M. Jaffrey, a retired employee of a reputed public sector establishment in India, decided to register his marriage in 2004 under the Special Marriage Act. His Nikah/Islamic marriage took place way back in 1981. So, what prompted Jaffrey to re-register his marriage after 23 years? And why, as a believing Muslim, did he seek to register his marriage afresh under a secular law? According to Jaffrey, what made him do so was the realization that he was a father to two daughters.

Since he was married under Muslim law, he could not bequeath the entirety of his property to his daughters. Under the Muslim Personal Law, which was put on the statute books in 1937, he could only will one-third of his property to his daughters. In the absence of a will, the daughters would get a share but her uncles and male cousins will also get a share in the said property. For Jaffrey, this was non-negotiable. “My hard-earned money should go to my wife and my daughters; I am very clear on this issue. There is no reason why my brother or my nephew should have a claim on what I have earned. I love my religion and I think it is perfect but I also love my daughters and I would want to see that their future is secure. Moreover, it is not my fault that I don’t have a son. It is all the will of God”.

Muslim parents who only have daughters are increasingly seeing the Special Marriage Act of 1954 as a way out. Recently, a Kerala Muslim couple registered their marriage under the Special Marriage Act for the same reason. A couple of any religious denomination may register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, without having to change their religions. Also, registering their marriage under this secular act does not make their religious marriage or the Nikah invalid. That’s because the Special Marriage Act supersedes the provisions of Islamic law of inheritance and allows them to bequeath their entire property to their daughters, and not just a fraction of it.

The Islamic law of inheritance gives sons double the share of what daughters receive. This rule complicates matters for Muslim families which only have daughters. In the absence of son(s), a share of the property also goes to other specified male relatives.

The Debate on Muslim Law of Inheritance

Modern Muslim sensibilities, however, want the Muslim law of inheritance to be gender just. Mohammad Irfan, a professional based in Aligarh, says, “I do not expect to see change in the Muslim personal law in my lifetime. Any change in the legal apparatus takes a long time. What is the option before me except to take recourse to the secular law.” Just like Jaffrey, Irfan, 50, father to a lone daughter, is planning to register his marriage under the Special Marriage Act to ensure his property is transferred to his daughter after his demise.   

For some Muslims, though, demanding a change in the Islamic law is like tinkering with the sharia, which is unacceptable. “How can you demand a change in the divine law,” asks Zeeshan Misbahi, a religious scholar and teacher based in Allahabad. “In the absence of a father or a son, the Islamic law makes uncles the protectors of daughters and hence it is only fair that they get a share in his brother’s property. Those who are bypassing this law or demanding changes in it do not understand the objectives of the sharia.”

Not all religious scholars though are on the same page on this issue. Waris Mazhari, who is a Deoband graduate and now teaches Islamic studies at the Delhi-based Hamdard University, argues that law should be in tune with contemporary reality, otherwise it becomes an obstacle to societal progress. “Women make lots of sacrifices and it is because they invest time and energy within the household that men become successful. Our law should evolve to recognize the efforts and contributions of women. Islam was the first religion to give women a share in property. The need of the hour is to honor this spirit and move towards a more equitable distribution of resources between the two genders.”  

Zeeshan disagrees. “The Islamic law is divine that cannot be changed for all times to come. Moreover, if Muslims want to give more share to their daughters, what is stopping them from doing Hiba or gift? Islamic law provides for this option. But it appears that the sole intention of some modern Muslims is to defame Islam, hence they are opting for a secular law like Special Marriage Act.” 

Gift or Will

Though the provision of gift does exist, there is a major difference between the Islamic Hiba and making a will. Saif Mahmood, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, explains, “Bequeathing property by a will is very different from transferring by way of Hiba, which is a gift. By Hiba, the property is transferred in presenti i.e. immediately and the transferor loses ownership in his/her lifetime whereas a will is enforceable only after the death of the person(s) making the will. Hiba is a transfer of property; will is a succession to property.”

This means that those doing Hiba would lose the ownership of the property immediately after the execution of the deed. And since, unlike a will, the Hiba is irrevocable, he or she will be at the mercy of the one who receives the gift. Says Jaffrey, “If tomorrow, due to some problems, I want to take back my gift, then I cannot do it, as it is irreversible. It is better therefore to execute a will, which is only possible for Muslims if they register themselves under the Special Marriage Act.”

Mahmood agrees: “Once the marriage is registered under Special Marriage Act, the Islamic law ceases to apply to the parties. This means that Muslims who register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act can bequeath their properties by way of a will to anyone without any of the restrictions prescribed in the Islamic law. For example, under the Muslim law, only a third can be bequeathed and that too not to the legal heirs as their shares are already prefixed within the Islamic law of inheritance.”

In such a scenario, Muslim couples who only have daughters see merit in registering their marriages under a secular law, while some activists think requisite changes should be brought about in the Muslim law itself.

Zakia Soman, the co-founder of Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, says that it’s high time that the Muslim law became gender just. “For years now, our organization has been campaigning that sons and daughters should get equal share in their father’s inheritance. The Kerala example tells us that Muslim society is ready for change but the Ulama and their regressive and misogynistic interpretation of Islam is what is keeping Muslims from achieving these reforms. Our reading of Islam tells us that the core of religion is about justice and hence there should be no place for such discriminatory laws in our religion.”

It remains to be seen whether the campaign to formally change the Muslim Personal Law will succeed or not. What is certain, however, is that some Muslims are already quietly subverting it.

A regular contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.

Courtesy: newageislam.com

The post A Secular Marriage Law Comes To the Rescue of Indian Muslim Parents appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As I watched the video of the Pakistani man lynched few days ago, I could not but come to the painful realization that something is rotten in that society. A man, beaten to death, dragged through the streets and then set on fire seems to be a page out of medieval punishment. The horrific images though are from this year; the man being punished in this brutal fashion is accused of blasphemy, a term which can be stretched to include almost anything and everything with some imaginative interpretation. Blasphemy is punishable with death in Pakistan, as it is in many other Muslim countries of the world. According to the Centre for Research and Security Studies, a Pakistani think tank, 18 women and 71 men were killed extra-judicially over accusations of blasphemy till last year. A majority of such cases have come from Punjab, where the Barelvis have made blasphemy into a political issue. If anyone is still under the illusion that Barelwis are moderate, they should just see what they are doing in many parts of the world.

Only last week, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan had released a report underlining an alarming increase of cases related to blasphemy. Despite similar reports arguing that in most cases, the accusation is the result of personal vendetta, very little has been done in order to raise the bar of evidence regarding blasphemy related cases.

Even if the report’s suggestion is implemented and the bar is raised, it will do little to curb the menace of public lynchings. Ordinary Pakistanis seem to be convinced that if the accused goes through a legal trial, then he or she might be let off. And indeed, this has been the case; many accused of blasphemy have been let off by the courts for lack of evidence. It appears that for the ordinary people of Pakistan, the legal process does not matter at all. An accusation of blasphemy is enough for these people to pounce on the victim and rob him of his dignity, human rights and even his life. Asiya Bibi was lucky that her case went to court and received international attention; eventually she was freed. The Sri Lankan Hindu, Priyantha, was not so fortunate. His own workers killed him and consigned his body to flames.

This case was no different. Muhammad Waris, a man in his thirties, was accused of desecrating the Quran. He was taken into police custody but a murderous mob kidnapped him from there, killed him and set his body on fire. Any analysis which understands this problem as a failure of the Pakistani police to implement the rule of law is simply bogus. This is a clear case of majoritarian will being imposed on state institutions, as it happens in other South Asian countries. We need to understand that even those police personnel who were supposed to protect the victim, are themselves part of the Islamic system. Hence, their action or inaction should be understood in the context of increasing Islamic fanaticism in Pakistan.

The video is extremely gory to say the least. What is most problematic is the participation of local population in this act of religious lynching. It is as if everyone wants to have a share of the piety, each one present there is convinced that killing this man was an act of supreme devotion to Allah. This is a generation which has been fed on a kind of Islamic education which transforms people into unthinking robots. Worse, they were acting like zombies, devoid of a soul, very much like the undead. As if they have been emptied of all their rational faculties and they are just following the orders of someone who is whispering into their heads. One can see even children participating in this religious frenzy. One shudders to think what kind of adults they will become and what kind of citizenry Pakistan is going to eventually get.

Sorry to say, but in the civilized world, this no longer happens. In many ways, medieval Europe was as brutal, but as a collectivity, today they see such things with righteous indignation. What differentiate the Europeans from us is precisely that they have moved beyond religion. Religion is no longer a cradle to the grave arrangement for them. In conducting their daily lives, they have made religion largely redundant and irrelevant. For an average Muslim though, this is far from comprehensible. We are yet to evolve intellectually in order to realize that one can lead perfectly normal live without the aid of any religion.

Also, as a community we are intellectually dishonest because we are still in denial of the effects of giving so much power to Islam over our lives. How else should we understand the claim, after every such brutal incident, that this is not Islam; those indulging in such behavior do not understand the true meaning of this religion. We are being told, almost on a loop, that Islam is about peace and tolerance. This is pure nonsense. And pure hypocrisy. Religions talk of peace but they also talk of violence; Islam is no different. Those burning the body of Muhammad Waris were Muslims and they were doing this they believe that it was the right thing to do according to the precepts of Islam. They burnt his body because it is also part of Muslim belief that by doing so, a person will be condemned to hellfire for all eternity.

There is a long history of killing for blasphemy in the Muslim world and it starts with the prophet of Islam himself. According to narrations within Islamic traditions, Muhammad ordered the killing of some who had disparaged against him. For this reason, he even forgave a Muslim who killed his pregnant slave because she had disrespected the prophet. Islam in many ways is about following the prophet; if Muhammad himself sanctioned these killings, are we in any position to say that this is un-Islamic? It might have been a matter of contention if these records were not part of our tradition. The fact remains that our most hallowed Ulama have recorded these narrations and now they are part of Islamic theology. And that’s why there is consensus that anyone who disparages Islam must be killed.

Islam is therefore fundamentally implicated in any blasphemy related killing. Muslims would do well not to escape this discussion. It is only through an acceptance that this is a problem within our society that we can do something about it. As Muslims, we must declare unanimously that such proclamations do not apply to us any longer.

Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.

First published on NewAgeIslam.com

The post Pakistan Lynching: Muslims Should Call Out Their Own Theology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A frenzied crowd calling itself Ashiq-e-Rasool (Lovers of the Prophet) menacingly surrounds a house in Bhiwandi, a predominantly Muslim suburb in Mumbai. They are angry about a post which was put up by a young boy indirectly supporting BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, now suspended from the party for her uncharitable remarks on Prophet Muhammad. This young boy, an engineering student by the name of Saad Ansari is religiously agnostic and asked Muslims to grow up rather than behave like overgrown kids over the issue of blasphemy. In his post, he asked the following question to Muslims: “A 50 year old man marrying a 6-9 year old kid is clear child abuse….. I don’t know how you people support this. Will you give your 6-year-old daughter to a 50-year-old man? (Think about it)”.

There can be a number of ways in which Muslims could have responded to the anxiety of this young Muslim boy. They could have told him about the historical context when such marriages were common place or they could have argued (like many Barelvis do) that some of the things that the Prophet did is beyond human comprehension and hence it is futile to talk about them. But then, any rational and civic behaviour is too much to ask from some Muslims these days. They surrounded his house, abused and slapped him and forced him to recite the Shahada (the belief in oneness of God). Not content, they formally lodged a complaint against him on the basis of which he was arrested by the Mumbai police.

Saad Ansari is a young boy of exemplary courage and he must be saluted for that. But imagine the moral vacuousness of the crowd which forced him to chant the first Kalima. These are the same Muslims who repeat ad nauseam that Islam cannot be forced on anyone. They argue that Islam is about submission and that it spread through its teaching of justice and fairness rather than through force. And yet, they have no compunction to force it on one of their own who dares to question the dominant understanding of Islam. Do Muslims really have a double face; a moderate one for popular consumption and a ‘real’ one when they are in a majority? In the context of Bhiwandi, the majoritarian Muslim impulse was that it will not brook any sort of divergence from their understanding of the Prophet or Islam.

Moderate Muslims have consistently called out the intolerance within the Muslim community. Being Muslims, they know that without the space for dissent, the community would remain mired in a mentality which is truly antediluvian. It will never face up to modern challenges, like embracing modern ideas of dissent and freedom of expression.

Anyone who seeks to tinker with the dominant ideational pattern within Muslims is labelled as a heretic who is conspiring to defame the community. This is not just the story of Saad Ansari; it has been the story of many before him, including Hamid Dalwai and Asghar Ali Engineer. They too had to face social ostracism and what not from the community simply because they were arguing for social and religious reform.

When religious chauvinism overwhelms the mind, one does not simply demand laws on blasphemy but also primarily curbs any moderate or dissenting voices within the community. We can clearly see it is not just Nupur Sharma who is being threatened but also young Muslims like Saad are forced to keep silent, to remain in the little cocoon which has been made for them.

There was a lot of noise about Nupur Sharma but then we have complete silence on the issue of Saad Ansari. Where are the voices of Muslim journalists and social media influencers who always write about Muslim victimization? Why don’t they write about the threats and bullying of Saad Ansari? But then, it is too much to expect this from them. Instead of educating Muslims to dissociate from the politics of blasphemy, they were actively fanning it. The only Muslim there is to write about is the Muslim victim; all other issues of concern within the community have disappeared into thin air. 

More importantly, where are the Hindu liberals who were teaching the Muslim moderates to understand the pain of the community during the Nupur Sharma episode. Why are they not condemning what happened to Saad? Why are their pens silent now? We know why. Their pens only move when the victim is a Muslim and the aggressor is a Hindu. Incidents which happen with the likes of Saad do not fit their narrative and hence such stories are conveniently dropped. Intolerance is never a one- way street. If we have to call out the intolerance of the majority community, nothing should stop us from calling out the intolerance within also.

 Decades earlier, Hamid Dalwai was bold enough to realize and write about how both forms of intolerance feed upon each other and must be fought together. Moderate Muslims have always made this connection. Liberal Hindus would be better off without telling us what to do and what political positions to take. They are no one to lecture us on how to understand the pain of the Muslims in the given political context. As Muslims, we feel and experience this pain each passing day. But that has not blinded us to overlook what is happening in the community in the name of protecting Islam.

I pity those who bullied Saad into reciting the Kalima. If the intention was to re-instil faith into this Muslim youth, then they have already failed. For faith is not something which can be imposed from the outside. The obverse might actually happen. Saad will never to able to reconcile his faith in Islam as he has seen the thuggery that the followers of this religion are capable of.

—–

A regular contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.

This article was first published on NewAgeIslam.com

The post Blasphemy? The Loneliness of Saad Ansari appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations to mark March 15th as the international day to combat Islamophobia needs to be widely discussed by Muslims themselves. The state of the prime mover of the resolution, Pakistan, is itself a good place to start. Imran Khan promised his people that he will establish a new Pakistan, modelled on the early Islamic state of Medina. Little else to show to his people in terms of educational and economic progress, it comes handy to portray oneself as the savior of the Muslim world. His rule has been marked by increasing attacks on the religious minorities and even marginal Muslim groups like the Ahmadis and the Shias. Moreover, he has time and again succumbed to the Sunni right wing groups who are demanding a greater say in the affairs of the country. These groups have successfully held the government to ransom at many occasions and have demanded changes in the education system which will have far reaching effects on generations of Pakistanis. As Pervez Hoodbhoy has told us, people with little or no knowledge of education have been made in charge to supervise changes in the curriculum. If they have their way, it will be the end of liberal education as we know it. So, while the world is hailing Imran Khan for pushing the UN resolution, let’s also not forget that he has used Islam for nefarious purposes, including his self-promotion.

Almost all Muslim countries have backed the resolution. They have done so under the compulsion of domestic politics and overwhelming sentiment in favour of banning Islamophobia, but also because the term is so amorphous that states can use it to curb dissent and freedom of expression. Almost anything critical of Islam can be termed as Islamophobia and this can include the criticism of the sharia and even the criticism of the state or the government itself. A majority of Muslim countries are non-democratic and rank very low in terms of social and political freedom. A campaign in favour of increasing political representation in one of the Arab states can be construed as weakening the foundation of the Islamic government; the idea of democracy itself can be censured as being non-Islamic. The campaigners can very well be accused as being ‘phobic’ of an Islamic system and hence prosecuted for being Islamophobic. Armed with the UN resolution, such governments will be able to crack down on political dissent with a new found legitimacy.

This is not to say that Islamophobia does not exist. It has existed since centuries and perhaps since the rise of Islam which early Christians dubbed as a false religion. Some evangelical groups still think so and refuse to give Islam the same recognition which they would to other religious traditions. Moreover, in recent years, especially since 9/11, there has been the rise of what has been called the Islamophobia industry. A wide gamut of politicians, policy makers and activists, funded by ideological organizations have made it their past time to ridicule and mock Islam with an express intention to falsify its origin and its significance of giving meaning to multitudes of people. In India, for example, we have the emergence of social media handles and channels whose full-time engagement is to run down Islam and its teachings. They are being supplemented in their efforts by the mainstream news channels who don’t blink an eyelid in peddling fake news about Islam and Muslims.

Despite this, one should not forget that there can be legitimate criticism of Islam as a system of ideas and orthodoxies. Take for example, the growing trend worldwide of Muslims leaving Islam and calling themselves ex-Muslims. The majority of them have left the faith as they did not find answers to their questions within the religion. Some have left the faith because the religion, according to them, did not accommodate their concerns of scientific verification, gender equality, alternative sexual orientations and even human rights. They argue that there is substantial Muslim population who want to ask questions but cannot ask them as they fear for their lives. Apostasy and blasphemy remain a huge issue in Muslim majority contexts. In Saudi Arabia, citizens like Raif Badawi were charged with blasphemy and deprived of liberty for many years simply because he asked some uncomfortable questions from the ruling family. Some critical minds in the Arab world have been accused of blasphemy. They can get relief from the courts but within the minds of people they remain permanently accused and hence their lives are in perpetual danger. Some of these Arab intellectuals have only tried to bring Islamic theology in line with modernity. Should we discard all of their concerns as Islamophobic?                   

The UN has done well to call out the bigotry in the name of critiquing Islam. But the problem is that it has not defined what will constitute Islamophobia and has not differentiated it from genuine criticism of Islam. Not defining the boundaries of Islamophobia is harmful especially for Muslims across the world who are trying to wrestle the faith from dogmatic interpretations of the entrenched Ulama.  

—-

A regular contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.

This article was first published on https://www.newageislam.com

The post Why UN’s Islamophobia Resolution Troubles Moderate Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Quran And Hadis Mandate The Veiling Of Women, Linking It To Women’s Modesty

Main Points:

1.    The debarred Muslim girls continue to sit outside the classes as a mark of protest.

2.    This demand is not coming from all Muslim girls but only from a tiny minority bringing out the contested nature of the veil within Muslim society.

3.    If the veil is banned, what about Hindu religious symbols? Why such secularizing zeal is seen with regard to symbols of Islamic faith only?

Trouble is brewing in a government college in Udupi, Karnataka over the issue of headscarf. A few Muslim students of the college decided to don the veil arguing that it was a manifestation of their Islamic faith and that such an expression of religiosity was protected by the Indian constitution. The college authorities, on the other hand, have a different set of understanding. They have debarred these students from attending classes. The college argues that the veil is against the ‘dress code’ of the institution. As an institution which can frame laws for the benefit of the students, they are well within their rights to debar these students from attending classes.

But there are other parties to this polarized debate within the college campus. It was the Hindu right wing affiliated student body which at first objected to the usage of the veil in classrooms. Of late, Karnataka has been in the news for all the wrong reasons including passage of laws which explicitly target religious minorities like Muslims and Christians. The ruling BJP government has got bad press for wanton attacks in the state which targeted churches and other places of worship of the minority community. Hindu right-wing forces have become emboldened after the ruling dispensation came to power in the state. This seems to have been playing its part in the college too as the veil was certainly not an issue before the Hindu right wing student body protested against it.

The impasse has not been broken till now. Girls with veils continue to sit outside the classes as a mark of protest while the college seems to be determined on its position. But why has the veil become so important that Muslim girls are willing to forgo their education for this piece of head covering? Should education become the casualty over the question of religious identity of Muslims?

It is important to understand what the veil stands for. One of the many arguments that one comes across is that veils are a matter of choice. This argument lacks merit for the simple reason that in Islam it is not a question of choice but of an express commandment. The Quran and Hadis mandate the veiling of women, linking it to women’s modesty. So, these girls in Udupi are basically following what the religious scriptures demand of them.

The other argument is that the law of the land does upholds right to religious belief and practice as akin to a fundamental right and therefore these girls should be allowed to wear what is deemed as an Islamic outfit. Certainly, the Indian courts have upheld the right to religion but have time and again pointed out that they will only protect the ‘essential attributes of religion’. Now it is debatable whether veils pass this test of essential feature in the court of law. There is certainly no consensus within the Muslim community whether veils are an essential feature of Islam. Some Muslims regard it as obligatory while others think that it can be dispensed with in contemporary times.

 
Six Muslim girls were barred from attending class because of wearing a hijab. Credit: Twitter/Salman Nizami

Even within the college in question, there is no consensus within Muslim students. There are around 70 Muslim students in the college but the veil is an issue only for 12 students. Clearly then, not all Muslim students are in favour of the veil. The very fact that majority of Muslim girls in the college do not identify Islam with the veil brings out the contested nature of this head covering within Muslim society. At one level therefore, this is not a question of Islamic faith versus the college administration but of a few Muslims students insisting that their expression of Islamic religiosity be considered as the standard norm.    

Moreover, there are different kinds of face coverings which Muslim women wear depending on religious interpretation and the culture in which they are located. Thus, the Afghan face covering completely invisibilizes women making direct communication impossible. Within a classroom situation, it will be exceedingly difficult for any teacher to understand the facial expression of students with Afghan veils. This breakdown of dialogic communication will in turn lead to very poor pedagogic results. The girls in Karnataka, however, are not donning the full-face veil. One can see their faces and hence effective pedagogy is not being hampered. So, for the college, the only reason for barring these students is because of their religious attire.

India is a land of immense religious diversity. Religion seeps into educational spaces even without people expressly acknowledging it. There are a number of government schools, for example, in which one would find a temple dedicated to Saraswati, the goddess of learning. Clearly it is a Hindu symbol but then most schools, parents and teachers do not have any problem with it. One can see religious symbols in colleges and universities too. The headgear of the Sikhs is a religious symbol but there is no debate whether it should be worn within spaces of higher education. There are married Hindu women who access colleges and universities wearing their mangalsutra. Should they be similarly asked to take it off before entering their classrooms? Why is it that this secularizing zeal is witnessed only with regard to Muslim religious symbols?

Isn’t this illegal & unconstitutional? Doesn’t the constitution grant all Indian citizens the fundamental right to practice our religion?!? Should not the govt. college in #udupi follow the laws that govern the country ?!? This is illegal isn’t it? @DgpKarnataka @HMOKarnataka https://t.co/9qkBfK3QXs

— Swara Bhasker (@ReallySwara) January 15, 2022

Despite the rising Islamophobia, it needs to be underlined that in this case, Muslim girls have got their priorities wrong. Muslims are one of the recognized educational backward minorities in the country. When it comes to the education of Muslim women, the data is simply underwhelming. Girls like the ones in Udupi, who are fortunate enough to get to college, should think of those millions of their co-religionists who never get such a chance due to a number of circumstances. Should they be agitating for the right to wear the veil or should they be focusing on their studies and becoming role models for Muslim girls all over the country.

Ideally one should not have to choose between the two but just in case one has to, what choice should one make? Making the veil as the first choice is an insult to all those Muslim girls who are forced to reside in their homes because Muslim men think that they should not step out. Making the veil the first choice is an insult to millions of Muslim women worldwide who are fighting against this censorship on their body and mobility. This insistence that they will enter the college classroom with their veils comes from a position of privilege. 

It is equally important to understand that those supporting these college students belong to organizations that are Islamists in their agenda. The first organization to come in support was the Campus Front of India which is a student wing of the Popular Front of India (PFI). The PFI is not exactly known for upholding values of secularism and democracy as it has been named in a number of violent attacks including the one on a college teacher in Kerala for allegedly blaspheming Prophet Muhammad. The second organization in support is the Fraternity Movement, a student and youth collective having close ties with the Welfare Party of India, which is a political platform floated by the Indian Jamat e Islami. For both organizations, the careers of these students come secondary; what is more important is the battle of positioning in which they want to foist Islamic symbolism in the public sphere.

Amidst the intransigence of the college administration and political Islam, one can only hope that the education of Muslim girls does not become a casualty.

A regular columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.   

Article was first published on newageislam.com

The post Karnataka Veil Issue: Should Muslims Choose the Veil Over Education? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“This is all politics. There are vested interests on both sides. I don’t really like what is happening here.” This was the refrain from a friend of mine living in one of the many high rises in Gurgaon. Working for one of the many IT companies which dot the millennium city, I was generally inquiring from him about the ongoing disruption of Friday namaz happening through a concerted effort by Hindu right wing groups. I understand that many Hindus, like my friend, would not associate themselves with such groups. But their continued prevarication and silence on the issue is only emboldening these groups and their visceral anti-Muslim actions. In articulating the issue as arising from ‘vested interests of both sides’, my friend tries to create a false balance of forces which in fact does not exist.

The issue is fairly simple and there is really no “both sides to the story”. Many years ago, Muslims were allocated land to perform their prayer ritual in the absence of adequate number of mosques. The practice continued for years without any hiccup when various right wing Hindu groups started to object to Muslims ‘occupying’ public spaces to perform namaz. The very term occupation ignites sentiments that this is some diabolical plot by Muslims to acquire land in the name of religion. They even coined a name for it: land jihad. Muslims, however, have been petitioning the government to allocate them so that they can build mosques. It is the responsibility of the government to do, an act in which they have singularly failed. In the absence of adequate number of mosques, Muslims have been praying in the open. 

One can certainly have positions for or against Muslims praying in public spaces. Many Muslims themselves have opposed the idea of a praying in public spaces and have advised them to pray in their homes instead. One is also aware that Muslim groups have as a matter of right, blocked public roads to perform their Friday prayers which is patently wrong. But the issue in Gurgaon is different. Muslims are not occupying roads here, neither are they praying at unauthorized places. They were simply praying at places that were allotted to them by the administration for that very purpose. And it is rather rich when such an argument comes from Hindu groups who themselves wont blink an eye to claim public spaces for religious rituals. For these Hindu groups then, it is not about the sanctity of public spaces; it is rather about an assertion that only Hindus have the right to such places.

Cow dung was spread across a prayer site in Gurgaon

—–

At sector 37 in Gurgaon, Muslims used to conduct Friday prayers in a parking lot. But due to the belligerence of Hindu groups, they were forced to give it up and move to some other locations; until some other group decides to disrupt their namaz there too. But it is not that the place in sector 37 has now been reclaimed as a parking space. I saw a huge tent erected there under which some Hindu religious ritual was going on. While the namaz normally does not take more than half an hour, the puja went on for nearly half a day. So, this is a very dishonest argument by the Hindu right that their campaign is to reclaim public spaces. By that logic they should not be performing the puja at the same site. But then we know that this is fundamentally about ‘showing Muslims their place’.

The signal is loud and clear: that Muslims will have to live at the mercy of Hindus; that any public manifestation of Muslim religiosity needs to be curbed in this new definition of Hindu nation. If at all a Muslim prayer has to be ‘permitted’, it can only be allowed at obscure places. I saw one of those obscure places in sector 29 which was surrounded by big hotels; away from the hustle bustle of residences and factories. The message is clear again: Muslims will be tolerated only to the extent that they are not visible.

India need not become a legal Hindu state; groups within Hindus are creating social conditions which would not require any legal framework to do so. In this they are ably helped by the ruling dispensation, particularly the chief minister of Haryana who some days ago declared that he will not tolerate namaz in public places. The police, whose responsibility it is to uphold law and order, stands as mute spectators at many of these orchestrated protests by Hindu groups. Under such conditions, Muslims have acted wisely and have avoided confrontation. But this gives further signal to the right- wing Hindus that they can get away with anything.

Ultimately, it depends on sane Hindus like my friend in Gurgaon to come forward and condemn what is happening in the name of protecting their faith. Why is it that we hear such ominous silence from liberal mainstream Hindus when it comes to condemning such brazen attack on Muslim religious practice? Why is it that we do not see any “Not in My Name” rallies and protests demanding that such hateful politics in the name of Hinduism must stop.

Where are the stalwarts saving the constitution when the rights of Muslims to freely practice their religion is being threatened now more than ever? Why is it that there is no effort from their side to stem this tide of hatred? Why is it that they are not doing any outreach amongst among Hindus to tell them what is being done in their name? Many of these stalwarts in fact became so only because Muslims across the country provided them with platforms and numbers. Now when Muslims in Gurgaon need them, where are they?

And where is the scholar politician who educated us about the difference between Hindutva and Hinduism? How should we understand this complicit silence of ‘liberal and tolerant’ Hinduism?

—-

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com      

This article was first published on NewAgeIslam.com

The post Gurgaon Namaz Disruption: Why are Liberal Hindus Silent? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Main Points:

1.    Naseeruddin Shah’s video made its impact as it riled both the Hindu right wing and a section of Muslims, including some who would like to see themselves as progressive Muslims.

2.    Muslim organizations’ refusal to condemn the Taliban is downright worrying but what is perhaps more worrisome is the refusal of the progressive Muslims to see it clearly.

3.    Naseeruddin Shah might have linked Islam with medievalism but why are we so indignant about it? Isn’t our theology and jurisprudence still medieval?

4.    These Muslim progressives should strengthen the likes of Shah rather than shielding Muslim conservatism.

—-

In the wake of the return of Taliban and the celebratory posturing of a few Indian Muslims, Naseeruddin Shah posted an indignant video in which he condemned those who were happy to see the coming of the Islamists. Informed by what the Taliban had done to the country when they first took power, Shah termed them as bestial and barbaric. He questioned whether Muslims should be looking forward to modernity or should pine for the return of this medieval mindset. The video was short, sharp and crisp. The fact that it made its impact is clear from the fact that it riled both the Hindu right wing and the Muslim sympathizers of the Taliban.

Shah made a distinction between Indian and other varieties of Islam and argued that Indian Islam was tolerant and appreciative of pluralism. He implied that those celebrating the Taliban have no understanding of this difference. The Hindu right wing seized upon this distinction to point out how Indian Islam was implicated in the killing of ‘millions of Hindus’, ‘destruction of their cultural heritage’ and a ‘veritable erasure of their identity’. However, while pointing this out, they singularly fail to tell us how despite the long years of such ‘barbaric rule’, the Hindus still constitute an overrwlming majority of 85 per cent in this country. The whole point of the Hindu right wing discourse is to argue that Islam is essentially the same everywhere. That it is a religion of violence and that at its core is the idea of Islamic supremacy. This view is completely a-historical because Islam has always fused with local cultures and flavours and therefore one cannot talk of Islam in the singular. But then the Hindu right wing has an agenda to fulfil and painting Islam as an unchanging unitarian barbaric cult helps them immensely.

What are the Muslim objections to Shah’s message? And within this category are not just those Muslims who celebrated the return of the Taliban but also those who present themselves as modernist and progressive voices within the community. There are two sets of related objections that they have raised.

They have argued that Shah seems to be implying that all Muslims in India celebrated the return of the Taliban which is factually incorrect. They point out that only a few Indian Muslims welcomed their return and because of this to paint the entire Muslim community with the same brush is patently wrong. There might be some merit in this argument but then what is the barometer of gauging that the celebrations came from a small section of Muslims? There is no way of knowing it as there isn’t any survey conducted to the effect. The only way perhaps to understand it is to see what position hegemonic Muslim organizations took on the return of the Taliban. As I wrote earlier, not just that there is no outright condemnation from the sundry bodies of Deobandis, Barelwis and the Ahle Hadees, but that in the past (and some in the present) they have always been close to the vision of what the Taliban is proclaiming. Who can deny that an average Barelwi, despite his differences with the Deobandi, does not endorse the vision of the Talibani Sharia or that of the Islamic state? These organization have millions of followers. Their refusal to condemn the Taliban is downright worrying but what is perhaps more worrisome is the refusal of the progressive Muslims to see it clearly. 

The second objection to Shah’s videos is that he urged Indian Muslims to choose between the mediaeval Islam of violence and a modern, forward-looking Islam. The objection here is that Shah painted the entire mediaeval Islamic history as bestial. It is argued that not only was he factually wrong but that in saying that Indian Islam was different, he was only lending credence to the right-wing claim that it became so because of the civilizing effect of Hinduism.

I do not think that it was Shah’s intention to state that Muslim history in only about ‘barbarism’. We know that Islam made significant contribution to India’s history, chief among them was its idea of equality. But then the problem which some progressive Muslims (most of them upper caste Ashraf Muslims, who take pride in having a foreign lineage) have is that they do not want to accept that Hinduism also had some positive effect on Islam, may be in terms of a certain moderation in thought and acceptance of pluralism. How can Islam, which calls itself the perfect religion, accept anything from an inferior polytheistic religion?

Shah might have also linked Islam with mediaevalism because all our theology and jurisprudence is still mediaeval with hardly any change in them at all. This being the situation, shouldn’t one choose between mediaevalism and modernism?

Indian Muslims are in a unique position because their country is still secular and democratic, however truncated it might have become. It was this uniqueness that Shah was trying to underline. Within this context, if Muslim organizations do not condemn the Taliban, it can only mean that secularism, democracy and the constitution are empty words for Muslims which only have value in relation to protecting their sectarian interests.

I am sure that some progressive Muslims can see through this charade and yet refuse to be alarmed by this tendency.

Partly the ‘progressive’ Muslim is doing this because they want to ‘save’ Muslims from the Hindu Right’s relentless Islamophobia. After all the coming of the Taliban was welcomed not just by a section of Muslims, but also by the right-wing Hindus who used the opportunity to showcase what ‘true’ Islam was all about. But this urge to save Muslims has only had one effect which is to close all conservations around the issues of religious conservatism and possible reform. In the name of fighting Islamophobia, why is the progressive Muslim aligning with the orthodoxy? If one takes the position that this is not the right time for Shah to voice his concerns; that it will be appropriated by right wing Hindus, then perhaps the likes of Shah should never speak up.

These Muslim progressives are adding nothing original to the debate. They are simply aping the stale leftist rhetoric which because of their supreme ignorance of Islam and Muslims never engaged in such questions. In a complex world, there is never a right context and in any given context what one writes or says can be used for some other purpose. The context of the ascendance of Hindu right wing should not stop Muslims from condemning the Taliban. Neither should it stop them from calling out those in India who support the Taliban. This is time when we need to stand up for courageous voices like those of Shah. Any failure to do so would only strengthen the religious orthodoxy within the Muslim community.  

—–

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

First published on  NewAgeIslam.com

The post Why ‘Progressive’ Muslims are wrong in Condemning Naseeruddin Shah’s Anti-Taliban Video appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Glossing over other important problems which beset the Muslim world, it is mildly farcical that some women ‘choose’ to celebrate the World Hijab Day on the 1st of February. The idea is to invite religious and non-religious women to don the hijab for a day so as to experience that the garment is not really oppressive as it is made out to be. The celebration of hijab is being done in the name of countering ‘Islamophobia’. Muslim women are arguing that their bodies and its appearances have been the special target of this new western racism.

It is interesting to note that the fulcrum of this movement is located in the west, especially the US, where perhaps it is very easy to understand that hijab could be a matter of pure choice of an individual believer. But can the same thing be said about millions of women located in Muslim countries? Is it really a matter of choice for them?

February 1st is also the day when Khomeini returned to Iran, and post the revolution decreed that all women must cover up. One is not sure if the organisers of World Hijab Day are aware of this, but it is a crying shame that it is same date on which women in Iran were denied the choice of dressing up the way they liked. There might not have been a revolutionary decree in other Muslim countries, but the force of convention and dominant Islamic theology have made sure that Muslim women do not have the freedom to take off the veil. Young children are taught to dress ‘modestly’ in Islamic schools and when they become adults, this piece of cloth becomes an inalienable part of their bodily comportment.

Movements ranging from the Islamic Brotherhood to the Jamat e Islami, have all understood the hijab as an essential expression of political Islam. So configuring the hijab as a matter of choice might be true for some individuals but for the majority of Muslim women, it simply isn’t. Rather there are powerful regimes which are heavily invested in making the hijab as the distinctive symbol of Muslim identity. Marketing it as choice is simply sinister as it gives the impression that there is no societal and religious imposition behind the adoption of the veil.

Choice has almost become a sacred word. When all other arguments fail, people say that it is a question of their choice and therefore it should be respected. Liberals often fall for this kind of logic and in fact go to lengths to justify veils as an individual choice. Granted that for some it can be a matter of choice, but then should all choices be respected? Some Muslim communities across the world practice female circumcision and they too have been arguing that their religious choice should be respected. How many of those celebrating the hijab as a choice would extend the same courtesy to such a heinous practice? A difference must be made between choices that are empowering and choices that might have the appearance of empowerment but in fact does just the opposite.

The hijab has never been about choice. In fact, it is a religious commandment. The dominant Islamic theology commands and expects the separation of spaces between men and women. Women have been put in charge of men as Islamic theology understands the latter as being the primary providers. The hijab is certainly empowering in the sense that it breaks down the traditional separation of spaces between men and women. To the extent that it allows Muslim women to claim and reclaim public spaces, it must be welcome. It is quite clear from the neo-advocates of the hijab that they are hardly bound by the traditional interpretation of religion. Had that been the case, they would have spoken from behind a curtain as is enjoined in the Islamic sharia. They hardly do so. The women who are advocating the hijab are all university educated Muslims who speak before thousands of men.

Some would say that these women are engaged in selective interpretation of religious texts, but then so have been the bearded men since centuries. Just because women have started doing it now should be no reason for alarm. Ultimately, all theology is about interpretation, and one should not have a problem if Muslim women have started exercising it too. It is the idea behind such a hermeneutics that needs to be questioned.

And that idea seems to be the legitimation of a certain modesty culture which Islam enjoins on women. If one asks the simple question why Islam commands only women to cover themselves but not the men, then it becomes clear that the religion assumes fundamental differences between the two genders. Women are to be secluded and there are express commands forbidding women to show their Awra. What constitutes Awra is a matter of interpretation; in some cultures almost the entirety of women’s body is to be covered while in others the hands and the face are excluded. It seems that there is a general consensus amongst the theologians that women’s hair are an extremely important part of their Awra and hence needs to be hidden at all times except while in privacy.

 It is not surprising therefore that most Muslim cultures have some form of head covering and even those who do not normally adhere to this norm would do so on special occasions. Women’s hair is thus considered tempting for men but ironically it is women who are supposed to cover them up. The pressure and responsibility of being ‘modest’ rests on the women and if she is not, then the understanding is that she has herself invited trouble. It is this patriarchal and sexist understanding which has informed the traditionalist reading of Islam and which needs to be questioned.

The pro veil advocacy in this sense is thus nothing more than an extension of such a traditionalist gender understanding which sustains itself on positing a fundamental inequality between men and women. Given the education and agency which some of the pro-hijab women have acquired, their activism would have been put to much better use had they started to question this religion ordained inequality rather than uncritically celebrating the hijab as a matter of choice.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com    

This article was first published on NewAgeIslam.com    

The post World Hijab Day: Is Hijab Really A Question Of Choice? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With the release of Tabligh Jamaat (TJ) members by a Delhi court sometime back, there has been a surfeit of condemnation of those who dared to criticise the Tabligh Jamaat for holding its religious gathering during the onset of the corona pandemic. It is being argued that all those who condemned the TJ must now apologise as the courts have not found them guilty. However, amidst this cacophony, there is a need to separate the vilification of TJ (which must be called out) and the putrid speeches delivered by its chief vehemently negating the dangers of the pandemic and putting many lives at risk.

Let us start with the larger narrative spun around the Tabligh Jamaat which was deeply disturbing. This narrative expressly targeted the TJ (and by extension all Muslims) for spreading the virus. Let us not forget that the government and the media targeted the Muslim community, scapegoating them in order to link the community with the spread of the virus. Just like medieval Europe had blamed the Jews for the plague, the Hindu Right weaponized a virus to target the Muslim community. Whereas, the world over, the virus flattened any distinction of caste, creed and colour; in India, it (the virus) was given an Islamic identity.

At many levels therefore, the role of the media and the government was nothing sort of criminal when it came to portraying the Tabligh Jamaat in a negative way. They were accused of conducting ‘corona jihad’ by the media with fake images of Tabligh Jamaat members flooding the internet conspiring to spread the virus in different ways. On has not forgotten that the barrage of fake videos which started doing the rounds on social media depicting Muslims deliberately smearing vegetables and fruits with their saliva, spitting into food served in restaurants, and coughing into the faces of other people, all with the malevolent intent of infecting non-Muslims. One also remembers with alacrity hashtags like #bioJihad and #tablighijamaatvirus that began to circulate on social media with terrifying consequences. The media was directly responsible for putting Muslim lives in danger as their communal reporting led to chilling consequences for ordinary Muslims. One remembers how Muslim vegetable vendors were not allowed to enter Hindu localities; one also remembers how a COVID ward in a Gujarat hospital got separated between Hindus and Muslims.

It must be stressed that at the time when the Tabligh Jamaat was holding its’ program, there was no lockdown in effect. In fact, even the parliament was functioning as if everything was normal. Therefore we must be clear that there was no illegality involved in the ongoing programs of the TJ. Rather, it was the sudden announcement of lockdown which did not give any time to people to prepare for this eventuality, which made the situation precarious for the Tablighis. Since people from different parts of the world had gathered for the religious program, the sudden lockdown made them stranded in a foreign country with the government having no plan to help with their emigration.

It must be said that being a transnational movement, the Tabligh Jamaat was in a better position to know about the incoming pandemic. It could have been clairvoyant and postponed the program much earlier and asked its delegates to return to their home countries. At the same time, we must also remember that the TJ was not the only religious organization to have gone with a planned program and as such cannot be held uniquely responsible for not reading the situation. Other religious organizations did pretty much the same thing in India and elsewhere. However, unlike the TJ, they were hardly castigated for being responsible for spreading the virus.

Transgressions by other religious organizations were overlooked because the sole focus of the media and government was to shift the blame on Muslims. Despite the lockdown effective since March 24th, the Uttar Pradesh chief minister attended a Ram Navami event in Ayodhya the very next day on the 25th of March. Before the lockdown became effective, a Sikh preacher, Baldev Singh, who had returned from Italy and Germany, defied government stipulated self-quarantine measures and continued to freely preach in various religious assemblies. The guru died because of the virus and the Punjab government put nearly 40,000 people in isolation with whom the guru had come into contact. Despite such callous behaviour displayed by an elected chief minister and a religious guru, neither the government nor the media houses highlighted these issues. Rather, the sole focus remained on how Muslims were spreading the virus.

Normally, one would have expected the government to intervene and stop this vilification. But what we saw was the exact opposite: the health ministry in its bulletin directly blamed the Tabligh Jamaat for spreading the virus in India. Other state apparatus like the judiciary were hardly convinced of this narrative peddled by the media and the government. In fact, in August, the Mumbai high court castigated the Maharashtra government for making the TJ a ‘scapegoat’ in order to hide its own failures in combating the virus. Those who are demanding that the media and the government apologise to the TJ should not forget that these institutions will never do so. This vilification of Muslims through the Tabligh Jamaat was part of a design to increase hatred towards Muslims. Given the fact that so many fake videos became viral, it seems that willing Hindus saw nothing wrong in such vilification of a particular community. 

However, we should also not forget that the speeches of Maulana Saad, the chief of TJ, gave much grist to those who wanted to make Muslims the ultimate villain. The ignorant utterances of Maulana Saad perpetuated irrationality and blind faith and should have been roundly condemned by all Muslims. However, over the past many years, it has become incumbent on Muslims to defend all kinds of nonsense which religious leaders indulge in. Instead of cautioning its followers and asking them to desist from congregating in mosques, the chief, Saad Kandhalvi did the very opposite. He stated that the virus was a punishment sent from God. In speeches made between March 20 and 22, he told his followers: ‘this is the time to bring the Ummah (Muslim community) to the mosques, not of leaving the mosques….. This is the time you should organise visits and bring people to mosques because the calamity that has struck us is due to our leaving the mosques…. It is a false belief that the virus spreads through assembling in the mosque. Even if you observe that a man dies after entering the mosque, then I will say that there cannot be a better place to die. …. The government wants you to choose remedial measures over fate…. only the Kuffar (unbelievers) rely on remedial measures and resources, Muslims only rely on Amaal (religious deeds) and prayers’.

Such foolish utterances of an influential religious figure should not be glossed over for the sake of political correctness. It was only in subsequent oration on the 25th of March, under the active advice of the government, that the chief of the Tabligh Jamaat toned down his religious rhetoric and asked his followers to follow the social distancing guidelines. If one is condemning the actions of the media and the government then one should also not desist from condemning such speeches of Maulana Saad. It is a travesty of our times that even critical Muslims have fallen for the idea that defending Maulana Saad is coterminous with defending attacks on Muslims. This is simply wrong. There is no contradiction between defending attacks on Muslims while at the same time critiquing whatever is wrong within the community.   

—–

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com  

This article was first published on https://www.newageislam.com

The post The Tablighis Were Indeed Made Scapegoats; But Will Muslims Condemn Maulana Saad’s Retrograde Speeches? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pakistan recently saw one of the largest demonstrations against the Shias. This demonstration must be seen in the context of legislative changes made in Pakistan with respect to its blasphemy laws.

According to one provision, any one disrespecting the companions of the prophet will also be deemed a blasphemer and will be dealt accordingly. This clause directly threatens one of the important Ashura rituals of Shia called the Tabarra in which they say not very kind things to some of the companions of the prophet. The three caliphs, Abu Bakar, Umar and Usman are treated with utter contempt by the Shia who regard them as usurpers of the legitimate rights of Ali to be the first caliph.

Accordingly, on the Day of Ashura, a number of Shia Ulama made disparaging remarks about the three caliphs, partly out of tradition and partly to protest against the new law. On the other side, we have certain Sunni organizations who have decreed the Shia to be kafir, thus outside the pale of Islam and against whom an attitude of enmity must be cultivated.

Groups like Sipah e Sahaba, notorious for anti-Shia killings were joined in by Sunni Barelwi groups and others raising anti-Shia slogans and demanding the arrest of those Shia Ulama who had disrespected the companions of the prophet. If the Imran Khan government wanted to show to the world that he has terror groups in control, then all his efforts have come to a nought.

Allowing a terrorist organization like Sipah e Sabaha to march with thousands in Karachi is an admission of utter failure of the Pakistani state to reign in such groups. Incidentally, fiery speeches against the Shia were made at the Muhammad Ali Road, named after the founder of Pakistan, who himself was a Shia.

It is to be expected that over the years these doctrinal divisions should have withered away, but on the contrary, both Shia and Sunni positions have hardened. Some Shias (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brm1a1bpHFA) have argued that Tabbarra forms an essential part of their faith, that without heaping curses on the ‘enemies of Ali and Fatima’, one cannot be a true Shia Muslim. It is not that the Shia are innovating when they are indulging in this practice, on the contrary, they believe, coming from Imam Jafar al Sadiq, that doing this is the very expression of their faith.

While some Shia Ulama have asked for restraint during such rituals, others have not been so practical and have even criticised such moderation.

The Sunnis, on the other hand, have responded to such alleged provocation with Madhe Sahaba rallies which eulogise the rule of first three caliphs. In fact, in earlier times, in the erstwhile United Provinces, it were the Shias who objected to taking out such Sunni Madhe Sahaba rallies as it restricted their right of Tabbarra. 

Times have changed and in Pakistan, the Shias have been at the receiving end. The Sunnis in Pakistan, who constitute the majority, now want their impression on the statutes that govern the country. In their zealousness to show Shia hatred, some Muslims actually praised Yazid, the killer of Hussain and his family (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiPkOJSsZXc). In their utter blind hatred of Shias, some Muslims even tend to forget that they are glorifying the killers of Prophet Muhammad’s family. For the Sunnis then, this hatred of Shias is also becoming part of their belief system. From their childhood, they are being taught that Shias are like ‘termites’ who are weakening Islam from within. It appears that hating each other has now become a permanent part of Shia-Sunni identity.

In the long run this hatred can only devour whatever is left of Pakistan. Having gotten rid of ‘Hindus’ after partition, Pakistan turned on its own citizens, the Bengalis, massacring many thousands. After Bangladesh seceded, it then invented the internal threat of Ahmadiyas, and outlawed and repressed them in the name of protecting its version of true Islam. In this calculated pogrom of Ahmadiyas, let us not forget that the Shia were enthusiastic participants.

It should now dawn on them that being a minority, they should speak in terms of democracy and minority rights, including the rights of the Ahmadiyas and the beleaguered Hindus and Christians. Only then can they mount an effective challenge to the current majoritarian Sunni lumpenism.

Something has gone horribly wrong with the understanding of Islam. In the not so distant past, the groups who are together vying for the blood of Shias were at logger heads, each proclaiming the other as deviant. Those adhering to the ideologies of al-Qaeda and Taliban did in fact blow up the holiest of Barelwi shrines including the Data Darbar shrine. These groups, deriving legitimacy from Deobandi Islam, were targeting music and myriad Sufi practices and actually ended up killing many of them.

So while Deobandis and Barelwis have come together to proclaim the Shias as kafirs, one should not forget that they have deep doctrinal differences between themselves and that they have called each other kafir not so long ago.

Pakistan has seen too much bloodshed due to takfiri ideology. If the authorities do not give urgent attention to the current anti-Shia climate being created, then the country will descend into a blood orgy one more time. The only way to remedy this situation is to publically proclaim the virtues of pluralism; that each interpretation of Islam is as valid as the other. Only then can such mindless and bigoted takfiri polemics come to an end.

—-

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com
 

This article was first published on NewAgeIslam.com

The post Pakistan Now Turns on Its Shia Citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.