are trying to polarise the atmosphere on communal lines. There has to be peaceful coexistence and hate should have no place. We see some people are trying to create Hindu-Muslim tensions,” as reported by the Guardian.

Digital innovations and AI have also been used to help with multiple problems faced by chaotic and large–scale festivities. Thousands of drones have been employed to monitor the security at the celebration. Meanwhile, devotees have each been given radio frequency wristbands to help locate lost family members that might get separated in the crowd.

While the Kumbh Mela is celebrated to promote spirituality, there have been various shortcomings with regards to the organization of the event as well as behaviours of extremist Hindu devotees who have used the festival and attempted to incite communal disparity.

Communal Disparity

The Maha Kumbh which is a spiritual and religious festival for Hindus has sadly become a ground for promoting communal disparity and rising communal tensions due to various instances. Even the Government has diverted its attention from major concerns such as the cleanliness of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna and the efficient management of the Maha Kumbh, towards petty issues creating further rifts between the Hindus and the Muslims. 

• Prohibiting Muslims from participating in the Maha Kumbh

The All India Akhara Parishad (AIAP), which has been formed by the Saints and Sadhus of 13 affiliated Akharas, has been pushing for banning the entry of Muslims and their business participation as well from the Maha Kumbh Mela, 2025. For the first time the AIAP is taking active steps by garnering support of other devotees and saints in banning the participation of Muslims and restricting their business activities in the Mela.

The rationale behind this demand of the AIAP stems out of an incident during the Kanwar Yatra, where allegedly Muslim hotels and restaurants served non-vegetarian food to the devotees taking part in the Yatra, thus hurting their religious sentiment. This, the Akhara Parishad argues, justifies their demands of restricting the participation of Muslims from the Mela.

​​Maulana Mufti Shahabuddin Razvi Barelvi, National President of the All India Muslim Jamaat, has requested the U.P. Government to intervene. He stated that “The Akhara Parishad’s decision is fostering division and promoting communalism. Such actions only serve to create rifts in society. I urge the state government to reverse this decision and take strong action against those spreading communal hatred,” as reported by India Tomorrow.

Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, supported the decision of the Akhara Parishad by arguing that just as Hindus are not allowed to visit Mecca and Madina, even Muslims should not be allowed to participate in the Maha Kumbh. He stated that “Mecca and Madina are Muslim sacred sites, and Hindus are restricted from going there. Similarly, the Kumbh is our religious festival; Muslims should have no business being involved.”

While Shankaracharya’s statement provides prima facie support to the claims of the Akhara Parishad, his claims are based on unfounded reasoning. Mecca and Madina are hosted in foreign countries and the Indian Government only exercises jurisdiction over events in India. Furthermore, with India’s history of co–existence between the Hindu and Muslim religions and taking part in each other’s festival, it is only right to allow Muslims to be a part of the biggest Hindu festival of the century.

Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind’s Uttar Pradesh legal advisor, Maulana Kaab Rashidi stated that “Such calls violate the rights enshrined in the Constitution because India is known all over the world as a secular country. So, talking about banning Muslims from Maha Kumbh is like crushing the soul of the Constitution,” as reported by Livemint.

Even the U.P. Chief Minister, Adityanath Yogi has become a part of the controversy as he stated that “Anyone who has respect for India and Sanatan traditions can come to Kumbh….people with bad mentality should not go there….they may face problems,” as reported by the Deccan Herald.

Reference can be made here to Gandhiji’s reflections of the Kumbh Mela of 1915 in his famous book My Experiments with Truth. While traveling from Saharanpur to Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, Gandhiji highlighted the inhumane conditions in which people had to travel. He then went ahead to focus on the prevalent religious prejudices, where orthodox Hindus would not consume water if the person offering them the same was Musalmani. By witnessing the dividing of food and beverages on religious lines, Gandhiji understood the extent of religious polarisation in the country. He expressed his disappointment at such a state of affairs.

These attempts at restricting the entry and business activities of Muslims in the Maha Kumbh furthers the rift between the society and becomes a ground for promoting cultural disparity in a country where different religions and cultures have coexisted for a long time.

• Fake news

Outrage sparked on January 10, 2025, as a man was caught urinating on one of the banners for Maha Kumbh in Raebareli. Media outlets and users of social media soon gave the incident a communal twist, circulating videos of the man being verbally and physically assaulted for his actions.

UttarPradesh.ORG News shared a video of the man being abused on X and said that a man from “another community” was thrashed by locals on accusations of urinating on a poster of Maha Kumbh.

Multiple users shared similar videos of the incident and labelled the man as a Muslim terrorist and expressed their concerns causing outrage over social media handles.

However, on 11 January, 2025, Raebareli police issued a statement clarifying that the name of the accused was Vinod, a Hindu vendor, and the claims that the man belonged to “another community” were entirely false. According to the statement of the Police, the accused was in an intoxicated state and urinated 3-4 feet away from the wall that had the poster and banners of Maha Kumbh, however, people present at the scene soon surrounded him and began accusing him of being from another community and started assaulting him, as reported by ALT News.

Such incidents reflect the deeply entrenched stereotypes and prejudices in the minds of people which get flared up and are exaggerated further by social media posts and false new reporting. A question however arises here, why such accusations are attributed to the Muslim community alone? Why is it that when any miscreant does any action to disturb the peace, the first assumption is made regarding his religion and his labelled as a Muslim terrorist.

There have also been incidents where people have assumed false identities as a Muslim and threatened violence just to worsen the communal rifts in our country. In the first week of January, a post on social media emerged, where a user named Nasar Pathan threatened a bomb blast at the Maha Kumbh taking the lives of at least 1000 devotees. However, after investigation by the Police, it was revealed that a student of class 11th, Ayush Kumar Jaiswal had created this fake account under the name of Nasar Pathan and posted the threat on social media handles, which spread like a wildfire, as reported by The Quint.

This incident is a recent case of a concerning trend where people impersonate themselves as Muslims to spread hateful content, make threats, or commit crimes.

This trend has become a cause of concern as it is being used to spread communal hatred and hamper the societal structure of India.

• Heightened cultural sensitivity amongst Hindus

A man was beaten up by Sadhus at the Maha Kumbh Mela, 2025, for dressing up as a sheikh at the festival. The man, who is a social media influencer, dressed as a sheikh identifying himself as Sheikh Premanand at the festival, to film content. Not much later he caught the attention of Sadhus who found his attire and his behaviour as outrageous towards their religious feelings, and physically assaulted him. His actions were perceived by the Sadhus as offensive towards the holy place and the festival, as reported by Munsif News.

However, this incident raises severe concerns about the declining cultural sensitivities of Hindus, where a man’s attire was enough to be offended upon.

Is our faith in our religion so weak that a man dressed as a sheikh could shake it, and force us to take action against him to protect our religion from his clothes of a different religion?

• Hate Speech

Yati Narsinghanand, a right-wing Hindu priest, has caused an uproar after his recent statements regarding the Maha Kumbh. The priest added another thread to the Islamophobic narrative he has been weaving by making various hate speech comments in the past as well.

The priest said that “This might be the last Maha Kumbh Mela if the population of jihadists increases and they make India an Islamic nation. Even a single temple will not be left.” He further added that “Not just temples, if the number of jihadists increases there will not be a single woman left in your house nor my house.”

The 58–year old priest has faced various criminal cases and complaints for making communally charged statements under the Indian law for hate speech. Despite his Islamophobic and misogynistic comments, Yati Narsinghanand has been allowed to roam scot–free even after having been arrested multiple times, as reported by the Siasat Daily.

On January 21, 2025, two individuals including a journalist were arrested in U.P. for allegedly making offensive comments on Maha Kumbh on social media. The content of the two individuals offended the members of the Hindu community, which led the authorities to issue alerts and increase social media monitoring, as reported by Hindustan Times.

Kamran Alvi, a journalist, was arrested after his remarks were found offensive. SHO Alok Mani Tripathi stated that “The accused was promptly arrested, and a case was registered under section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the BNS Act for insulting religious symbols. He will be presented in the court.”

In a separate case, SHO Amit Pratap Singh stated that, “Abhishek Kumar, a resident of Boja village near Jaidpur, made objectionable remarks on social media about Hindu deities and the Maha Kumbh. A case has been registered and the accused arrested.”

Critics have pointed out the double–standards adopted by the Police in dealing with cases regarding hate speech. Individuals such as Yati Narsinghanand roam scot–free and remain outside the reach of law after making hateful comments, whereas reporters from minority communities or even the ones who report instances of hate speech are immediately arrested.

Plight of Sanitation Workers

The Maha Kumbh, 2025, which is expected to have more than 40 crore devotees take a dip in the holy Triveni Sangam, the confluence of Ganga, Yamuna and mythical Saraswati, is the largest ever religious gathering.

The expected footfall poses the significant challenge of sanitation and public health. The organisers have installed more than 1,50,000 temporary toilets across the campsite on the river banks, and more than 5,000 workers have been hired to clean those toilets nearly all of whom belong to the lower rung of the archaic and rigid societal hierarchy that divides Hindus based on their roles and functions in the community. As per the official data, 9 out of the 10 sanitation workers are from marginalized communities, majority of them being Dalit, also known as the “untouchables”, as reported by The Wire.

Cleaning a toilet piled with faecal matter, Suresh Valmiki, a sanitation worker said that “I clean and clean, but people make a mess of it in barely ten minutes.” 

Five years ago, when the festival was held, Prime Minister Narendra Modi washed the feet of five sanitation workers. Many say that the move, which came 3 months before the general election, was an attempt to appeal to Hindu unity casting aside age-old caste differences in the Hindu society. However, not much has changed for the marginalised sanitation workers. 

Pyare Lal, a sanitation worker employed at the Maha Kumbh said that “Now, this grand Maha Kumbh is being organised, there are so many ads of ‘luxurious Kumbh’ but did anything change for us sanitation workers.” He further added, “We have been watching ads for Tent City, but nothing has changed in our tents.” Pyare Lal lives in one corner of the Maha Kumbh in a make-shift tent with no proper supply of electricity or water.

As reported by The Print, several sanitation workers also complained that they applied for a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), however, they have not heard anything back from the authorities, and find their futures bleak.

The jobs of sanitation workers have been made even more difficult as there are no water connections in the toilets, which has been done purposefully by the organisers to avoid the frequent suctioning of the septic tanks. As a result, the users must fill a bucket of water from a tap outside, and to avoid the same, the users carry bottles with them which they dump inside the toilet, increasing the work and difficulty for the cleaners.

A cleaner named Geeta Valmiki said, “People say it’s our job to clean the toilets, so why should they bother?” 

The plight of the sanitation workers highlights the lackadaisical attitude of the Government regarding protecting the basic human rights and the right to dignity of the cleaners. Further, not proper awareness campaigns have been conducted by the Government for the devotees who are visiting the Maha Kumbh, regarding maintaining cleanliness and the usage of toilets to avoid the over–exploitation of cleaners.

Furthermore, the abysmally inadequate and insufficient pay provided to the sanitation workers is a matter of concern. The workers who are spending all their time cleaning up after others use the toilet facilities, are being paid a daily wage of less than Rs500.

All these concerns raise questions about the management of the Maha Kumbh Mela, 2025 and the unabashed disregard towards the violation of human rights of the sanitation workers.

Influencing Media Coverage

In December 2024, the publicity wing of the Uttar Pradesh government, published a letter directing how the reporters and journalists should cover the Maha Kumbh Mela, 2025 while praising the exemplary work done by the ruling government for the organisation of the event.

The festival presents itself as a great opportunity for the journalists to report on the celebrations, however, the U.P. government has made sure to spoon–feed the journalists as to how the festival should be reported and covered in news.

The letter contains 70 detailed themes that the reporters could potentially cover, along with directions to approach the stories and whom to interview for every particular story.

Shishir, the director of the information and public relations department of the Uttar Pradesh government, sent the document to editors in Lucknow, emphasizing the need to focus on the “pre–determined” themes as mentioned in the document.

As reported by The Wire, Shishir stated “As the Mahakumbh draws closer, various related topics of immediate relevance are likely to emerge. Alongside addressing such immediate concerns, our aim is to focus on the predetermined themes as well.” 

This attempt by the government to thwart the journalists and reporters to report the festival based on their own perspectives and perception, and hampering the most fundamental element of the media, its freedom, is alarming.

Impact on Environment and Public Health

Kumbh Mela, which was recognized as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity by the United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2017, poses significant environmental and health risks that need to be mitigated.

While the World Health Organisation (WHO) has noted that due to increase in seasonal epidemics in respiratory influenza, the acute respiratory infections increase at this time of the year, along with the alert in India over the spread of the Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV), mass gatherings such as Maha Kumbh, may pose serious health risks.

An article published in Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease in 2024, available on the Researchgate website, stated that “The upcoming Kumbh Mela [2025], one of the largest religious gatherings globally, is expected to draw millions of pilgrims across India and beyond. While this event is deeply rooted in tradition and spirituality, it also presents significant public health challenges.”

Further, as per a study published by the Journal of Travel Medicine, it has been indicated that “acute respiratory infections, fever, skin disorders, diarrhoea and other infectious diseases like influenza, gastroenteritis, chickenpox, hepatitis etc can spread more easily during the Kumbh Mela because of the numerous religious events, cramped living quarters, and solid and liquid waste produced throughout the event.”

There have been various outbreaks of diseases and sporadic epidemics at the Kumbh Mela previously as well, such as in 1892, 1948, and in the 1960s, as per a report published by the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. The earliest documented record of such epidemics is the outbreak of Cholera in the year 1817.

It is also to be noted that the Kumbh Mela in 2021 had a huge impact of large gatherings which played a significant factor in the rise of COVID–19 cases.

As reported by LiveMint, Upper Mela Officer Vivek Chaturvedi has mentioned that continuous workshops are being conducted for the doctors and consultants so that they are fully equipped to handle any situation.

Further, the influx of millions of devotees has the potential to severely damage the ecological balance and harm the biodiversity. Fouling of rivers to a large number of bathers harms the aquatic ecosystem. Due to close proximity of a large number of people, the risk of water–borne diseases also drastically increases.

With millions of devotees expected to visit this year’s Maha Kumbh, the health and environmental risks are higher than ever, and would require constant monitoring and extensive efforts by the Government to mitigate the same.

Other issues with the management of Maha Kumbh

While the major challenges posed by the Maha Kumbh have been discussed, there are multiple other instances which reflect inefficient planning and management at the end of the Government.

• Stampede

In Uttar Pradesh’s Jhansi, as the devotees rushed to board a train at the Veerangana Laxmibai Railway Station, panic ensued due to a stampede. Officials reported that as the train was being repositioned, the devotees mistook the train’s movement for repositioning as departure and rushed to board the train, whereby two individuals narrowly escaped being run over by the train as reported by ETV Bharat. This incident that stemmed from a misunderstanding, led to chaos which could have claimed lives of multiple people present there.

This incident reflects the lack of vigilance and proper management of large crowds by the authorities which could have resulted in a tragic accident.

• Fire at the Kumbh Mela

In another incident, the tent city that has been set up by the Government to accommodate the visitors at the Maha Kumbh, became a centre of attention as a tragic fire consumed approximately 180 cottages, 70 to 80 huts, more than 10 tents, and goods worth crores. The fire began as a result of a gas cylinder leak in the Geeta Press Gorakhpur camp’s kitchen. Although there have been no casualties due to the fire, one individual suffered injuries while attempting to escape from the fire as reported by Financial Express. After the incident, the U.P. Government issued a fire safety advisory to all the camps at the Maha Kumbh Mela. The advisory consists of detailed important guidelines to be followed by individuals to avoid any such incidents in the future and for smooth functioning of the Maha Kumbh Mela.

However, it is pertinent to note here that potential of such incidents was not taken into account and the Government is attempting to address every challenge as it props up. Had such advisory and mandatory guidelines been issued beforehand, huge damages could have been prevented and the fire at the Maha Kumbh Mela could have been avoided.

• Use of Technology 

The Government has efficiently employed technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the better management of the Maha Kumbh. The Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC) which was originally built for Kumbh Mela – 2019, has been upgraded with latest technology to better manage and monitor the large volume of crowd expected at the festival. “Around 1,650 new CCTV cameras, 24 ANPR cameras, 40 VMCDs, 100 smart parking systems, and AI components for crown management and vehicle counting have been installed for Maha Kumbh, 2025,” as reported by the Times of India.

Crowd management and surveillance systems have been ramped up with AI controlled CCTV cameras. Pilgrims have been given Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) wristbands to ensure their safety and security. Predictive models have been used for better resource management. Internet of Things (IoT) has increased energy efficiency by optimizing electricity usage, enabling sensors in trash cans to notify when they need to be emptied, monitoring water quality of the river, etc. as reported by Boston Institute of Analytics.

With the use of technology and AI for management of Maha Kumbh, it becomes imperative to ask why such revolutionary technologies and methods are not used for crowd management and control in cases of any riots or public unrest? Why is such technology not used for better resource management in cases of natural disasters? The potential benefits of technology are vast and the same must be used by the Government in times of crisis for better management of situations.

Conclusion

The Maha Kumbh, 2025 holds special religious value for the devotees as it is celebrated once every 144 years. The festival promotes spirituality and the religious sentiments in devotees, as millions of people from the World gather to celebrate Maha Kumbh. While this is a remarkable cultural event, it poses various challenges that need to be addressed. The festival is being used by certain individuals to create communal disparity, and harm the social fabric of our society. While the sanitation workers are in a plight as their right to dignity is being violated and they are forced to work in inhumane conditions at less than subpar pay, the journalists and reporters face challenges as the most basic element of media, its freedom is being taken away. Various other instances also reflect the need for better management by the Government of the celebration. For Maha Kumbh to be truly successful, the government must ensure inclusivity, uphold human rights, address environmental and public health concerns, and prioritize effective planning and transparency to make it a celebration that truly honours its spiritual and cultural significance.

The post Unveiling the hidden challenges behind the greatest religious celebration ever: Maha Kumbh, 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are the countries wherein this monster is all set to eat violently those who nurtured it for their own vested interests. This left doing politics, normal living, and meeting people all at risk. And thousands of children, the elderly, and young people have fallen victim to it.

Media and scholarly, academic reports reveal that Muslims living in the West too are now influenced by their preachers and imams. They have begun to believe in sectarian conflicts as well as emotional slogans like a revival of the old Caliphate. Amazingly, thousands of youth born and bred in the West were recruited or joined the forces of the fake Caliphate established by the notorious Abubakar Al-Baghdadi a decade ago?

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, but what is the condition of Islamic ideology there? What is the sanctity of a human life? From time to time, a fanatic mob would rise, blaming a person for blasphemy. No matter whether he is a Muslim or non-Muslim, it would kill him in cold blood or often burn him alive. The police simply watch the spectacle, indeed, occasionally participate in the crime. Later, religious people would start justifying the heinous act by citing old jurists and their fatwas. And secularists and liberals would start condemning the act. The administration remains deaf and dumb. Judiciary very seldom takes suo motu cognizance. After a few days, the matter is normalised.  The cruel bloody mob then goes out in search of another prey. All businesses of life and religion continue to thrive!

The killing of the then Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer by his own official bodyguard a few years ago on fake charges of blasphemy is a case in point. The dastardly killer was then turned into a saint! The presumably educated advocates in Pakistani courts threw rose petals over him when he came to face the charges of murder. After his execution, his grave has been turned into a shrine. Thousands visit it regularly to pay their obeisance. What Fanaticism!

While the West is thinking of building colonies on Mars and China is conquering new vistas with AI, what is the favourite pastime of the great Muslim ulama, clergy and religious scholars of Pakistan and India, indeed even Bangladesh?  It is to make ordinary Muslims blindly believe in unverifiable predictions about the appearance of the supposed Imam Mahdi. These people are saying, day in and day out, particularly sice the genocide of Palestinians started, that Dajjal is about to come out and Mahdi has to appear and after that Jesus will come and the rule of Islam is just about to be established on the whole planet.

Religious Muslims are generally simple-minded and naive. They believe in these myths. They do not feel the need to move forward in the world. Our task should be to promote science and technology, indeed first create a scientific temperament among the rank and file of Muslims.

 History shows that this situation will finally lead to the point when the political leaders will have to resort to fighting the monster of their own making as Pakistan is compelled to do with the Taliban now. Muslim clergy and ulama in the Indian subcontinent must also repent and take a vow never to use religion for political purposes. If Muslims come to this point, they must put before them some hard facts to eradicate extremism from its foundation.

First, this demon of extremism did not come down from heaven directly. It is a cherished baby born of religious thought which is taught and studied in our religious schools and madrasas under different titles, such as the enforcement of Sharia, Jihad and eradication of infidelity, polytheism, apostasy, etc. Radicalised people and extremist movements draw inspiration from this traditional theology. They propagate it for their dastardly purposes. This prominent religious thought and its political interpretations popularly called Political Islam have been logically criticized by some thinkers and brilliant minds of Islam like Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Javed Ahmad Ghamdi. Had there not been stirring uproar, protests, and threats from ulama in the face of scientific reasoning, certainly the thought of these thinkers would have changed people’s minds and popular narratives.

Now to counter the religious radicalism in Muslim societies we have to develop a counter-narrative to the propagated traditional religious thought. Still, it is unfortunate and tragic for Muslim societies that violence and extremism prevail to protect religion and preserve Sharia.

Unfortunately, the culture of disagreement with politeness and respect has not yet developed. These situations require us to be sensitive to freedom of opinion in religious ideas and thinking. And to be frank, our clerics and religious preachers exert a policy of pressure to prevent the freedom to express free opinion. If they want to reveal the error to those who disagree with them, they can do so in an open way by resorting to the weapon of knowledge and reasoning. The world of knowledge does not accommodate compulsion, protests, uproar, and tyranny. It is a counter-narrative of popular religious thought presented by the likes of Mr. Ghamidi that alone can reform the situation in the Muslim community, not propaganda of secularism or anti-religionism. Iqbal the poet and philosopher tried a century ago to draw our attention to the same truth in his lectures on the need for reconstruction of religious thought that he delivered in Aligarh and elsewhere. Sir Syed and his school of thought made the same effort.

Second, in secular fields, we do not allow someone to establish institutions to graduate children and boys as doctors, engineers, or skilled in any division and department of science and arts. This cannot be done without giving Muslim children general education for twelve years or so. But children and young people are trained as religious scholars in madrasas and centres of religious learning. These madrasas close the door of modern learning on them altogether and play with their future lives. Some of them could have been doctors, some of them engineers, poets, writers, photographers, etc.. But these madrasas, regardless of their aptitude, taste, inclinations, or qualifications, make great efforts to make them religious scholars only and deprive them of all opportunities to choose an area of science and art of their own choice.  They cut their ties to society and made them aliens in their own societies by depriving them of general public education for twelve years. Therefore, it has become necessary to prohibit religious schools, like all other institutes of specialized education, from interfering with a student without giving him general education up to 12 grade.

We can say with confidence that this one step alone will change the current situation created by the institutes of religious education. As Founder-Editor of NewAgeIslam.com, Mr. Sultan Shahin told the UN Human Rights Council at Geneva some time ago, madrasa education is the biggest violation of the human rights of Muslim children. Every child has the right to acquire general education before going in  for specialisation in any field. If we don’t give our children medical or engineering education at the age of five, then why burden them with theology at such a tender age. Young children and adolescents need general education first. They should have the choice to go in for any specialisation they want.

Thirdly, it is necessary to end the dominance of clerics and preachers of hate in masjids and mosques. They generally use Friday pulpits for their vested interests in Muslim societies. If we don’t do this, we cannot escape extremism. Who does not know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) established a Sunnah regarding the Friday prayer? It was that the Imam (head of government) or whoever he appoints is entitled to lead the Friday prayer and deliver the sermon. No one else is permitted to use this pulpit unless they have this specific instruction from the ruler.

However, throughout the decadent age, Muslim monarchs typically lacked the necessary tools to perform this function. They gave the Friday pulpits to the clergy and Ulama. Since then, the Ulama and clergy have gained such clout that they utilize Jumma (Friday) sermons and mosque pulpits to push their objectives and vested interests in Muslim societies.

This has resulted in deepening the sectarian lines. Now separated along sectarian and Fiqhi lines,  in lieu of God’s mosques we have Ahle Hadis mosques and the Hanaf mosques, Deobandi mosques, and the Barelvi mosques, etc. They ought to be God’s mosques alone wherein worship of Allah is practiced.

 Mosques are now becoming hubs for extremism and sectarianism. The mosque must be run by a collective management of Muslims and should not be used by individuals, movements, or organizations to spread a particular theological or political message. Mosques are houses of God. They must not be transformed  into sites of conflict and disunity among Muslims. They should never be used to radicalise Muslims for a particular purpose. This is an essential step.

Research Associate with Centre for Promotion of Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims of India, AMU Aligarh.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Muslim societies need counter-narrative to radicalisation and religious extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Main Points:

1. Wahhabism: A Source of Division
2. Islam at its core is a religion of peace and tolerance, but Wahhabism’s violent interpretations distort this message.
3. The movement fosters sectarian division rather than unity, destabilizing Muslim societies.
4. Wahhabism’s interpretations have been linked to global terrorism, misrepresenting Islam as a violent religion.

There are individuals who identify as Wahhabi, Ahle Hadis, or Salafi (terms commonly used to describe those who follow the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi, and thus branches of Wahhabism) and assert that they do not support extremist ideologies or violent actions. While some adherents of these movements may sincerely believe in a puritanical interpretation of Islam, it is undeniable that Salafism and Wahhabism, in their more extreme forms, have been linked to significant political, ideological, and social upheaval in the Muslim world. The impact of these ideologies on both the understanding of Islam and the state of global affairs is complex, but it is evident that these movements have contributed to some of the most troubling aspects of contemporary Islam.

Wahhabism: Ideology of Control and Division

Wahhabism, in its origin and its contemporary manifestations, was established with a vision of consolidating political power and religious orthodoxy. At its heart, Wahhabism sought to purify Islam by stripping away what its proponents considered to be innovations (Bid’ah) and superstitions that had crept into the practice of the faith. While this idea of purging Islam of practices not directly derived from the Quran or Hadith may appeal to some Muslims, it often leads to a rigid and exclusionary approach, where those who deviate from the Wahhabi interpretation are labelled as apostates or innovators.

The tendency to declare Muslims as “Kafir” (disbelievers) or “Mushrik” (polytheists) for engaging in certain practices—such as visiting the graves of saints, celebrating the Prophet’s birthday, or seeking intercession—has resulted in an environment of fear and division. This relentless focus on “purity” has led some followers to justify violence against fellow Muslims who do not adhere to the Wahhabi creed, branding them as heretics or apostates. Such ideological purges have caused widespread strife and bloodshed, as various groups within the Muslim community are treated as enemies rather than brothers and sisters in faith.

In this climate of extreme sectarianism, Wahhabism’s emphasis on violent jihad as a central tenet of its ideology has paved the way for radicalized groups. Groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others have taken inspiration from these interpretations, using them to justify terrorist acts and the imposition of their own narrow version of Islamic rule. This connection between Wahhabism and global terrorism has had far-reaching consequences, not only for the Muslim world but for the perception of Islam in the international arena.

The Disconnect from the Spirit of Islam

At its core, Islam is a religion of peace, harmony, and tolerance. The very word “Islam” comes from the root word “Salaam,” which means peace. The spirit of Islam calls for the peaceful coexistence of all people, regardless of their faith, and emphasizes compassion, justice, and mercy. However, Wahhabism, with its rigid and militant interpretation of the faith, has distanced itself from these essential principles. By focusing heavily on violence and the imposition of a singular interpretation of Islam, it has neglected the broader, inclusive message of Islam that encourages peace, unity, and dialogue.

Instead of embracing diversity within the Muslim community, Wahhabism has fostered an environment where followers are encouraged to view other Muslims as enemies if they do not conform to its strict orthodoxy. This departure from the spirit of Islam has created rifts within the Muslim world, leading to ideological, theological, and sometimes physical battles between factions. In this sense, Wahhabism has contributed to the destabilization of Muslim societies, as people who should be united by their shared faith are instead divided by doctrinal differences.

Wahhabism and the Narrative of Terrorism

Wahhabism’s global influence has put Muslims in a difficult position where, increasingly, they have to clarify to the world that Islam itself is not a violent religion. While the majority of Muslims reject extremist ideologies, the association of Islam with terrorism persists, largely because of the actions of radical groups who claim to represent Islam while adhering to distorted interpretations of its teachings. The emergence of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram has made it necessary for Muslims to constantly explain that their religion advocates for peace, not violence.

The unfortunate reality is that Wahhabism has become synonymous with the rise of ideological terrorism in many parts of the world. This is not because Wahhabism represents the true essence of Islam, but because its interpretation has been twisted by extremists seeking to justify their violent actions. The damaging impact of this is twofold: not only does it tarnish the reputation of Islam globally, but it also leaves Muslims to grapple with the misconception that their faith promotes terror, rather than peace.

Wahhabism and Its Allegiance with Israel and Western Powers

One of the most troubling aspects of Wahhabism is its political alignment with Western powers and Israel. While the movement is often positioned as a defender of Islam, it has been accused of maintaining strategic relationships with entities that are seen as adversaries to the broader Muslim world. The Saudi regime, which is a major proponent of Wahhabism, has been a longstanding ally of the United States and other Western nations, despite their involvement in conflicts that have caused immense suffering in Muslim-majority regions, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, Wahhabism’s relationship with Israel is highly controversial. Despite Saudi Arabia’s historical stance on supporting the Palestinian cause, the influence of Wahhabism within the kingdom has created a complex situation where the regime has been accused of tacitly aligning with Israel and its interests in the region. This political alignment undermines the narrative that Wahhabism is solely concerned with defending Islam; rather, it reveals a more pragmatic and opportunistic agenda that focuses on maintaining political power and securing relationships with global powers, even at the expense of Muslim solidarity.

This dual narrative—one of aggressive religious puritanism and another of political alignment with global powers—adds another layer of complexity to Wahhabism’s role in the Muslim world. It shows that while Wahhabi leaders may present themselves as champions of Islam, their actions often betray their true agenda, which involves the consolidation of power and influence at the expense of both religious and political unity among Muslims.

The Dangers of Wahhabism’s Legacy

While not all individuals who identify as Salafi or Wahhabi support violent extremism, the ideological foundations laid by these movements have undeniably contributed to the rise of terrorism and the deep divisions within the Muslim world. Wahhabism’s narrow interpretation of Islam, its promotion of violence against those deemed as apostates or innovators, and its political alliances with Western powers and Israel have played a significant role in the ongoing strife in the Muslim world.

As a result, the larger Muslim community must continue to push back against these extremist ideologies and reclaim the true spirit of Islam—a religion of peace, tolerance, and harmony for all people. Only by rejecting the divisive and violent narratives perpetuated by Wahhabism can Muslims hope to rebuild unity within their communities and present a more accurate understanding of Islam to the rest of the world.

Wahhabi and Salafi Scholars’ Role in Ideological Terrorism

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars have contributed to the spread of ideological terrorism by offering specific interpretations of Islamic texts, especially those regarding jihad, the role of violence, and the legitimacy of acts deemed as “holy war.” Some of their interpretations have been used by extremist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, to justify violence. Below are some of the key narratives and interpretations promoted by certain Wahhabi-Salafi scholars, which have been controversial and linked to growing ideological terrorism?

1. Interpretation of Jihad as Violent Warfare

One of the central aspects of Wahhabi and Salafi ideology is the interpretation of jihad as not just a spiritual struggle, but as a violent form of warfare against perceived enemies of Islam.

Example: Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328) argued that jihad was obligatory in defence of Islam. Radical groups have cited this interpretation to justify violent jihad against both non-Muslims and Muslims deemed apostates.

2. Takfirism – Declaring Muslims as Apostates

Takfirism, the practice of declaring Muslims as apostates, is central to Salafi-Wahhabi thought, justifying violence against those who do not adhere strictly to their interpretation.

Example: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) declared practices such as seeking intercession through saints to be forms of polytheism and thus justified violence against those who engaged in them.

3.       The Obligation to Wage War against Non-Muslims

Wahhabi-Salafi scholars have interpreted certain Quranic verses as endorsing perpetual warfare against non-believers.

Example: Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (1910–1999), former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, advocated the necessity of jihad against non-believers, a view referenced by extremists.

4. The Concept of “Defensive Jihad” Against Western Powers

Some Wahhabi-Salafi scholars advocate defensive jihad against perceived enemies of Islam, particularly Western powers.

Example: Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966) called for jihad to overthrow non-Islamic rule, particularly Western influence, which influenced extremist groups like al-Qaeda.

5. Martyrdom and Rewards in Paradise

Wahhabi-Salafi thought often emphasizes the rewards of martyrdom in paradise for those who engage in jihad, particularly suicide bombers.

Example: Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292–1350) wrote about the rewards for martyrs, which have been exploited by extremist groups like ISIS.

6.         The Call for the Establishment of an Islamic State

Radical Salafi scholars advocate for the violent establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law.

Example: Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (b. 1959) has argued for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish a pure Islamic state.

Conclusion

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars, through their radical interpretations, have contributed to the ideological terrorism that has destabilized regions and fostered extremism. Their influence, particularly regarding jihad, takfirism, and martyrdom, has been central to justifying violence in the name of Islam. While mainstream Islam condemns these interpretations, their continued influence in extremist circles demands a counter-narrative to promote a peaceful and contextualized understanding of Islam.

Kaniz Fatma is a classic Islamic scholar and a regular columnist for New Age Islam.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Wahhabism, Ahle Hadis, or Salafism’s Impact on the Muslim World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

IMSD calls upon Muslims to recall the views expressed by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan well over a century ago. In his time, he staunchly opposed Muslims who made a bonfire of books they did not like, or demanded its ban by the authorities. His advice was simple. Fight words with words if the book in question is worthy of a reasoned critique. Burning or banning such books implies that Muslims are incapable of an intellectual and moral defense of their faith. If the book (cartoon, play, film) is nothing but a gratuitous, salacious or malicious attack on Islam or its Prophet, his suggestion was: ignore it.

In 1861, an English writer William Muir had written a book in which he had made disparaging remarks against Prophet Mohammad. In response, Sir Syed travelled to London to study the books and journals that Muir had relied on and eight years later published a reasoned critique debunking Muir’s work.

Sir Syed’s advice to his fellow Muslims long ago is all the more relevant in today’s ‘new India’ where minorities are daily targets of Hindutva’s hate politics. Any ill-advised or hotheaded response to the publication of Satanic Verses – a book not Many Muslims are likely to have read earlier or will read now — will only provide more fodder to the Muslim-baiters. Besides, it will only give free publicity to the very book they want banished.

IMSD does draw the line between Free Speech, which it fully supports, and Hate Speech, which it staunchly opposes. While, the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech, the law of the land also provides for penal action against hate speech.

Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, have the right to be offended by a book, cartoon, play or film and they have the right to protest in peaceful manner. They are also within their right to invoke existing provisions of criminal law to seek redressal of their grievance. But they do not have the right to silence the offender. A fatwa, firman or call to kill Salman Rushdie, as also the demand for a ban on Satanic Verses amounts to just that: silencing the offender.

Signatories:

1. Aarefa Johari, Gender rights activist, journalist, Mumbai
2. Akbar Shaikh, IMSD, Bhartiya Muslim Yuva Andolan, Solapur
3. Ahmad Rashid Shervani, Educationist, Hyderabad
4. A. J. Jawad, IMSD, Co-convener, Advocate, Chennai
5. Amir Rizvi, IMSD, Designer, Mumbai
6. Anwar Hussain, Corporate Executive
7. Anwar Rajan, IMSD, Pune
8. Arshad Alam, IMSD, Columnist, New Age Islam, Delhi
9. Askari Zaidi, IMSD, Senior Journalist, Delhi
10. Bilal Khan, IMSD, Activist, Mumbai
11. Farhan Rahman, Asst. Prof., Ranchi University, Ranchi
12. Feroz Abbas Khan, theatre and film director, playwright and screenwriter, Mumbai
13. Feroze Mithiborwala, IMSD, Co-convener, Bharat Bachao Andolan, Mumbai
14. Gauhar Raza, Anhad, Delhi
15. Hasan Ibrahim Pasha, Writer, Allahabad
16. A. J. Jawad, IMSD, Co-convener, Advocate, Chennai
17. Irfan Engineer, IMSD Co-convener, CSSS, Mumbai
18. Javed Anand, IMSD Convener, CJP, SabrangIndia Online, Mumbai
19. Kasim Sait, Businessman, Philanthropist, Chennai
20. Khadija Farouqui, IMSD, Gender rights activist, Delhi
21. Lara Jesani, IMSD, PUCL, Mumbai
22. Mansoor Sardar, IMSD, Bhiwandi
23. Masooma Ranalvi, IMSD, We Speak Out, Delhi
24. Mohammed Imran, PIO, USA
25. Muniza Khan, IMSD, CJP, Varanasi
26. Nasreen Fazelbhoy, IMSD, Mumbai
27. Qaisar Sultana, Home Maker, Allahabad
28. Qutub Jahan, IMSD, NEEDA, Mumbai
29. (Dr) Ram Puniyani, IMSD, Author, Activist, Mumbai
30. Sabah Khan, IMSD, Parcham, Mumbra/Mumbai
31. Shabana Mashraki, IMSD, Consultant, Mumbai
32. Shabnam Hashmi, Anhad, Delhi
33. (Dr) Shahnawaz Alam, IMSD
34. Shalini Dhawan, Designer, Mumbai
35. Shama Zaidi, Documentary Film Maker, Mumbai
36. Shamsul Islam, Author, Delhi
37. Sohail Hashmi, IMSD, Sahmat, Delhi
38. Sultan Shahin, Editor-in chief and publisher, New Age Islam, Delhi
39. Teesta Setalvad, Secretary, CJP, IMSD, Mumbai
40. Yousuf Saeed, Documentary Film Maker, Delhi
41. Zakia Soman, Co-convener BMMA, Delhi
42. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, IMSD, Wisdom Foundation, Mumbai

The post Fight words with words, IMSD opposes banning of books appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The election results would reveal to what extent his call influenced the voters and helped the secular alliance. However, his direct involvement in the electoral process by releasing the lists of candidates at a press conference has already been exploited by the BJP to mobilise Hindu voters. It remains unclear how successful the BJP’s efforts were.

Referring to the lists issued by Maulana Nomani, dDeputy Chief Minister and BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis appealed to Hindu voters to consolidate against this move. He did not mince words, stating that the Muslim voter mobilisation (referred to as “vote jihad”) in favour of the secular alliance should be answered by a “religious war” (dharma yudh) from the Hindu side. Speaking to journalists, he outlined the BJP’s strategy: “Although we are seeking votes for our development work, if someone says to engage in ‘vote jihad’ to defeat the BJP, we will respond with a dharma yudh of votes.”

Beyond the BJP’s response, Maulana Nomani’s selection of candidates has also sparked an internal debate within the Muslim community. Supporters of excluded candidates, particularly those from the Muslim community, expressed deep disappointment. This led to questions and a heated debate about the criteria and methods the Maulana used to finalise his “lists”. Some critics went so far as to question the Maulana’s credibility, demanding a public explanation of the selection process.

This controversy feeds into a broader debate about the blurring of the boundary between religion and politics. Parties engaged in majoritarian politics have already eroded much of the separation by mobilising voters on religious grounds, using Hindu religious leaders to consolidate their base. Worse still, leaders of Hindu right-wing parties frequently win elections by campaigning on anti-Muslim platforms, delivering hateful speeches, and spreading anti-minority propaganda before and during elections. These communal and majoritarian trends, fuelled by the involvement of religious leaders, pose a serious threat to our secular republic and must be reversed.

However, the involvement of Muslim religious figures in electoral politics, even with good intentions, could undermine the very goal of preserving secularism. This is the flip side of the story. A Muslim religious scholar, like any other citizen, is free to engage in politics and support any candidate. There is no doubt about this. But political involvement is a public act, and people have the right to agree or disagree with the clergy’s actions. Asking such questions should not be seen as an attempt to demonize or silence Muslim religious leaders. I will return to this point shortly. 

Elections and the clergy

The elections for all 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra were conducted in a single phase on November 20, with results scheduled to be declared three days later, on November 23. In the current political landscape of Maharashtra, the primary contest is expected to be between the opposition MVA (Maha Vikas Aghadi) and the ruling BJP-led Mahayuti alliance. The MVA consists of Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (SHS-UBT), Sharad Pawar’s NCP (SP faction), and the Congress, supported by the Samajwadi Party, the Peasants and Workers Party of India (PWP), the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and a few independent MLAs. The Mahayuti alliance, on the other hand, includes the BJP, the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction), and Ajit Pawar’s NCP.

In addition to these two major alliances, Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) is another influential player in Maharashtra politics. While AIMIM fielded 44 candidates in the 2019 assembly elections, this time it has announced only 16 candidates, marking a significant reduction in the number of contested seats. Although AIMIM secured only two seats in the previous elections, it now seeks to focus its efforts on fewer constituencies to achieve better results.

Another notable participant in Maharashtra’s political arena is the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), led by former Member of Parliament Prakash Ambedkar, the grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The VBA, which has a strong social base among Dalits, has fielded 51 candidates. In the 2019 General Elections, the AIMIM and the VBA forged an alliance, garnering a combined 14% vote share. Consequently, smaller parties like AIMIM and VBA, which represent some of the most marginalised communities in society, cannot be overlooked. However, most candidates from AIMIM and VBA were excluded from Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s endorsed lists.

The AIMIM, which contested the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly Elections and secured two seats in Malegaon and Dhule City, has been ignored by both the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and Maulana Sajjad Nomani. However, Owaisi, unlike the allies of the so-called secular MVA, has been more vocal about raising Muslim issues, both in Parliament and beyond. Yet, his party was not included in the Maulana’s list of preferred candidates.

Maulana Nomani has not explained his reasons for excluding AIMIM and VBA candidates. Instead, he released a statement alongside his lists of preferred candidates on his official Twitter account. In the statement, Maulana Nomani—who is a member of the working executive of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the founding chairman of the Rahmani Foundation—claimed that the candidates were selected based on “extensive research, ground surveys, and in-depth analysis.” However, the statement does not provide any details regarding the methodology, sample size, or specifics of his research, survey, and analysis. The statement merely justified the selection, predominantly from the MVA, by emphasizing the significance of the Maharashtra Assembly Elections in the current political scenario. Elaborating further, Maulana Nomani stated, “Each election is a test as well as testimony to the strength of the country’s democracy and our faith in it.” His statement ended with optimism, expressing hope that the elections would result in the formation of “a secular and inclusive government.” This led to questions about whether Maulana’s support for Owaisi-led AIMIM and Ambedkar-led VBA candidates would have made his selection more “secular” and “inclusive.”

Maulana Sajjad Nomani is an eminent Islamic scholar, followed by a section of Sunni Muslims. His association with Deoband, Nadwa, and the Tablighi Jamaat is seen by politicians as political capital, to be leveraged during election campaigns. His religious background is viewed as an asset by those more interested in securing Muslim votes than genuinely working for their welfare. This is something Maulana Nomani needs to be cautious about.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani was born in Lucknow in 1955 and claims ancestral roots in Turkey. His father, Maulana Mohammad Manzoor Nomani, was a renowned Islamic scholar and an alumnus of Darul Uloom Deoband. Maulana Manzoor Nomani authored several influential books, including Islami Kya Hai (What is Islam?), a concise introduction to Islam that remains widely sold and appreciated to this day. While Maulana Sajjad Nomani benefited from his father’s legacy, he has carved his own path as a scholar, author, orator, and expert in Islamic studies.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani pursued his early education at Nadwat Ul-Ulama in Lucknow and Darul Uloom Deoband. Later, he earned a doctorate in Quranic Studies from Madina University in Saudi Arabia. Beyond his scholarly work, Maulana Sajjad Nomani is actively involved in education. He manages educational institutions and serves as the editor of Al-Furqan. In 1995, he founded the NGO Rahman Foundation, which is dedicated to supporting the poor, orphans, widows, and the oppressed. His efforts span across vast areas, with notable contributions in Maharashtra, where he runs madrasas and leads the Khanqah Nomaniya Mujaddidiyah in Neral (Raigad district), about a two-hour journey from Mumbai. Maulana Sajjad Nomani is also active on social media, regularly sharing video lectures that reach a wide audience.

He has never shied away from sharing political platforms or shifting his political loyalties. For a long time, he was associated with Waman Meshram, the national president of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF). Established by former BSP president Manyavar Kanshi Ram, D.K. Khaparde, and Dinabhana in 1971, BAMCEF is an Ambedkarite organization. While Maulana’s speeches at BAMCEF included scathing criticism of secular parties for betraying the causes of Dalits and Muslims, his recent political positions have favoured secular parties. This shift in loyalty may explain his exclusion of AIMIM and VBA candidates. It appears that Maulana has moved away from his earlier political message of forging a Dalit-Muslim alliance to challenge Brahmanical parties.

The Maulana and His critics

While the supporters of Maulana Sajjad Nomani have praised his efforts to release lists of endorsed candidates, calling them “great initiatives” and urging Muslims to follow his “wisdom,” many others have criticized his actions. A section of the Muslim community has expressed frustration with the Maulana for excluding a significant number of candidates from Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM and other political outfits representing marginalized communities. Critics argue that Owaisi, in sharp contrast to the leaders of secular parties, has been far more vocal about the concerns of minorities and other weaker sections. They claim that while secular parties have increasingly leaned toward soft Hindutva to counter the BJP, AIMIM has raised genuine issues. Secular parties, under the guise of adopting a “practical” strategy, have nearly stopped addressing Muslim issues in their manifestos and speeches, offering only symbolic gestures at best. Despite this, the Maulana has expressed support for these secular parties without clarifying whether they have assured him of any concrete measures to address the social, educational, and economic backwardness of Muslims if they come to power.

Notably, the Maulana’s list omits any mention of how the secular alliance has ignored Muslim concerns before or during their campaigns in Maharashtra. Secular parties often assume that Muslims will vote for them by default as the only alternative to communal forces. This contrasts sharply with Owaisi, who, more than most leaders from either secular or communal parties, has consistently spoken as a radical constitutionalist and effectively raised minority issues. Despite this, the Maulana did not give preference to the Owaisi-led AIMIM in his recommendations.

Against this backdrop, a significant section of Muslims has begun questioning Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s approach. Social media platforms are flooded with reactions and comments, casting doubt on the processes and criteria he used to include or exclude candidates. The backlash against the Maulana has been expressed in multiple ways. He has been accused of “selling out” the interests of the Muslim community, and some have questioned his shifting political loyalties, with a few even accusing him of working in favour of communal parties. Others have warned that such actions could damage the prestige and dignity of the Ulama (religious scholars), particularly if their recommendations fail to gain public support.

The criticisms against Maulana Sajjad Nomani also stem from his failure to address the shortcomings of secular parties in defending Muslim interests. Some Muslims have gone so far as to accuse the Maulana of issuing his list of preferred candidates in exchange for monetary benefits. Others allege that he acted as a spokesperson for secular parties under the guise of a religious scholar. Another critique is that Muslim religious leaders often provide “free” services to secular parties out of fear of the BJP. Additionally, some critics have questioned the Maulana’s influence, suggesting that his appeal would go unheard. Allegations of personal gain were also raised, with claims that the Maulana released the list hoping to be rewarded with a Rajya Sabha seat. Beyond releasing the list of candidates, the Maulana has also been criticized for “blessing” politicians ahead of the elections. In some instances, candidates and politicians were reportedly allowed to visit the Maulana’s office and be photographed with him, with these images later shared on social media to influence voters.

Muslim intellectuals, activists, and the secular intelligentsia have also raised concerns about the Maulana’s involvement in electoral politics. Professor Akhtarul Wasey, who taught Islamic studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, opined that the involvement of religious figures from any community is not good for a secular democracy. “The way we have criticized the political use of religious figures by non-Muslims, we should also criticize such acts committed by any Muslim.”

Tanweer Alam, a resident of Mumbai and president of the Aligarh Muslim University Alumni Association (Maharashtra chapter), is highly disappointed by Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s political activities, particularly during the assembly elections. “We need to strongly oppose the involvement of Muslim religious figures in political activities. Our opposition is not because we want to silence any voice or disenfranchise those with whom we disagree. Any religious scholar from the Muslim community who becomes active during elections should be closely observed. My disagreement with the respected Maulana is on two points. First, who has authorized him to speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community? Second, how does the Maulana claim to have political understanding when he makes highly irresponsible statements that can be exploited by communal forces? For example, a viral video is circulating in which he is allegedly heard saying he would boycott those who voted for the BJP. I am not sure if the video is authentic, but if it is, then he has harmed the cause of both Muslims and the country by giving a clear opportunity to communal forces.”

Ahmad Jawed, a senior journalist and former editor of the Inquilab Urdu daily (Patna edition), described Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s actions as “counterproductive.” He elaborated on his position with the following words: “With due respect to Maulana Sajjad Nomani, it should be noted that people issuing so-called fatwa, [legal ruling by Islamic scholars] farman, [order] or appeals have not had any significant impact on the electoral politics of India. A careful analysis of India’s electoral behaviour shows that Muslim voters are not influenced by fatwa, farman, or any such appeal. Each time, Muslim voters have prioritized the interests of the nation, the principles of secularism, and issues of governance, law, and justice”.

Dr. John Dayal, a veteran journalist, writer, human rights activist, ex-member of the National Integration Council (Government of India), and former national president of the All India Catholic Union, is widely regarded as one of the strongest secular voices in civil society. When asked to comment on the matter, he said, “The political party is the direct beneficiary of the support of religious leadership, who in turn enjoy this patronage for their places of worship and for themselves, individually or collectively.”

Some clarifications

While the instances of majoritarian parties politically exploiting religious figures are innumerable—and one of the main planks of their political mobilisation—there are also instances where Muslim religious figures have been drawn into the political arena. Long before Maulana Sajjad Nomani, the ruling elites used Shahi Imams, constructing their image as leaders of Indian Muslims to consolidate Hindu voters. For example, during the 2004 General Elections, Syed Ahmad Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid, appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP in the Gujarat elections, overlooking the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in massive loss of life, primarily among Muslims, under BJP rule. His appeal backfired, and the BJP was voted out of power. Similarly, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Himayat Committee, formed to gain Muslim support with the backing of several Muslim religious scholars, also failed to help the BJP secure an electoral victory. Currently, Hindutva forces have floated the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), whose Muslim members are trained to justify Hindutva agendas using the language of Islam.

However, it is not implied here that Maulana Sajjad Nomani released his list of candidates at the behest of any political party. It’s possible that he issued such a list on his own to draw media attention and place himself at the centre of Maharashtra politics. But the bigger question is how much influence he actually has over the Muslim community. While his influence among a section of Muslims is not dismissed, it is doubtful that he holds sway over the entire Muslim community. It is also uncertain if younger generations of Muslims are inclined to follow a top-down approach in decision-making. Instead, they prefer to weigh multiple factors before choosing their political affiliations.

Let me share a personal example to illustrate this point. On December 15, 2019, a large number of activists gathered at the Delhi Police Headquarters to protest the police crackdown on anti-CAA protesters at Jamia Millia Islamia. Suddenly, a prominent Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader appeared at the protest site and tried to discourage the protesters, most of whom were Muslims, from continuing. Muslim youths, however, rejected this advice outright.

Both Muslim religious scholars and the Hindu right often make the mistake of considering the Muslim community as a homogenous group, painting it primarily as a religious bloc because it suits their agendas. However, the sociological reality is that the Muslim community is sharply divided along lines of caste, class, gender, language, and region. While the Holy Quran is universally revered and Prophet Mohammad holds a central place in the Islamic faith, differences emerge in interpretations of Islamic teachings by the Ulama. These differences give rise to various religious sects and schools of jurisprudence within the Muslim community. As a result, no single religious leader can claim the authority to influence the entire Muslim population.

This raises the question of whether it is desirable for any religious leader to speak for the whole Muslim community. A larger concern is how beneficial the involvement of a religious figure—without clear ideological clarification and political strategy—is for the community. Will such appeals by religious figures serve a constructive purpose, or will they be exploited by communal forces to reinforce the myth that the Muslim community is controlled by the clergy? Hindu right-wing and anti-Muslim commentators are likely to overlook the vibrant internal debates and diversity within the Muslim community, focusing instead on such acts to perpetuate stereotypes. This is exactly what the BJP is doing in Maharashtra by citing the Maulana’s list as an example of “vote jihad” against Hindus. However, Hindutva forces conveniently ignore the fact that the Maulana’s actions have drawn significant criticism from within the Muslim community itself.

It is important to note that Islam does not grant clergy an indispensable or centralised authority. However, it is also true that certain members of the clergy play an active role in guiding the community in social, religious, and political matters. When they enter the political domain, however, it tends to erode the boundaries between religion and politics in a democratic polity. While majoritarian symbols and practices are often universalized in the name of national culture and way of life, minority religious symbols are demonized as “alien.” But this cannot justify the instrumental use of religious figures from minority communities for electoral mobilization, as such practices have the potential to undermine the secular-democratic republic.

Let me clarify a point before I conclude. My disagreement with the participation of religious leaders in electoral politics is not an attempt to silence any voice. Nowhere have I argued that a religious scholar should be silenced, nor is my criticism of a religious leader aimed at suppressing minority voices. In fact, my concern over the instrumental use of religious figures stems from a desire to strengthen the genuine voices of the minority community. Just as Maulana Nomani has every right to hold a political opinion, support or oppose any political outfit, and endorse or reject any candidate, we too have the right to seek a public explanation from the Maulana about the methods and processes involved in finalizing his list of candidates. His statements and endorsements are not private affairs; they have public significance, and he should be held accountable for his political actions. As someone involved in the political arena, he should not be immune from criticism.

Let me reiterate that a religious leader has every right to issue a list of endorsed candidates and campaign for their victory, directly or indirectly. However, our disagreement lies in whether a religious scholar’s direct involvement in electoral politics has ever truly advanced the cause of marginalised groups. Likewise, if a religious scholar is free to publicly share a list of endorsed candidates with claims that a proper method was followed in the selection process, is it not reasonable to ask him to explain the criteria for that selection?

Most would agree that the secular foundation of Indian democracy discourages religious mobilisation in electoral politics. While religion has always played some role in elections, efforts should focus on minimising its influence, not validating it. Majoritarian parties have consistently exploited religious sentiments, presenting communalism as nationalism. When such tactics are imitated by secular forces or minority groups, they often prove counterproductive.

In fact, my essay does not aim to target any particular individual, nor the community he or she claims to represent. Rather, it raises important questions and seeks a public debate. For instance, was issuing a list of endorsed candidates at the last moment before the elections truly the best way to serve the minority community? If such a practice is considered “legitimate,” how can the Hindu right—which brazenly uses religion for electoral mobilization and stokes communal tensions—be criticized alone? While Maulana Nomani may be optimistic about transferring his supporters’ votes to his preferred candidates, should he also consider the potential counter-mobilization by Hindutva forces? Ultimately, who benefits the most from the alliance between politicians and religious figures? These pertinent questions demand careful deliberation and cannot be ignored.

(The author holds a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University. His doctoral research focused on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com; Views expressed are personal)

The post Who stands to gain the most from an alliance between politicians and religious leaders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rationalist Tradition in Islamic Thought

The rationalist tradition in Islamic philosophy emerged in a context where diverse intellectual currents were converging. Philosophers such as Abū Bakr al-Rāzī and Ibn al-Hasan al-Tūsī engaged deeply with the works of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle and Plato, while simultaneously addressing the unique challenges posed by Islamic theology. This synthesis of Hellenistic philosophy and Islamic thought laid the groundwork for a rich discourse on natural rights and the moral foundations of law.

Among the notable figures is Ibn Bāja (d. 533/1139), who emphasized the importance of reason as a means to understand the divine order. His writings reflect a belief that human beings, endowed with reason, can discern natural laws that govern both the cosmos and human conduct. Similarly, Ibn Rushd(d. 595/1198), known in the West as Averroes, championed the harmony between religion and philosophy. His commentaries on Aristotle were pivotal in promoting rational inquiry as a legitimate path to understanding religious truths.

Another significant thinker, Ibn Tufayl(d. 581/1185), explored the implications of natural law through his philosophical novel Hayy ibn Yaqdhan. The story illustrates how a human being, through reason and observation, can arrive at knowledge of God and moral truths without the need for religious texts. This notion of self-discovery through reason underscores a broader rationalist perspective that transcends dogma.

The Development of Islamic Natural Rights

The contributions of these scholars culminated in the classical natural rights thesis, which posits that rights are inherent to human beings and can be discerned through reason. This idea resonates with contemporary discussions on human rights, highlighting a historical precedent for the recognition of individual dignity and moral agency within Islamic thought.

Rationalist jurists such as Ibn ‘Aqīl (d. 581/1185) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) further enriched this discourse by engaging with the ethical implications of natural law. They argued that justice is not merely a reflection of divine command but can be understood through rational deliberation. This perspective laid the groundwork for a more nuanced interpretation of Sharia that incorporated ethical reasoning alongside traditional jurisprudence.

The School of Illumination, founded by al-Suharwardy (d. 587/1191), introduced a mystical dimension to rationalism, suggesting that intellectual illumination could lead to a deeper understanding of divine truths. This integration of mysticism with rational thought provided a holistic approach to natural law, suggesting that moral truths could be accessed through both reason and spiritual insight.

The Decline of Rationalist Influence

Despite these significant contributions, the influence of rationalist scholars began to wane after the thirteenth century. A combination of political, social, and intellectual factors contributed to this decline. The rise of more dogmatic interpretations of Islam, particularly in the context of the Sunni-Shi‘i divide, led to a diminishing space for rationalist discourse. The establishment of orthodox schools of thought, which prioritized textual authority over philosophical inquiry, further marginalized the rationalist tradition.

During the Ottoman and Safavid periods, while some scholars made noteworthy contributions, their works often remained isolated achievements in an otherwise inhospitable intellectual environment. This is particularly evident in the writings of figures like Mullā Sadrā (d. 1641), who, despite his innovative synthesis of philosophy and theology, struggled to find a broader audience within a predominantly conservative milieu.

Reviving the Islamic Natural Law Tradition: The Role of Progressive Scholars

In recent decades, a new generation of progressive Muslim scholars has emerged, seeking to revive and expand upon the rationalist tradition of Islamic natural law. Figures such as Ebrahim Moosa, Hassan Hanafi, Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, and Mohsen Kadivar  are at the forefront of this intellectual revival, each contributing unique perspectives that reflect a commitment to reason, ethical inquiry, and social justice.

Ebrahim Moosa: Bridging Tradition and Modernity

Ebrahim Moosa, a prominent scholar at the University of Notre Dame, emphasizes the importance of reinterpreting Islamic texts through a contemporary lens. He advocates for a contextual understanding of the Quran and Hadith, arguing that the application of Islamic principles must be responsive to modern ethical challenges. Moosa’s work encourages a return to the rationalist principles of natural law, asserting that human dignity and rights are inherent in Islamic teachings. By engaging with both traditional sources and modern philosophical discourse, Moosa seeks to create a framework for Islamic law that is both relevant and just in today’s world.

Hassan Hanafi: Philosophy and Social Change

Hassan Hanafi, an influential Egyptian philosopher, has been a vocal proponent of a rationalist approach to Islamic thought. His work critiques the rigid interpretations of Islam that have dominated intellectual discourse and advocates for a philosophy of liberation. Hanafi argues that Islamic natural law can provide a basis for social justice, human rights, and democratic governance. By emphasizing the need for a critical engagement with Islamic texts, he seeks to empower Muslim communities to reclaim their intellectual heritage and apply it to contemporary struggles for justice and equality.

Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri: Critical Rationalism

Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, a Moroccan philosopher, has made significant contributions to the discourse on Islamic rationalism through his critical examination of Arabic thought. Al-Jabiri’s work focuses on the historical and cultural contexts of Islamic philosophy, advocating for a rationalist approach that moves beyond traditional dogmas. He argues that the revival of natural law theories can help Muslims articulate their rights and responsibilities in a modern context. By reinterpreting classical texts and integrating them with modern philosophical ideas, al-Jabiri aims to foster a more dynamic and critical engagement with Islamic thought.

Mohsen Kadivar: The Ethics of Governance

Iranian scholar Mohsen Kadivaroffers a contemporary perspective on Islamic ethics and governance, emphasizing the need for rationality in political and legal frameworks. His work critiques the prevailing interpretations of Sharia that often prioritize authoritarianism over justice and equity. Kadivar calls for a return to the ethical foundations of Islamic law, arguing that a rationalist approach to natural law can provide a robust framework for democratic governance and human rights. By advocating for an interpretation of Islam that prioritizes ethics and reason, Kadivar contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the role of Islam in contemporary political life.

Khaled Abou El Fadl: The Search for Beauty and Reason

Abou El Fadlemphasises the importance of ethical reasoning and the spirit of the law over rigid legalism, advocating for an interpretation of Islam that is both compassionate and context-sensitive.

Abou El Fadl critiques the dogmatic tendencies that can arise from a narrow interpretation of Islamic texts, arguing that such rigidity often leads to harmful consequences for individuals and communities. He encourages Muslims to engage with their faith critically and reflectively, emphasising that authenticity in Islam should be grounded in ethical considerations rather than mere adherence to tradition.

His scholarship highlights the necessity of understanding Islam as a living tradition that evolves with the times, allowing for diverse interpretations and practices that reflect the complexities of contemporary life. By advocating for a more inclusive and humane approach to Islam, Abou El Fadl challenges the notion that authenticity is merely about following established norms or historical precedents.

A Collective Effort Toward Renewal

These scholars represent a collective effort to revitalize the rationalist tradition within Islamic thought. By engaging critically with both classical texts and contemporary issues, they are forging a path that honours the intellectual legacy of earlier rationalists while addressing the complexities of modern life. Their work underscores the enduring relevance of natural law theories in articulating a vision of justice that is consistent with Islamic principles.

As they explore the intersections of faith, reason, and ethics, these progressive Muslim thinkers are not only contributing to academic discourse but also inspiring a broader movement within Muslim communities. Their emphasis on human rights, social justice, and ethical governance resonates with the aspirations of many Muslims seeking to navigate the challenges of the modern world while remaining grounded in their faith.

The Contemporary Relevance of Rationalist Thought

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the rationalist tradition of Islamic thought, with scholars seeking to revive these philosophical insights in the context of contemporary issues. Discussions on human rights, social justice, and ethical governance increasingly draw upon the foundational principles articulated by rationalist jurists. By revisiting their works, progressive Muslim  scholarscan advocate for a vision of Islam that embraces reason and ethical inquiry as central to its moral framework.

Moreover, the global discourse on natural law has opened new avenues for dialogue between Islamic philosophy and Western thought. The principles articulated by rationalist scholars resonate with contemporary debates on universal human rights, challenging the perception that Islamic thought is inherently opposed to rationalism or individual rights.

Conclusion

The rationalist scholars of the Islamic tradition laid the intellectual groundwork for a robust understanding of natural law and human rights in the contemporary period as exemplified by progressive Muslim scholars. Their contributions underscore the importance of reason in ethical deliberation and legal jurisprudence, offering a perspective that remains relevant in today’s discussions on morality and justice. The challenge now lies in fostering an intellectual environment that allows for the flourishing of reasoned discourse, ensuring that the legacy of these scholars continues to inform and enrich the moral landscape of contemporary Islamic civilization. The efforts of progressive Muslimscholars today further this legacy, demonstrating that the principles of natural law and ethical governance can thrive within the framework of Islam, ultimately contributing to a more just and equitable society.

Checkout Dr. Adis Duderija’s personal website at: https://dradisduderija.com/

A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books are ( co-edited)-  Shame, Modesty, and Honora in Islam  and Interfaith Engagement Beyond the Divide  (Springer)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Progressive modern Muslim scholars reconnect to the rationalist tradition in Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After becoming the deputy Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, he has been in the news nationally this September for raising the issue of alleged adulteration of the Tirupati Laddu Prasadam with animal fat. Later, hearing petitions filed by Subramanian Swamy and Others to seek Court monitored investigation into the matter, the bench comprising of justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan criticised the Chief Minister for making public allegations about the adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus saying that it was not appropriate on part of the high constitutional functionary to go in public to make a statement which can affect the sentiment of crores of people and when investigation to find out adulterated ghee was used to make laddus was still on going.

While the issue was first raised by Nara Chandrababu Naidu on September 18, the Chief Minister of AP, Pawan Kalyan undertook a “Prayaschitha Deeksha” to atone for the wrong that had happened and ended the Deeksha in Tirupati. It is here that he made the Varahi Declaration—a set of 7 demands including enactment of law at a national level to protect Sanatana Dharma; and declared himself as an ‘unapologetic Sanatani Hindu.’ He said that he respects all religions including Islam, Christianity and that he is a Sanatani Hindu.

In this context, he or his party never elaborated on what they mean by Sanatan Dharma that they seek to protect—whether it is the puranic traditions or the Vedic ritualistic culture. However, his rhetoric has allowed different right-wing organisations to call for freeing of temples from government control. In this context, this article will understand the evolution of temple management control in India and why it has evolved into what it is today.

The claim that government control over temples is a recent phenomenon, imposed solely by colonial rulers, distorts the historical reality of temples as centres of power and wealth. Throughout Indian history, temples have been intertwined with political authority, attracting the patronage and, consequently, the control of rulers across different eras. Temples have historically served multifaceted roles, extending beyond religious practices. They functioned as vibrant cultural and economic hubs, fostering agriculture, irrigation, artistic endeavours, and educational pursuits. This multifaceted nature led to the accumulation of significant wealth, making them attractive targets for patronage and control.

Early India

Indian rulers, from kings to nobles, recognised the social and political influence wielded by temples. They generously bestowed “Mahadanas,” or great gifts, of land and riches upon these institutions. These acts were not merely expressions of piety but calculated strategies to enhance their legitimacy and influence. Religious gifting was an integral aspect of “Rajadharma,” the ethical code governing rulers, further solidifying the connection between political authority and temple administration.[1] This patronage, while enriching temples, also facilitated a degree of state control even in ancient India. Rulers, invested in the well-being of these institutions, often oversaw the management of endowments and intervened when mismanagement occurred. Historical evidence suggests rulers viewed ensuring the proper utilisation of temple funds as part of their duty, demonstrating their active role in temple administration.

British Rule and thereafter

The British, building upon pre-existing practices, codified their control through legislative acts, starting with regulations in the early 19th century. These were enacted under the guise of preventing misappropriation of funds, these laws empowered the colonial government to interfere in temple administration.

The control of Hindu temples in India was shaped by a series of key legislations. The Religious Endowments Act of 1863 delegated temple management to committees, while retaining government oversight. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Acts of 1925 and 1926 sought to regulate temple control, with the 1935 amendment allowing non-Brahmins to become trustees. The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act of 1920 enabled audits of temple trusts. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act of 1959, later amended in 1971 to abolish hereditary priesthood, became a blueprint for temple administration.[2] Other significant acts include the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1987, Karnataka Act of 1997, all contributing to the ongoing debate over government control versus temple autonomy.

Tirupati Temple and legislation around it until the formation of Andhra Pradesh

The management of the Tirumala Temple, home to the shrine of Lord Venkateshwara, has evolved over centuries. Prior to British rule, local rulers oversaw the temple’s administration. During British rule, the East India Company initially managed the temple, but in 1817, its control shifted to the Board of Revenue. In 1843, following the Court of Directors’ instructions, management was granted to Seva Doss, the head of the Hathiramji Mutt, under a ‘sanad,’ marking the beginning of the Mahant’s involvement in temple administration.[3] However, the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 led the Board of Revenue to relinquish control over religious institutions, including the Tirumalai Temple. The Mahant’s tenure was plagued by allegations of waste and embezzlement, prompting a lawsuit that resulted in a court-framed management scheme. This scheme was later confirmed by the High Court of Madras and the Privy Council. The 1927 Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act recognised this scheme officially, but significant changes were introduced with the Tirumalai-Tirupati-Devasthanams Act of 1932, which nullified the 1843 arrangement and placed temple administration under a committee.

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) was established in 1932 following the TTD Act of 1932. The act placed the temple administration under a seven-member committee, overseen by a paid commissioner appointed by the Madras Government. The committee was advised by two councils—one comprising priests and temple administrators for operational guidance, and another of farmers for land and estate matters. Notably, the act did not specify qualifications for the commissioner or committee members, but it was limited in addressing temple fund generation and usage for religious purposes. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 repealed the earlier acts.

In 1950 the Constitution was also adopted and therefore, further developments are to be seen in the light of it rather than seen as colonial hangovers. Article 25 of the Constitution states as follows:

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1)Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which maybe associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus

The Constitution differentiates between the religious practices-in which the state shall not interfere subject to reasonable restrictions like public order, morality and health and secular activity associated with religious practices such as social and economic activities unrelated to religion as such.

For example, In the case of Vaishno Devi Shrine Board v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1997), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, ruling that the service of a priest is a secular activity, and the state can regulate it under Article 25(2). The act abolished hereditary priesthood and allowed state appointments, which did not violate religious freedom.[4]

After the formation of Andhra Pradesh

In 1969, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act replaced the 1951 act, expanding the Board of Trustees and ensuring representation from diverse communities, including mandatory positions for legislative members, Scheduled Castes, and women. The act broadened the scope of TTD’s activities, promoting the study of Indian languages and operating institutions like Sri Venkateswara University and the Hindu Dharma Prathishthanam for the propagation of Hindu culture.

This 1969 Act was also repealed by enacting the present Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 on the recommendations of Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission. This act abolished the hereditary trustees and maintained that the temple administrative trust shall not have a member who does not profess Hindu Religion. (Sections 16 and 17)

Th Act also abolished the hereditary right in Mirasidars, Archakas, and other office holders and stated that any usage of practice relating to the succession to any office or service, or post mentioned above is also void. (Section 34).

Section 41 of the act allowed the executive officer to not implement the resolution of the trustee or the Board of Trustees when it is likely to cause financial loss to the institution, or not beneficial to the institution etc.

This Act has also gone into several amendments and a major amendment took place in 2007 when Section 34 was amended to give right of archakatvam to the archakas who were in service under the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 thus changing Article 34.

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) may seem independent, but it’s mostly run by the Andhra Pradesh government. Key people like the board members, Executive Officer, and financial heads are all government-appointed. The TTD handles things like pilgrim services and infrastructure but needs the government’s approval for any big decisions, especially financial ones. Even the temple’s budget has to go through the government, which can make changes as it sees fit. So, while the TTD handles daily undertakings, the government keeps a tight grip on the bigger picture.

Why the Government cannot let go off control via acts and hand it over to the Hindu Community

One major issue is the decentralised nature of Hinduism, Hinduism lacks a unified governing body, especially vis-à-vis the administration of temples as evident by conflicting opinions on rituals, traditions etc. Temples are often managed by diverse groups—hereditary trustees, caste-based organizations, or local communities. This raises the question of who would take over management if the state withdraws. There is no singular, universally accepted authority to manage temples across the country, complicating the transition.

Moreover, without state oversight, there are concerns about corruption, exclusion of marginalized groups, and sectarianism. Some temples like in case of Vaikom have historically discriminated based on caste or used temple resources for personal gain. Handing control over without safeguards could worsen these issues.

Temples also function as public trusts, managing significant revenue from donations. The state justifies its involvement by ensuring that this wealth benefits society at large, particularly through charitable activities.

However, governments—especially the ones where BJP in power have been looking to remove any government participation. Even the Andhra Pradesh government reportedly has issued a Government Order asking executive officers to ensure temples’ autonomy regarding Vaidic and Agama traditions and preserve the sanctity of their customs and practices, under Section 13 of the Act. The Uttarakhand government too backtracked on the Char Dham Devasthanam Board Management Act which sought to exert some regulation on more than 50 temples in the state. Therefore, there is a shift in terms of how governments are approaching temple management, but the shift is not driven by any philosophical basis but purely on the directions/pressure from right-wing institutions.

Conclusion

Simply put, there is no bigger representative of the people of a religion than the government. A math might not pay heed to another math’s suggestions, but the government is supposed to, when it comes to management of temples. Religion in India is as diverse as its population where rituals and practices changes from one house to another. In this scenario, neither letting the control of temples being given to one sect nor it being centralised by a national act and a Sanatana dharma Board seems prudent.

(The author is part of the research team of the organisation)

[1] Aiyangar, S.K., 1939. A History of the Holy Shrine of Sri Venkatesa in Tirupati. Ananda Press.

[2]Geetika Mantri (2021). Jaggi Vasudev says ‘free Hindu temples’ — but how much are they under govt control? [online] The News Minute. Available at: https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/jaggi-vasudev-says-free-hindu-temples-how-much-are-they-under-govt-control-145125 [Accessed 16 Oct. 2024].

[3] Mahant Narayana Dasjee Varu And Ors. vs Board Of Trustees, AIR 1965 SC 1231

[4] AIR 1997 SC 1711

Related:

Supreme Court pulls up Andhra CM for making unsubstantiated public remarks on Tirupati laddu ghee, which led to controversy

Hindu temples & their economic worth, VHP-backed ‘Know your temple’ initiative

Hygiene or Harassment? Fears of profiling arise as UP government, once again, mandate name displays at food establishments; HP govt follows

The post Temple Management & Tirupati: the ‘WHYs’ behind temple regulation explained appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Naik’s divisive comments come at a time when Pakistan is grappling with significant social, political, and economic challenges. His rhetoric—particularly against women and those raising concerns about child abuse—has been widely condemned as regressive, dangerous, and reflective of an ideology that marginalises vulnerable communities. His actions, whether it be walking out of an event for orphaned girls or making sexist comparisons between unmarried women and sex workers, and using sex workers as a slur, have sparked outrage across the country. Women’s rights activists, journalists, and everyday citizens have expressed disgust at how Naik’s words seek to reinforce patriarchal norms that strip women of their autonomy and dignity.

One of the most contentious remarks was made during a public lecture, where Naik claimed that unmarried women cannot be respected in society unless they marry men, even if the men are already married. His comparison of single women to “public property” or “bazaari aurat” has drawn sharp criticism, with many accusing him of dehumanising women and promoting misogynistic views that have no place in a modern society. Such comments, according to critics, not only reinforce harmful gender stereotypes but also encourage societal control over women’s bodies and choices, a hallmark of extremist ideology. These comments have broader implications, especially in a country like Pakistan, where women already face significant barriers in terms of rights and freedoms.

Further adding to his inflammatory rhetoric, Naik recently engaged in a troubling exchange with a Pashtun girl during a lecture at the Governor House in Karachi. The young woman bravely raised concerns about rising drug addiction, adultery, and paedophilia in her area. Rather than addressing these pressing issues, Naik dismissed her entirely, stating that paedophilia could not exist in an Islamic society and demanding that the girl apologise for even raising the question. His defensive and dismissive attitude angered many, with critics accusing him of gas lighting the young woman and ignoring the critical social problems she was trying to highlight. Paedophilia, child abuse, and drug addiction are serious concerns in parts of Pakistan, yet Naik’s refusal to engage with them reflects a dangerous disregard for the realities on the ground. By silencing those who speak up, he perpetuated a culture of denial and inaction.

What makes Naik’s rhetoric particularly dangerous is its capacity to act as religious dog-whistling—appealing to hard-line religious sentiments while subtly promoting misogyny, patriarchy, and an anti-progressive agenda. His comments are framed in religious language, making it harder for critics to challenge them without being accused of opposing Islamic values. This tactic, often used by religious extremists, plays on the sensitivities of devout communities, pushing them to accept regressive ideologies disguised as religious truth. In countries like Pakistan, where religious leaders hold significant sway, this kind of dog-whistling can have real-world consequences. It can fuel gender inequality, increase intolerance, and silence those who seek to address critical social issues.

Moreover, Naik’s controversial statements are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader pattern of using religious rhetoric to reinforce conservative and patriarchal values. His dismissal of critical issues like paedophilia or drug addiction undermines efforts to tackle these problems within Pakistani society. Instead of addressing the legitimate concerns of the people, Naik’s responses seek to silence dissent, protect the status quo, and invalidate the experiences of those who suffer the consequences of social ills. This is not just harmful rhetoric; it actively discourages progress and reform, putting vulnerable populations at greater risk.

In a time when Pakistan is already struggling with deep socio-political divides, Naik’s presence and his hate-filled speeches are pouring fuel on an already volatile situation. His views provide justification for those who wish to maintain societal control over women, further marginalise already vulnerable communities, and dismiss important social issues as mere fabrications. The decision to invite him as a state guest has backfired, with growing frustration across the country and even among his supporters. Many feel that Naik’s brand of religious extremism has no place in a country striving for progress, equality, and justice.

Ultimately, Zakir Naik’s lecture tour in Pakistan has raised serious questions about the dangers of religious dog-whistling and its potential to inflame divisions, promote regressive ideologies, and silence the voices of those calling for reform. His words are not just offensive; they are dangerous, as they sow seeds of intolerance and misogyny, leaving lasting damage in their wake. By providing him with a platform, Pakistan risks legitimising an ideology that is at odds with the nation’s aspirations for a more just and equitable society.

Details of the derogatory speeches by Naik:

1. Refusal to present awards to young orphan girls (Islamabad)

One of the most shocking incidents occurred during an event for orphaned children in Islamabad. Naik was invited to present awards, but when it was time to give shields to the young girls, he abruptly left the stage, citing religious reasons. He stated that the girls were Na-Mahram, meaning they were unrelated to him by blood, and under his interpretation of Islamic law, it was inappropriate for him to interact with them. This act led to widespread outrage, with many accusing Naik of objectifying women and reducing young girls to mere symbols of sexual propriety, even in a context that should have been about honouring their achievements.

Sindh-based writer Zubair Soomro voiced the frustration of many critics, saying, “How could such clerics objectify women sexually? Why couldn’t he see these girls as daughters, with father-like love?” His actions were seen as not just an insult to the girls but also as a reflection of his regressive and patriarchal mind-set. This incident set the tone for the rest of Naik’s controversial tour and became a focal point for criticism on how he treats women and girls in his speeches and actions.

2. Misogynistic remarks about unmarried women (Lahore)

Naik further incited outrage during a large public gathering when he made demeaning comments about unmarried women, comparing them to “public property” if they do not marry. He argued that in society, an unmarried woman cannot be respected and that if there are no single men available, her only choice for respectability is to marry a man who already has a wife. Otherwise, he implied, she would become a “bazaari aurat” (public woman, implying a sex worker). His exact words, “There is no way an unmarried woman can be respected… any respectable woman would opt for marrying a married man over being public property,” drew condemnation from across Pakistan and beyond.

Either marry a married man or become a “bazaari aurat”. Zakir Naik is continuously coming up with problematic statements. Who invited him? Please don’t invite such illiterate people next time! pic.twitter.com/XmiXiKMgpS

— Saad Kaiser (@TheSaadKaiser) October 7, 2024

This comparison of unmarried women to sex workers, especially by talking about sex workers in a derogatory way, was seen as not only deeply offensive but also a dangerous endorsement of patriarchal control over women’s choices. Women’s rights activists, civil society groups, and many others denounced the statement for reducing women’s value to their marital status and suggesting that single women have no dignity unless they are attached to men. Naik’s statement reinforced a regressive and sexist narrative that places the blame on women for their status, reflecting a worldview that deeply disrespects and diminishes women’s autonomy.

3. Dismissal of concerns about paedophilia and drug addiction (Karachi)

In another disturbing incident during his lecture at the Governor House in Karachi, a young Pashtun girl raised concerns about growing issues like drug addiction, adultery, and paedophilia in her region. Naik’s response was dismissive and defensive. He claimed that her question was invalid because, according to him, in a truly Islamic society, paedophilia could not exist. When the girl attempted to elaborate on her concerns, particularly about the normalisation of paedophilia in her area, Naik interrupted her and demanded an apology for bringing up such a topic. He stated, “A Muslim can never commit sexual abuse against children,” and insisted that her concerns were unfounded, implying that either her claim of living in an Islamic society was false or the issue of paedophilia was fabricated.

Naik’s refusal to acknowledge the girl’s concerns, coupled with his demand for an apology, was met with sharp criticism online. Many accused him of gas lighting the girl and ignoring serious social issues, especially in regions like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where concerns about child abuse and other crimes have been raised repeatedly. His tone was seen as condescending, and his refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue on such a critical issue highlighted his lack of empathy and understanding.

Zakir Naik, the most famous Muslim scholar in South Asia, gaslights a Pashtun girl when she questions the collapse of society caused by religious extremism.

pic.twitter.com/zxEoPeTeZE

— Habib Khan (@HabibKhanT) October 6, 2024

This incident worsened Naik’s already controversial standing in Pakistan, as many were angered by his disregard for the real and pressing issues faced by people, particularly women and children. His dismissive attitude towards a young woman brave enough to speak about such concerns added fuel to the fire of his growing unpopularity during the tour.

Zakir Naik’s inflammatory comments during his tour of Pakistan have sparked significant backlash, with each of the three instances representing different facets of his problematic worldview. From objectifying women to dismissing genuine societal concerns, Naik’s rhetoric continues to alienate not only his critics but also his followers, many of whom feel embarrassed by his actions. Despite being invited as a state guest, his reception in Pakistan has been marred by widespread discontent, particularly over the harmful and regressive views he espouses in his speeches. His tour, instead of fostering dialogue or religious understanding, has served to expose the deep-seated misogyny and disregard for critical social issues that underpin his ideology.

As news surfaced of Zakir Naik receiving a warm welcome in Pakistan, India condemned the gesture, while also noting that it was unsurprising. “We have seen reports of Zakir Naik being feted in Pakistan, where he was given a warm reception,” said External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal during his weekly press briefing. “It is not unexpected for us that an Indian fugitive has been received with high-level honours in Pakistan. While it is disappointing and condemnable, it doesn’t come as a surprise,” he had added. 

Outrage on social media

Pakistani actor and singer Ali Zafar, known for his roles in Bollywood films like Mere Brother Ki Dulhan, Dear Zindagi, and Chashme Baddoor, has strongly criticised Islamic preacher Zakir Naik for his controversial remarks about unmarried women. Naik’s recent comments, where he compared single women to “public property,” have sparked widespread outrage across Pakistan, with many condemning his statements.

Ali Zafar also voiced his disapproval, using social media to share his thoughts. In a post on X, he respectfully challenged Naik’s views, offering an alternative perspective. “With all due respect, Dr. Sahab, there is always a third option. A woman can lead a respectful and independent life, whether as a working professional, a mother, or both. She can choose her own path, just like millions of women around the world do, and they are equally respected by millions of men. The problem lies with those men who view them as ‘bazaari’,” Ali wrote.

The actor-singer further emphasised that the Quran teaches men to respect women, and that purity starts with one’s own actions. “Respect is always mutual, and that’s what the Quran teaches. On a personal note, I feel we (men, in general) have suppressed women for centuries, making them feel guilty for nothing. It’s time we correct ourselves first and let them flourish, allowing them to pursue their dreams as we do. I hope you won’t take offense to this healthy criticism. May peace be upon you,” Ali concluded.

With all due respect Dr. Sahab. There is always a third option.
A woman can live a respectful and independent life, being a working woman or a mother, or both together, or the life she chooses for herself, just like millions of women around the world do and are equally respected… https://t.co/cAISOeDxS6

— Ali Zafar (@AliZafarsays) October 9, 2024

There were more social media users who came out with their criticism against the comments made by Naik. One user remarked, “Stop inviting people like this to our country.” Another voiced their frustration, saying, “It’s baffling that the Pakistani state would invite Zakir Naik, given his track record of spreading intolerance and dogmatism. While India had the courage to ban him, we seem to roll out the red carpet. What does this say about our commitment to inclusivity and moderation?”

Another comment highlighted the irony: “If Zakir Naik hadn’t come to Pakistan, we might never have realized that India was right to ban both him and his Peace TV channel. We are always quick to label India as Islamophobic without considering their perspective on this issue.”

If Zakir Naik had not visited Pakistan, how would we have realized that India was right to ban both his entry & his Peace TV channel?

We are always quick to label India as Islamophobic without taking the time to understand/consider India’s perspective on their matters. pic.twitter.com/g2lNnGJXoF

— Hafsa Akram (@Hafsa_RG) October 7, 2024

One other user criticised Naik’s inflated ego: “Zakir Naik is a textbook case of power corrupting someone. He’s so full of himself that he can’t see beyond his own ego. It’s absurd that he’s given any honour when all he does is bask in undeserved praise, further feeding his misguided sense of greatness.”

One more user added: “Naik was clearly pandering to the extreme right-wing clerics in Pakistan, and in doing so, he made a fool of himself. His being invited as a state guest speaks volumes about the priorities of our government. It’s a sad state of affairs.”

Zakir Naik’s backward remarks like “Either marry a married man or become a ‘bazaari aurat’” are not only demeaning to women but reveal a mindset stuck in patriarchal thinking. Such individuals should not be given platforms. Let’s stop inviting figures who spread harmful ideas. pic.twitter.com/JfNOkqnNBH

— Daily_Dose_News (@DdnDose) October 8, 2024

The widespread backlash Naik has faced for his remarks is not surprising, as his statements not only reveal deep-seated misogyny but also promote an extremist interpretation of religion that should have no place in modern society. His comparison of unmarried women to “public property” is not just demeaning but dangerous, as it reinforces harmful stereotypes and justifies oppressive attitudes towards women. Such religious dog-whistling, where intolerance is disguised as piety, fosters extremism and divisiveness, undermining efforts to build an inclusive, respectful society. Naik’s rhetoric fans the flames of misogyny and intolerance, and allowing him a platform sends the wrong message—that such regressive views are acceptable.

It’s crucial to reject figures like Zakir Naik and to not offer them a space to spread their extremist ideas. Religious extremism, whether it comes in the form of hate speech or discriminatory ideologies, cannot be tolerated, as it poses a threat to both social cohesion and human rights. Naik’s views should be condemned unequivocally, and countries should be mindful of the message they send when they welcome figures known for spreading hate and division.

Related:

Suspended again: Deepak Sharma’s relentless cycle of hate across multiple social media accounts

Hate Speech by Zakir Naik: Painful punishment awaits those who abuse the Prophet

Zakir Naik Showcases the Rot within Islamic Theology

Why social media giants must identify and remove Zakir Naik’s hate speech

The post Zakir Naik’s lecture tour sparks outrage in Pakistan: Misogyny and extremism in the spotlight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing three petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the controversy surrounding Tirupati laddus. The said issue surrounding the use erupted during September mid, after Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu claimed that the world renowned consecrated sweet Tirupati laddus contain “beef tallow, fish oil” and other substandard ingredients. The purported lab report that was being replied upon by CM Naidu also claimed the presence of “lard” (relating to pig fat) in the samples. Notably, the samples of the Tirupati laddu were sent to a Gujarat-based livestock laboratory, and the sample receipt date was July 9, 2024 and the lab report was dated July 16.

In its order, the bench highlighted the significance of the case, stating that it involves the religious sentiments of millions worldwide. The bench noted that the Chief Minister went public on September 18, accusing the previous government of using adulterated ghee with animal fat in the laddus. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam (TTD) had denied these claims, stating that such ghee was never used. The petitions filed sought an independent investigation and regulation of the manufacturing of prasadam at religious trusts.

Brief about the petitions:

So far, five petitions have been filed seeking various reliefs, including a Court-monitored investigation into allegations regarding the adulteration of ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus and greater accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies.

1. Petition by Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke

Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke, Editor of Sudarshan News TV, has filed a petition seeking an investigation by a committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice into the issue. He has argued that using non-vegetarian ingredients in the prasadam violates the fundamental religious rights of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which protect the freedom of religion and the right of religious groups to manage their affairs. Chavhanke has also requested the appointment of a retired judge to oversee the management of temples to ensure transparency and adherence to religious customs.

2. Petition by Surjit Singh Yadav

Surjit Singh Yadav, President of Hindu Sena, has filed a second petition seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged use of adulterated ghee in the laddus. Yadav claims that the use of animal fat in the prasadam deeply hurt the sentiments of Hindu devotees of Tirupati Balaji.

3. Petition by Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also filed a petition, seeking an investigation monitored by the Court. He has advocated for the formation of a committee to look into the matter and has requested a detailed forensic report on the ghee samples tested by the lab, including information on their source. Swamy argues that the issue should have remained within the confines of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) but was politicised, causing emotional distress to millions of devotees. He has posed several specific questions in his petition, including:

• How was the ghee sample procured by the lab?
• Was the ghee sample taken from what was used in offerings or from rejected lots?
• Who supplied the adulterated ghee?
• Could the lab report have been a false positive?
• Was there political interference in releasing the report?

4. Petition by YV Subba Reddy

Rajya Sabha MP and former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy has also filed a petition seeking an independent investigation by a Court-monitored committee or a retired judge with domain experts. Reddy has requested a detailed report on the forensic analysis of the ghee samples, including the procurement process. He highlights that standard operating procedures at Tirumala involve testing ghee upon arrival at the temple premises, and any non-compliant ghee is rejected. He argues that claims about adulterated ghee being used in prasadam are false. Reddy also criticises Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s remarks, which he claims have caused distress to many devotees of Lord Venkateswara. His petition notes discrepancies between the statements of the TTD and the Chief Minister, particularly questioning the silence of the state government for two months after the lab report was obtained in July 2024.

5. Petition by Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar

Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath and spiritual speaker Dushyanth Sridhar have jointly filed the fifth petition, calling for the removal of government and bureaucratic control over Hindu temples. They are advocating for the establishment of accountability in temples managed by government bodies.

Out of these five petitions, three—filed by Subramanian Swamy, YV Subba Reddy, and Vikram Sampath—were listed today for hearing before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

Arguments raised during the hearing:

Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra, representing Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, informed the bench today that ghee samples supplied in June and until July 4 had not been tested. However, ghee received on July 6 and 12 was sent for analysis to the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), where all four samples were found to be adulterated.  It was argued by them that the ghee supplied in June and early July had already been used in producing the laddus. The State Government had acknowledged the need for an investigation and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) following an FIR lodged on September 25, while the Chief Minister’s public statement preceded these actions.

In Subramanian Swamy’s petition, Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao, representing Dr. Swamy, argued that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu made an unfounded claim that the ghee used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus was adulterated. However, the Executive Officer of the TTD contradicted this statement, asserting that such ghee was never used. Rao emphasised that when high-ranking officials make such statements without sufficient evidence, it can have serious consequences and disrupt social harmony.

Rao further stated, “Those in responsible positions are expected to verify facts before making definitive claims. The CM’s statement, which has been disputed by TTD, requires oversight. If the prasadam of the deity is being questioned, it must be thoroughly examined. The CM’s public statement raises concerns about the potential for a free and fair inquiry.”

In response, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, argued that Swamy’s petition lacked sincerity and was politically motivated, intended to support the previous YSRCP (Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party) government. Rohatgi further claimed that Swamy’s petition was nearly identical to one filed by former TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy.

Additionally, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Suresh Chavhanke, supported the call for an independent investigation into the matter.

Observations of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court was concerned about the propriety of the Chief Minister’s statement, questioning whether it was appropriate for such a high-ranking official to comment on a matter that could affect the sentiments of millions while an investigation was still underway. The Court questioned whether the SIT investigation should continue or if an independent agency should take over.

During the hearing, the Court raised several pointed questions to the State Government and TTD officials. Justice Viswanathan remarked that the lab report seemed to test rejected ghee, and it was unclear whether the ghee in question was actually used to make the laddus. Justice Viswanathan also noted that the lab report itself contained some disclaimers. According to LiveLaw, Justice Viswanathan said that “There are some disclaimers in the lab report. It is not clear, and it is prima facie indicating that it was rejected ghee, which was subjected to test. If you yourself have ordered investigation, what was the need to go to press,” 

The Court expressed frustration over the Chief Minister’s decision to go public, with Justice Viswanathan asking Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Andhra Pradesh, “If you ordered an investigation, what was the need to go to the press?”

Justice Gavai further raised concerns about the timing of the public statement, asking why the Chief Minister would make such a claim on September 18 when the investigation was still in progress. Justice Gavai pointedly questioned “When you have ordered an investigation through the SIT, what was the necessity to go to the press?” 

The bench emphasised that as a constitutional authority, the Chief Minister should not have involved religious matters in political statements. “When you hold a constitutional office… We expect the Gods to be kept away from the politicians,” Justice Gavai remarked as per LiveLaw.

The bench questioned whether the contaminated ghee was ever used in the preparation of the laddus, with Justice Viswanathan emphasising the need for caution before making public statements about religious offerings. The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a second opinion on the lab results and stressed the importance of prudence in such sensitive matters.

“This report prima facie indicates that this is not the material which was used in the preparation of the laddus,” Justice Viswanathan observed.

He further stated that “When somebody gives a report like you, does not prudence dictate that you take a second opinion? First of all, there is no proof that this ghee was used. And there is no second opinion.”

The hearing concluded with the Court suggesting that while an investigation was necessary, the key question was whether the SIT formed by the State should continue or if an independent probe was required. Justice Gavai also requested Luthra to obtain a clearer statement from TTD regarding the alleged use of the adulterated ghee. The case was adjourned pending further instructions from the Union Government. The Court asked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Union Government on whether a central investigation is required.

Related:

Despite legal promises, hate speech prosecutions in Maharashtra remain paralysed

Hygiene or Harassment? Fears of profiling arise as UP government, once again, mandate name displays at food establishments; HP govt follows

BJP-ruled states account for highest Dalit violence cases, UP on top, MP records highest reported crimes against STs

Karnataka’s draft law for welfare of gig workers, an insufficient tokenism?

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

The post Supreme Court pulls up Andhra CM for making unsubstantiated public remarks on Tirupati laddu ghee, which led to controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.