Ghazala Wahab on How Muslim Identity Is Shifting In India and the Pervasive Harassment and Violence against Religious Minorities

By Hiba Rahman Dec 13, 2022 “There has always been discrimination, both officially and unofficially, after independence and partition, there was discrimination against Muslims in civil services and armed forces, and a lot of it was official in the sense that there was a policy and that they should not be enrolled in certain streams of governance or intelligence services. At the social level, Muslims had discrimination in terms of housing and discrimination in schools and colleges where Muslim students would be pointed out or isolated in their educational institution.“ Ghazala Wahab ------ Born a Muslim: Some Truths about Islam in India begins with a gripping personal narrative that explores the roots of Islamophobia and the misery it causes to Muslims in India, who face discrimination and hatred as a result of their faith and appearance. Ghazala Wahab, the author of Born A Muslim: Some Truths About Islam in India and Dragon on Our Doorstep. She is the executive editor of FORCE, where she writes on homeland security, terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir, left-wing extremism and religious extremism and contributes a column, First Person. She contributed a chapter on the changing profile of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir in the book Operation Parakram: The War Unfinished. A career journalist, Ghazala has worked with The Telegraph and Asian Age. Ghazala Wahab weaves together Personal narratives, Islamic history, non-fictional stories, news, women, and interviews with a wide range of people to show how people and state indifference, as well as widespread bias have made Muslims feel even more unsafe. The book provides an exhaustive description of the Muslim experience in India as perceived by the author and the numerous persons she has interviewed. < Regular and pervasive bias towards India’s Muslims has been on the rise and may be found all over social media platforms. It is unfortunate to see such a huge population being treated in such a blatant manner in a diverse country, which is falling farther and further behind in religious freedom, as reported by USCIRF. At a time when Religious freedom conditions in India are taking a drastic turn downward, we spoke to Ghazala Wahab about how Muslim identity is shifting in India and the pervasive harassment and violence against religious minorities. Q: You have been nominated for the Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay NIF Book Prize 2022 for your book “Born A Muslim: Some Truths About Islam in India”, which has already won the Tata Literature Live Book Of The Year award and the Atta Galatta- Bangalore Literature Festival Book Of The Year award. Have you been expecting such a positive reaction? What does it mean to you? This has been surprising, and I am extremely grateful for that. I never imagined that I would get any award, and I am really grateful for all the attention that the book has got. My wish is that with this attention, hopefully, people also read it carefully and find something to reflect upon it. When people read, they should be able to think that maybe they have misunderstood certain things about Islam, this is for both Muslims and Hindus and other religions, and maybe they need to revisit their old prejudices and perception about both the religion and the practice of religion in India. Q: This book couldn’t have arrived at a better moment when Islam and Muslims are the targets of widespread scepticism and hate in the country. Please tell us when and how the thought of writing a book on such a relevant subject developed. The idea of the book had been with me for a very long time. I edit a monthly magazine on national security and defence, and in the course of my magazine work, I have been writing extensively on the subject of terrorism, internal security, and a little bit of communal violence as well. When I was working on this area, I have always felt that it was not just the Hindus who had miss giving about Islam. Even Muslims misunderstood a lot of things about Islam. They used to take it (religion) as fate. A large number of Muslims grew up on the idea of fate, what the religion expects them to do and what is the ideal behaviour for a follower of that religion. So this issue used to trouble me, in my own personal experience of growing up in a family which was both liberal as well as conservative and a family which was also kind of negotiating its space in a modern world trying to hold on to very deeply religious values. With all this, I felt that I had something to say, I had an opinion on these issues, and I must put them down, so that is how the idea of the book came about. As far as timing was concerned, my first book, Dragon on Our Doorstep, came out in 2017, and after the book came out, I was just sitting and wondering what to do and what book to write next because when you start writing, you get in the momentum so that discipline becomes a part of your life; the discipline of reading and reflecting and then writing, I didn’t want to lose that momentum I wanted to continue with that frame of mind, and I was keen to write my next book, and that’s how the book started. Q: Personal narrative, Islamic history, non-fictional stories, news, women, and interviews all come together in your book. Were there any challenges in finding the right voice? How did you find a way to weave so many disparate ideas into a cohesive whole? Finding the right voice was not a challenge at all; that was the first thing which was in place because this is my style of writing even in my magazine, when I write my column, it is written in the first person. And it is written in an intimate manner where I talk directly with my readers. So I weave in a lot of personal experience in my writing, and I have been doing this for many years now. I like this style, as it gives me some sort of connection with people, who are reading my book. Even if I don’t know who the readers are, I just feel that if I am writing in that intimate manner and if I am putting myself out there in public, then I will not be received cruelly, I will be received with empathy, and that is how it was very natural. My style of writing has been there for a long time, where I have weaved personal reportage and research. Q: Please tell us about your journey as a Muslim woman writer. What kind of difficulties did you face during the field research for your book? To be honest, I did not face any difficulty as a woman; I faced the difficulty of access to certain people, and I think that would have happened to anybody, irrespective of gender because it’s difficult to find a Muslim scholar who is also open to discussion. Most Muslims are very didactic in their thinking, they don’t like arguments, and they don’t like discussion, especially on the subject of Islam. So, finding people who could have a discussion with me and who could help me dispel my doubts about Islam was the difficult part of my research. Source: Telegraph India ----- The other difficult part was to find people who would go on record. There were a few people who were very open about talking and sharing their own sentiments about their experience, but some of them did not want to be quoted; they were worried about their name appearing in print. The difficulty was to convince them that they will not be misquoted and they will not be put out of context, but as far as gender is concerned, I did not face any issue with that. Q: I came across this interesting take in your book that, ‘Islam was envisaged as a classless and casteless religion but could not overcome the human obsession with social hierarchy and power.’ Which do you think has contributed more to these caste distinctions, culture or politics? Has the caste distinction had any effect on how Muslims are treated in India today? The caste system in India among Muslims is the worst-kept secret. When I was a child, the perspective of Islam was limited to three castes, that is, Sheikh, Syed and Pathan, because marriage was desired between these three communities. So, my curiosity emerged from this, and I used to wonder if there is a caste hierarchy in place; everybody in my family used to tell me that there is no caste system. Even when I was doing research for this book and I was asking people curiously about Muslim castes, the Ashraf and the Ajlaf, they denied the existence of caste. It is only people who are involved or engaged in the fight for social justice among Muslims that talk openly about caste in Islam, otherwise, people refer to their caste as a ‘community’, which creates the illusion of no caste. And we don’t get to see how the caste system among Muslims affects them. When I was researching, and I started observing and reading a little bit more, I realised that it was affecting the people who were at the receiving end, people from the Ajlaf caste. It was affecting them in a way that their access to education, their access to employment, and their access to upward mobility are severely limited. The majority of poor Muslims come from this demographic group (Ajlaf), and because they are poor Muslims so they are at the receiving end of any anti-Muslim violence. Whenever there has been Hindu-Muslim violence or an assault by the police, the Muslim people who suffer are usually from this demographic group, so the cast plays a role in this manner. The Ajlafs are the lowest of the low among Muslims, and these are the people who are demanding that they should be recognised as Dalit Muslims. Thus, there is an interplay both at the social level and political level, where your position in society is determined by the caste, whether it is Muslim or any other community so, religion is not the biggest differentiation in India these days, but caste is, in this respect. But caste is also a unifier in other respect that Pasmanda politics talk about, Dalit Pichhda Ek Saman Hindu Ho Ya Musalman (your caste will unite you and your religion is immaterial) it is where the politics of the caste appear. Q: In your book, you wrote, ‘fewer lower caste/class Muslims, who are second or third generation converts, have started to revert to the identity of their Hindu forefathers, starting with the name change.’ Ultimately, having a Muslim name in our country carries a certain degree of danger. How has discrimination against Muslims in India increased? Honestly, I have not come across anybody who had actually become a Hindu. I was referred to this family about whom I have mentioned in the book because this family had made outreach that they want to do the Ghar Wapsi (because the Ghar Wapsi campaign was going on in Agra), and they felt that by doing this, their lives and business would be protected. There has always been discrimination, both officially and unofficially, after independence and partition, there was discrimination against Muslims in civil services and armed forces, and a lot of it was official in the sense that there was a policy and that they should not be enrolled in certain streams of governance or intelligence services. At the social level, Muslims had discrimination in terms of housing and discrimination in schools and colleges where Muslim students would be pointed out or isolated in their educational institution. But what is happening now is that a lot of non-government vigilant group has emerged, which have added a layer of violence to the discrimination, they have operated under the broad umbrella of the ruling party, so here discrimination has now acquired a very dangerous form, it has become an everyday threat to Muslim’s life and livelihood. Now there is one element of violence from this vigilante group, and the other is from the law enforcement agency, they have become more vicious towards Muslims as compared to the past, in past even if somebody was discriminating against Muslims, there was a fear that the government would take action, but now that fear is no longer there. Q: You have written a whole chapter on Muslim women in which you pointed out that Islam has tried to be as fair as it could be, in terms of giving women rights to property, to remarry, education and employment. Despite the fact that they have equality and liberty, Muslim women are among the most vulnerable groups. Why do you think that this is happening, especially in India? In India, there is an additional layer of patriarchy and very dogmatic religious scholarship. Both of them together have ensured that women remain powerless, and they do not question anything. All religions theoretically have been more or less fair; if we look at Hinduism, women are worshipped as Devi, but that’s all in theory, in practical when women surrender their rights to question, when they surrender their right to education, then obviously they are at the receiving end of anybody who wins power. And the biggest and the oldest power group in the world from time immemorial has been the man; as our society evolved, they were the food gatherer, they were the ones who brought home the bread, so they carried greater power over other members of the society/communities/families, and they have been dogmatically guarding their territory and women have become part of their territory. That is why in Islam also so much effort is expanded on keeping women subjugated by ensuring that women have to wear clothes in a particular way or have to appear in public in a particular way, so much of effort is exerted to ensure that women remain within the religious system and to remain secondary to the men. So, I think it is a combination of conservatism as well as patriarchy. Source: Telegraph India ---- Q: When you wrote about Muslim women, you said that their identities were talked about all over the country because firstly due to the triple talaq issue and now the protest of the Shaheen Bagh. How do you think this affects the way people in India consider and regard Muslim women in the current scenario? The current scenario has changed a little bit, especially after the CAA-NRC protest broke out, most women were housewives, and women who never stepped out of their houses before, were talking to the media giving impromptu interviews and being so articulate about their position. But overall, the perception remains that they are the most disempowered group within the community, and to some extent, this perception is correct because they are indeed the most disempowered members of society. But it is also true that a large number of Muslim women are stepping out within the conservative phase work they are expressing their position, and they are desired to remain part of both education system as well as the workspace. Q. What are your hopes for Muslims as a community and for Muslim women in particular? What I wish for Muslims is that they should not only study but keep abreast with the technology advancement and make sure that the courses they select and the time & money they invest in their education should be wisely done. The other thing I wish is that, if Muslims are practising Muslim, they should learn about religion on their own, it should not be shackled, and it should not be something which is dictated to them by vested interest groups, whether the Ulema or conservative members in their communities in the Mohallas or their families. I think both of these things apply to Muslim women also, and I also want to tell Muslim women that if you feel and if you think that you are being used by the male members of their community to further their political agent, please take your heel and step back because you should not be used as a sacrificial lamb to some of their agenda. ------ Hiba Rahman is a Research scholar and a freelance writer. She believes that all humans are equal and looks forward to working for women’s empowerment and equal opportunity. URL: https://newageislam.com/interview/ghazala-wahab-identity-violence-religious-minorities/d/128625 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Analysing Spinoza's Conundrum: If the Topic of God Arises, Religion Cannot Be Far Behind

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 14 December 2022 We Do Not Question The Scriptures. Who Wrote Them? What Special Qualifications Did They Have To Contend That They Were The Chosen Instruments Of God? Who Has Validated Their Assumptions? ------ What's incomprehensible today, does not mean that it shall continue to remain unexplained even after thousands of years. Human intelligence is never stuck at one point like a needle of the clock that has stopped working, though there's little doubt that in the realm of religion and god, the evolution of intelligence and insights often hits a cul de sac. Benedict Spinoza's god, translated from Dutch by Edmund Elter Let's assess and analyse this famous quote, often termed as Spinoza's conundrum. Going back into history or mythology, the Greeks believed that Zeus lived on Mount Olympus. Then one day Man climbed Mount Olympus. So, god could not possibly dwell where Man could reach. So, he moved further away. The Egyptians believed that their god Ra lived in the sun; then Man realized that our sun was just a minor star, and god gradually retreated beyond boundaries that could be physically defined. We humans actually are so full of ourselves and have an in-born desire to know everything and to control everything. We are loath to admit that there are certain things we cannot explain, so we ascribe them to god. A study of human history would reveal that over the centuries, as our knowledge of the physical laws that govern the Universe has increased, we have attributed less and less to god as there has been less that we cannot explain. But one thing that we are not able to accept is that once we die it is kaput, the end, there is no afterlife and no re-birth. This is where god comes in very handy and all that goes with him; heaven, hell, judgment day, retribution etc in other words- perpetuation of our existence even after death. The earth is the third rock from the sun, an insignificant star, on the fringes of an ordinary galaxy among billions of others and we would like to believe that the humans that inhabit our planet are special! Whenever the topic of god arises, then religion cannot be far behind. Has it ever occurred to any of us that whereas we humans have consistently updated our understanding of all that happens on our planet, validated them through scientific investigation and discovery, we still continue to blindly accept the veracity of religious scriptures written more than two thousand years ago. Not just that , we have also delegated interpretation of these scriptures to pundits and clerics who want to control how we live our lives, based on what someone put down in writing centuries earlier. We do not question the scriptures. Who wrote them? What special qualifications did they have to contend that they were the chosen instruments of god? Who has validated their assumptions? Today, human knowledge is expanding so quickly, that even school textbooks become outdated in a decade and have to be revised/re-written. But our scriptures - nobody dares to question them. Isn't there a disconnect here? Human civilization has progressed because of the inquiring nature of the human mind, our ability to experiment, to consistently search for an easier and more efficient way of doing things. But when it comes to religion, our minds literally stop functioning; we refuse to even consider questioning its postulates. Why? Is it because we are afraid of divine wrath, or is it the fear of ostracism by the community? A study of history will show that maximum wars have been fought and the most innocent human lives have been lost because of religion, different gods, different faiths, and different perceptions. Is this not strange (if not foolish) considering that there is still no incontrovertible evidence that god exists! As an aside, till now, except for Buddhism, which is an atheistic religion, all other faiths (including the atheistic Jainism) believe in hell and heaven. The reason being, all scriptures aver that hell and heaven do exist. But does this outlandish belief gel with the innate nous all humans are endowed with? It's time to pitchfork this innate intelligence and come to the conclusion that the imaginary hell and heaven are mere mental states and have no physical existence. Agreed, even an atheist has his/her limitations in perceiving and comprehending a number of phenomena just like a believer is full of silly and stubborn self-assurance. Therefore, human intelligence needs to evolve constantly till it gets all the answers. There mustn't be any let up until this profound mission reaches its logical end. ---- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/spinoza-conundrum-god-religion/d/128624 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Belief in God or a Supernatural Power Comes With a Caveat

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 13 December 2022 Isn't Curbing Natural Urges In The Name Of A Fictional God And Religion, Some Kind Of Despotic, Nay Theocratic, Sadism? -------- " One of the strongest theological differences and dissensions between Islam and Christianity is while the former just cannot think that Allah can make love and become a biological father, the latter endows it with a kind of procreational attribute and makes the god as the father of Jesus. But one thing remains common in both the Semitic faiths: The divine sexuality is not discussed further and remains a hush-hush issue. " -Alan Turing, Father of computer science and founder of Artificial Intelligence “Why do humans portray god as a completely asexual entity?” Ayn Rand “When sex, unbridled orgies and debauchery of the believers can be possible in heaven for their admirable celibacy on earth, what on earth will god do? Will he watch his loyalists make love like a voyeur or jump on the bandwagon? " -Sigmund Freud Recently, Pope Francis condemned nuns and priests for watching pornography on the sly and said that it was Satan's trick to dissuade them (nuns and priests) from the path of holiness. He urged them to delete all pornographic stuff from their mobiles. Morally Good. Hallelujah! But the question is: Isn't curbing natural urges in the name of a fictional god and religion, some kind of despotic, nay theocratic, sadism? Nowadays, the entire world seems to be obsessed with god and religion. We're turning ourselves into living zombies to please a fictitious and concocted entity up there in the seventh heaven, taking a pervert interest in every individual's life and deciding the quantum of punishments for the varying degrees of our sexual and moral capers. This is too much and it must be stopped for the mental health of mankind. A few days ago, I got an unverified WhatsApp message containing a conversation between Einstein and his atheist professor. The fake message presented Einstein as a staunch believer, which's doubtful. In the end, receivers were exhorted to send that dubious message to as many readers as they could. This is business! God's business-a flourishing business across the globe. People have been making a living out of it since time immemorial. Our shrewd politicians know this jolly well. So, they use and manipulate this imaginary entity whichever way they can. Soon, the images of different deities may adorn Indian currency! In other words, god-obsession is skyrocketing. Retailing god is a profession older than the oldest and resembles it in more ways than one. It professes to offer satisfaction, but aims at exploitation. It promises bliss, but imparts syphilis. It makes tall claims backed by no guarantee. And yet, men go ahead willingly and eagerly to be conned. Ancient men who created gods and wove myths around them, were highly imaginative and sagacious people. But men who take these gods literally are myopic morons. Gods should never be taken seriously as well as literally. At best, they function as handy metaphors. Being afraid of a god is as silly as being scared of the monster one had sketched on one's canvas. It's equally absurd to be infatuated with the portrait or sculpture of a beautiful woman: You cannot make love to it, but you can end up making a fool of yourself. The makers of films are dubbed as dream-merchants, but the greatest dream-merchants are the purveyors of heaven. Look at the idyllic but sanitised settings of all heavens with minor variations to suit the local tastes. When an adult takes a cine-fantasy seriously, we make fun of him, but billions over the globe move about dazed like zombies carrying empty-headed visions of Elysium. It's morbid. God's the greatest fraud that man has foisted upon himself. It's an April-fool prank that's played all the year round without its bluff being called even once. Children abandon their fantasies of fairies and ogres as they move into adulthood, but adults cling to the most vacuous fiction of god all their lives. Anyone who's not grown out of his childhood gods beyond his twenties is as ludicrous as an adult sleeping with a teddy bear, as fatuous as a man rummaging through antique shops for Aladdin's lamp, and as derisive as a man organising an expedition to collect gold at the end of a rainbow. One may take a liberal, even an indulgent view of these irrationalities if they make an individual happy as a Cushion/Placebo Effect. They may even be called therapeutic. But when they become punitive tools as in the hands of fanatics, the whole shebang of faith and religiosity becomes awful, obnoxious and absolutely vicious. Individuals with god-infested brains ought to be banished to a remote corner of Africa or drowned in the Mariana Trench. If they (religious fools) are found propagating violence and hatred, they must be treated on a par with drug-pushers and homicides. They ought to be confined to long term isolated cells and given electro-therapy of sanity. Belief in god or a supernatural power comes with a caveat: It includes all sorts of unexplained miracles and mumbo-jumbo, defying all known laws of nature; superstitions and shibboleths that dwell on portents and equivocal prophecies, posthumous fate of soul entailing heaven, hell, reincarnation and rebirth; a life-denying, dry and vapid code of conduct advocating strangulation of natural instincts like sex; an interminable series of otiose rituals, customs and most asinine practices that defy logic and reason. The UN should come out with a white paper on god before it does irreparable damage to the human psyche. There's no room for a personal god in contemporary thought. We must outgrow the mind-set that holds in awe a man who claims to be god-incarnate or the son of god or the messenger of god. Listen to his message by all means, but evaluate it critically and accept only after it passes the litmus test of reason. The most insidious fallout of belief in god is a collateral belief in the devil. All the miseries of man can be traced to this deadly duo. Like Scylla and Charybdis, one of the two is bound to gobble him up. Agreed, the concept of god's also responsible for most that's joyous, benevolent and moral in this world. The beatific rapture that one derives from the contemplation of god puts into pale any other kind of elation. But we mustn't forget that god is the most ingenious brainchild of man- a grandiose fiction that's more fascinating than all the facts put together. It's, therefore, time to enjoy life's innocuous pleasures without being fearful of god and religion. There's no need to lambast oneself for occasional moral transgressions and trivial digressions. You're not being watched by any god or misled by any Lucifer. Enjoy your life to the hilt without a scintilla of nagging guilt. How long will you live in the suffocating penumbra of god and religion? Come out of it. ---- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/belief-god-supernatural-religion/d/128620 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Legal Pluralism of Islamic Sharia and Colonial Codification of Indian Muslim Personal Law

By Grace Mubashir, New Age Islam 12 December 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Each nation has received different opinions, heard different hadiths, and lived according to what each of them had come to them from different kinds of legal views among the companions of the Prophet and among their descendants. It would not be appropriate to dismiss their views. It is better to let the people act as they act, and let each locality adopt the laws according to the laws it has received, and leave them to their own ways.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Abbasid caliph Abu Ja'far al-Mansur was asked by the minister and literary genius Ibn al-Muqafah to formulate a civil law code to unify Sharia jurisprudence for administrative transparency. Caliph Mansoor took such an opinion seriously in view of the correctness of administration and decided to convert 'Muwatta' by Ibn Malik into a law book as the most accurately codified Fiqh book of the time. Caliph Mansoor made that request to Imam Malik, the author of the Muwatta, during a Hajj: “I wish to send a copy of this book of yours to every town and instruct them to accept the laws just because of what is in it. You are from Medina. The knowledge of Madinah is authentic”. Rejecting the Caliph's demand, Imam Malik's response was: “Ameer ul Mu'mineen (leader of the believers), you should not do that. Each nation has received different opinions, heard different hadiths, and lived according to what each of them had come to them from different kinds of legal views among the companions of the Prophet and among their descendants. It would not be appropriate to dismiss their views. It is better to let the people act as they act, and let each locality adopt the laws according to the laws it has received, and leave them to their own ways.” Islamic Sharia and Civil Society Imam Malik's interest in rejecting the Caliph's demand to codify and determine the Islamic Sharia in a one-dimensional manner was to stop the power-interest, and in each case the scholars of the respective time and land should determine the solutions for the problems. After that, it was not until the nineteenth century that anyone dared to prepare a unified law book or penal code called 'Islamic Sharia'. Rather, it existed through numerous texts, circumstantial interpretations, served civil society, and pluralized and practiced Islamic jurisprudence in through multiple approaches. The multi-dialectical nature of the Sharia was not compatible with nineteenth-century colonial power interests. The features of decentralized Sharia were not amenable to the colonial administration and they tried to subsume it under their authority. Joseph Shatt , Ignaz Goldsier, and Snook were pioneers in the project. Orientalists and other viceroys of various Muslim lands claimed that the Islamic legal system was imprecise and demanded reform. The most important characteristic of the Sharia was that it was not subordinated to the interests of state power anywhere in history. The rules of Sharia were developed by scholars who acted as independent bodies. But in contrast to that, in European nations, laws existed as an exercise of power by the ruling class. Therefore, law-making systems remained part of the state in the European system of governance. The Sharia was operationalised by being integrated into civil society and influencing every part of their lives. It was therefore in many respects a system that was more closely related to civil society than to the state. Wa'il Hallaq says: “Shariah was not meant to be a problem-solving mechanism. It has greatly influenced all aspects of the society, economic, moral, spiritual and cultural. This is where Sharia differs from the modern legal system. Sharia takes shape and evolves from whatever society it was formed to serve. In that way, ordinary citizens are constantly aware of the legal system and become a constant part of their daily lives. The fuqaha/muftis were constantly imparting legal knowledge to the society.” Colonial Codes and the Open Legal System In Franz Kafka's short story 'Before the Law', the law is presented as inaccessible to the common people and distant from them. The main character in 'The Trial', who does not know what wrong he has been punished for, and the character in 'Before the Law', who has to wait until he dies at the door of the law to know what the law is, have the same problem. However, it arises from the fact that the modern legal system keeps a distance from society. The crisis of law standing apart from society, which Kafka reveals, does not therefore arise in the Sharia, which constantly interacts with society in all its aspects. Shariah was understood as a social and personal relationship between the people and the legal system rather than a tool to rule and control. Sharia was aligned with the legal positivist HLA Hart's observation that 'law is given its legitimacy by its sociality'. Khalid Abul Fadl writes: “The basis of Islamic jurisprudence was the principle that laws should stand for human good, administration of justice, and classification of good and evil. Sharia was based on the (independent) interpretations of the text by scholars, as opposed to the modern secular system based on laws set by the state. They [scholars] maintained that all such interpretations were at the same time different readings, and therefore all of them were correct and any of them could be accepted.” The European legal system existed as 'codes' such as the Dutch National Code, the British Penal Code and the Napoleonic Code. Therefore, all of them were recorded and determined in different books, and they were separated as a separate field from the society by building special buildings for management. But there were no 'special spaces' in Islamic history to enforce Sharia, find legal solutions to problems and air grievances. Sharia rules were discussed in the homes of scholars, the needy, in mosques, in markets, and in royal assemblies. There was no specific text to highlight that 'this is Sharia Law'. Because in Shariah, the book was not important, rather it was the person seeking legal protection and their environment. The modern liberal approach to such an open legal system can be read in the words of an American judge: "We are not Muslim Qadis who sit under a tree and interpret the book in their hand to dictate the law as it seems." Modernity and Sharia: From Ottoman Egypt to Anglo-Muhammadan Law Orientalists and colonial authorities were interested in codifying Islamic laws by proposing to reject the uniqueness of the Islamic Sharia outside the European system. They therefore tried to rewrite the existing Sharia systems in other Muslim countries based on their own system. Thus, the first official codification of Islamic Sharia took place in India under the British Raj. It was creating a hybrid legal system under Governor Warren Hastings. By British Orientalist Sir William Jones under the directive of viceroy, the British company began efforts to make Muslim and Hindu laws into a unified code. To codify Muslim law, texts from the Hanafi Madhhab such as Margini's Hidaya in 1791 were translated by Charles Hamilton , Sirajiyah in 1792, and Fatawa Alamgiriyya in 1865 by Nile Bailey, which formed the 'Anglo Muhammadan Law' in 1860. But in Anglo-Muhammadan Law, the 'Anglo' lock prevailed over the 'Muhammadan' Law. This led to the later colonial Muslim law of 1937, the 'Muslim Personal Law Application Act', which made Sharia exclusively personal/civil law. By the 20th century, the colonial power had completely established the supremacy of the European legal system in the monetary and criminal-penal laws in the Muslim world. Thus, colonialism reduced Sharia to personal laws only. By the 1880s, there was a proposal to codify the Sharia in Egypt, and a group of Qadis and British officials drafted the Muslim Personal Law incorporating the dominant views of the Hanafi madhhab. By the 1930s, the French regime had similarly formulated a Sharia code in Morocco. Similarly, in 1873, the code created by the Dutch administration in Java, incorporating Sharia and local customs, was almost identical to the Dutch National Code. Then, what happened when the Shariah was codified by the colonial authorities in various places was the rejection of the most important features of the Sharia, namely pluralism. The 'Personal Sharia Laws' codified one of many opinions and reduced the painstaking process of 'Iftaa (giving legal opinion) to one that any officer could do by reading a single book. In addition, colonial regimes were able to codify Sharia law under state control. However, that process created many legal, social and religious crises and caused the term Sharia to be misunderstood. According to Mark Fathi Masood, head of the University of California Law School, the rise of religious fundamentalists and the misuse of Sharia is traced to the Sharia system created by the colonial authorities. He observes that bringing Sharia under the authority of the state is exactly what the fundamentalists have done in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Nigeria, which is the reverse and consequence of colonial interest itself. Amira Zahri Sombol explores the point in the current political context. She writes that it was very easy for a woman to get a divorce during the Ottoman period and that the Sharia itself had provisions to implement many possibilities for the good of women. But they observed that in post-colonial Egypt, obtaining a divorce has become a difficult legal process for a woman, and divorce is granted only if it can be proven on the basis of strong evidence or by the husband's own confession that the wife has been subjected to severe torture. While sexually assaulted women were protected and compensated under the early modern Sharia system, they were often punished or euthanized by their families in the post-colonial system. In the same way, Saba Mahmoud states in the book 'Religious Difference in the Secular Age' that the rights of minorities were protected under the Ottoman Sharia system in Egypt, but the modern secular Egyptian system has failed to protect the rights of minorities. The Possibilities of Sharia beyond Foucauldian 'Laws' For Michel Foucault, 'laws are instruments of power'. Law reinforces the relationship of power through all its institutions and materials. He points out that laws are not just certain principles or directives, but an ever-evolving exercise of power. Ibrahim Musa's understanding of colonial codification based on Foucault's arguments is as follows: “The colonial powers secured power not only through military-political-economic power, but also by imposing their legal wisdom on the colonized. The consequence is that even after independence, the colonized are trapped under the legal system of the same colonial powers that oppressed them.” Therefore, it is not possible to formulate and understand Sharia in terms of European legal theories, since Islamic Sharia exists in contrast to the centralized European legal system. As Derrida observes in 'Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority' with Walter Benjamin in mind, law in the European system has always functioned only for the survival of the 'law/state'. Its primary objective is always, 'its own self-sustainment'. Hence its mission is to 'maintain established authority without crisis'. So, the basis of modern laws is always authority. But since the Shariah, in contrast, essentially aims at 'the moral formation of civil society and the protection of rights', its basic characteristic is 'decentralization of power'. Thus, it never becomes 'absolute' in itself like modern laws. Rather, Islamic Shariah is a decentralized one, constantly in the process of 'becoming', renewing itself and renewing society through dealings with social conditions 'external' to it. ----- A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Mubashir V.P is a PhD scholar in Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia and freelance journalist. URL: https://newageislam.com/the-war-within-islam/legal-pluralism-islamic-sharia-colonial-personal-law/d/128610 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Don't Waste Your Time and Energy on Geocentric and Heliocentric Models: See the Ever-Swelling Number of Ex-Muslims

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 12 December 2022 It saddens me no end to see armchair exegetes and apologists of Islam and Quran waste their time over absolutely meaningless issues like geocentric and heliocentric models. How can this futile debate be of any tangible use to any sane person or Muslim? A 'genius' is applying his mathematical acumen to prove the unerring accuracy and sequence of Quranic verses while suicide bombers are killing innocent people all over the world. “If even one person misunderstands and misuses the teachings of a scripture, the moral onus is on the entire mankind, not just on that person or his community. In that case, that scripture must be studied all over again, rewritten according to contemporary contexts and made unambiguous even to a child, “wrote Rabindranath Tagore to his Irish friend and fellow Nobel laureate William Butler Yeats. Both Tagore and Yeats never believed in the authenticity of the scriptures of their respective faiths and were nominal faithful individuals who seldom, if ever, visited a temple or church. But they were humanitarians. The armchair Muslim 'scholars' living in ivory towers must emulate these greats who put humans above religions, books and even god/s. When a book, full of contradictions and written in flawed Arabic, becomes a book of divine guidance for a whole Ummah and creates so much bad-blood, isn't it advisable to toss away that book forever to live peacefully with all humans irrespective of their religions and sects? How long will Muslims continue to kill fellow humans in the name of Islam? Most of the Muslims seem to be suffering from the Error of Accuracy and Commitment Syndrome; unwavering commitment to Quran, Hadees and Sunnah. They've refused to accept the fact that their desert faith must desert primitivism to keep pace with modernism. Ironically, Quran's perceived accuracy has become its error! In other words, Islam and Quran are hoist with their own petard. That's why the term 'liberal Muslim' has become an oxymoron like ' an honest politician ' or 'happily married.' You're either honest or a politician or either happy or married, just like either a liberal or a Muslim. Coming back to the subject of discussing a host of utterly useless religious phenomena and tenets of Islam, it'll be far better to introspect and shelve Quran and Muhammad's spurious teachings for a while. It's also time to ask yourselves why the rest of the world avoids, if not abhors, Muslims. Please don't tell me, many westerners are embracing Islam to prove me wrong. Mind you, those coming out of the fold of Islam, outnumber those who're converting to it. See the ever-swelling number of ex-Muslims. ---- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-society/geocentric-heliocentric-models-ex-muslims/d/128609 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Another Unpardonable Silence of Indian Ulema: New Age Islam Refuting So-Called Islamic Resistance Council’s Ideology; IRC Reportedly Attempted to Attack a Hindu Temple and Called for Jihad against India

The Members Affiliated With Islamic Resistance Council Must Stop Misleading Muslim Youth and Turn Away From the Wrong Path Main Points 1. Mangaluru Attack is not legal under Islamic Shariah 2. Unlawfulness of Attacking a temple or any other places of worship in Islam 3. Jihadist groups including those affiliated with so-called ‘Islamic Resistance Council’ have no authority to declare jihad against India 4. India is currently a democratic nation that accords both Muslims and non-Muslims religious liberties and rights; hence it is not a land of war [Darul Harb]. ...... By New Age Islam Staff Writer 10 December 2022 Islamic Resistance Council ------- One would have thought that our Ulama-e-Karam would fall like a ton of bricks on the so-called Islamic Resistance Council for misusing and misinterpreting Verses of Quran to call for Jihad against India. But there is complete silence on the part of Ulema as usual. I am reminded of a statement made by the so-called Khalifa Baghdadi of Islamic State who had said that "Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day; it has always been a religion of conflict of war." This statement had been repeated verbatim by some Indian Muslim youth who had gone to Syria and joined the so-called Islamic State. On both these occasions, though these statements had been widely reported in the media, our Ulama had maintained complete and inexplicable silence. According to reports, the Islamic Resistance Council (IRC) has claimed responsibility for the Mangaluru explosion on November 19 by stating in a message shared on social media that one of its ‘Mujahid brothers, Mohammed Shariq, attempted to attack a “Hindutva Temple in Kadri (in Dakshina Kannada district), a bastion of the Saffron terrorists in Mangaluru”. "Although this operation didn't meet its objectives, we still consider it a success from a tradecraft and tactics point of view as the brother in spite of being wanted and being pursued by the state and central intelligence agencies, was not only able to successfully evade them but even prepared and mounted an attack,” the message said. It further said, “We would like to answer those who ask “why have you attacked?” it is because we have been forced into this war and the path of resistance by the Fascists and we are only responding to the worst forms of state terrorism. We are only retaliating because an open war has been declared upon us because Mob Lynching has become a norm, because oppressive laws and legislations are passed to suppress us and interfere in our Religion, because our innocents are languishing in prisons, because public spaces today reverberate with calls of our genocide, and because as Muslims we have been commanded to wage Jihad when faced with mischief and oppression”. To justify its objective, IRC has quoted a verse of the Quran, “Permission to fight has been granted to those against whom war is being waged wrongfully because they were wronged” (Quran: 22:39) After evaluating the substance of the message submitted via IRC on social media, there are a few questions that need to be answered, and I must do so. The first question is whether this attack is legal under Islamic Shariah, as claimed by the so-called IRC. Is attacking the temple legal in Islam? Is it allowed for IRC members to declare jihad? Another concern is how Muslims in India should seek justice when they are subjected to injustice and situations like mob lynching, among other things. Should the Muslims join together to fight a war in response to this circumstance, or should they continue to appeal to the Indian police administration and courts for justice? Another question is whether, in the present context, India is Darul Aman (the Land of Peace) or Darul Harb (the Land of War). The answers to all of these questions can be found by replying to just one of the interconnected questions. However, we will address each query to make things easier for the general public. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also Read: Unpardonable Silence of Ulema as Bomb blasts and Suicide Bombings continue to torment Islamic Countries, trashing the image of Islam and Muslims ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, it is true that a tiny number of people have engaged in mob lynching in recent years in an effort to sabotage India's peace and togetherness, forward their evil objectives, and damage the country as a whole. But patriotic Indians condemned such events. Of course, in order to protect the country, we must denounce such abuses. We should resolve these issues amicably because they are our problems. This circumstance, however, cannot be utilized to support "the Mangaluru Blast." India is our country, and its problems are our problems. We know how to address our problems, and we are always aware that using violence to solve problems is never the best course of action. The authority to "declare Jihad" against hostile combatants belongs alone to the ruler of an Islamic state, according to Islamic legal texts. No other person or group is permitted to do the same. Ordinary Muslims are not permitted to declare jihad on their own. Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi, who is regarded as the founder of militancy in the Indian subcontinent and a person who influenced the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly Syed Qutb, is also one of the proponents of this concept. Syed Maududi had refused to describe Pakistani incursion in Jammu and Kashmir after Independence as Jihad. He was sentenced to death for being a traitor to Islam and Pakistan. But he stuck to his view that Jihad cannot be fought by stealth but it will have to be declared and can only be declared by a State, that too after cutting all ties and revoking all treaties with the country against which Jihad has to be declared. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Dr. Shawki Ibrahim Allam, responds to the question of "Who Has The Right To Call For Jihad and Declare War?”, “According to Islamic law, a Muslim ruler alone has the authority to declare and conduct war...The Muslim ruler declares war only after consulting specialists in every relevant field such as technical and military specialists and political consultants who are indispensable to military strategy. The luminary al-Bahutī said in Sharh Muntahā al-Iradāt: ―It is prohibited to [launch an] attack without the ruler's permission because he is responsible for making the decision of declaring war.” This assertion unequivocally rejects the jihadist mind set of IRC which has no ruler accepted by Indian Muslims. According to Dr. Shawki Allam, Islamic states must uphold the agreements and treaties they have voluntarily acknowledged and signed. They must also work steadfastly with the rest of the world's nations to achieve international peace and security, but [only] to the extent of the commitment of the signatory countries. God says: “O you who believe, fulfil [all] contracts” [5:1] In the commentary of the above verse, Dr. Shawki Allam says, “the term 'contract' refers to all commitments between two parties on a particular issue. In his interpretation of the above verse, the erudite Tunisian scholar, ibn 'Ashur says: “Contracts in this verse refers to one of a genus denoting the totality [of contracts]. It includes covenants that Muslims made with their Lord such as to follow the Shari’ah … pacts of allegiance between the believers and the prophet [pbuh], not to associate partners with God, steal, or commit fornication … agreements between Muslims and non-Muslims … and agreements between one Muslim and another" [Al-Tahriir wa al-Tanwīr, 6/74].” (Dr. Shawki Allam, The Ideological Battlefield, Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta Combats Radicalization, Jihad: Concept, history, and Contemporary Application, p.7-24) After reading the aforementioned words, it is crucial to understand that Indian Muslims have vowed to uphold the peace and integrity of their country and to always be prepared for the protection and survival of their country under the Indian Constitution. They are aware that, no matter how severely some wicked elements in their country persecute them, the only way they can end the oppression is by using the judicial system. When it comes to persecution, it's crucial to understand that Muslims occasionally persecute other Muslims, sometimes fabricate accusations against other Muslims, and occasionally even murder other Muslims. Yes, in such scenarios, the victim is forced to turn to the legal system, and occasionally he receives justice, but occasionally, because of corruption, he is forced to struggle to obtain it. He must have patience if he does not receive justice since it works to his advantage. This kind of persecution is not unique to India; it happens everywhere in the world, including Muslim-majority countries. In many Muslim countries, non-Muslims are likewise oppressed and have their privileges taken away. These problems can only be resolved through the judicial system. Anyone who claims to execute justice on their own is a criminal and susceptible to punishment in the eyes of Islamic law too. After considering all of these aspects, the IRC members should change their minds, return to the right path, and stop further misleading the Muslim youth because their acts may generate difficulty for the country, especially for the Muslims in a wake of retaliation. The only group that will be harmed more than everyone else in this situation is the Muslim community. In conclusion, the IRC approach may lead to Muslims' own destruction. Therefore, they should stop misleading the Muslim youth. Aside from that, I genuinely hope they won't succeed in influencing Indian Muslims because Indian Muslims have rejected the ideologies of well-known terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Is India A Land of Peace [Darul Aman], A land where Islam is freely practiced [Darul Islam], or a Land of War [Darul Harb]? Both Darul Islam and Darul Harb are jurisprudential terms (Fiqhi Istilahat) which were originally coined by the jurists of the early period of Islam but to deal with national transactions (Mua’amlaat) and relations (Ta’lluqaat) required by the then circumstances of the world. However, the conditions (Sharai’t) laid down by those jurists for land to become Darul Islam or Darul Harb revolved around what we simply describe in modern times as ‘basic religious rights, such as freedom of faith and rituals (‘Ibadat)’. The land which granted such religious rights was declared ‘Darul Islam’, whereas the land which banned the basic requirements of Islam was treated as Darul Harb. The most common mistake of nearly all the radical groups is about the concept of Darul Harb and Darul Islam. Ideologues of the jihadist movement contend that Islam must predominate as a state religion and that Islamic law must be upheld on a national scale in order for a nation to become Darul Islam. They believe that Darul Harb is a land that does not recognize Islam as the state religion and does not let Islam rule the land. This jihadist definition is completely wrong and vehemently conflicts with how both terms are typically used among the mainstream Ulama and scholars. Traditionally speaking, regardless of whether the land has a majority of Muslims or non-Muslims, the term "Darul Islam" refers to a place that grants fundamental religious rights to Islam. In other words, the term describes a land where Islam is freely practiced. In this case, it is not necessary for Islam to be practiced as the state religion. A land that banned fundamental religious rights of Islam, such as freedom of worship and religious rites was known as Darul Harb. The following quotes from the classical and traditional body of Islamic law completely disagree with the jihadist definitions of Darul Islam and Darul Harb, arguing that India is a land of peace and that no group has the right to proclaim jihad against India. In accordance with traditional and classical scholarship, the countries that provide the right to practice ritual prayers [Salah/prayer], the annual fast of Ramazan [Roza/Siyam], the building of mosques, the call to prayer [Azan], and the right to exhibit the wearing of Islamic dress and the performance of Muslim marriage cannot be declared ‘Darul Harb’. These countries, according to some contemporary jurists, are Darul Aman [the abode of peace], and to some, are Darul Islam [the abode where Islam is freely practiced]. For example, Abul Hasan al-Mawardi, the Iraqi judge and scholar of Muslim polity and law says: "The public acts of worship of Islam such as group prayers in mosques and calls for prayers are the criteria by which the Prophet (peace be upon him) differentiated between the Darul Islam [the Land of belief] and the Darul Harb [the Land of Disbelief]." Imam Nawawi, a popular classical Syrian scholar supports al-Mawardi’s definition of Darul Islam and writes in his great legal work ‘Rawda al-Talibin’: “If a Muslim is able to declare his Islam openly and living therein (non-Muslim majority countries), it is better for him to do so, because this fulfils the criteria for a country to be Darul Islam” The corpus of Hanafis, Shafiis, Malikis, and Hanbalis obviously suggests that the open practice of Islamic acts such as ritual prayers, annual fast, call to prayers [azan], etc. are sufficient for the land to be considered Darul Islam even if it is a non-Muslim majority country. For example, the Shafi'i position is based on a Sunna (as narrated in a hadith) that fighting or Jihad should not take place in a region where the call to prayer (azan) is heard, as the free practice of Islam indicates that the land, in general, was not hostile to Muslims and Islam. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim report a hadith in this regard: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Azan [the call to prayer], he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Azan, he would attack them immediately after dawn” (Sahih Bukhari) Imam Nawawi interprets this hadith: This hadith is evidence that verily the call to prayer [azan] forbids invading a people of that area and this is evidence of their Islam. We have also checked the opinions of the influential Indian jurists and scholars who are followed as pioneers by Indian Muslims including Sunni-Sufis or Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadithis, and Salafis. Without going through their opinions in detail, it is better and time-saving to see the conclusions of their detailed discussions respectively as follows; In 1881, a person namely Mirza Ali Baig Badayuni sent a questionnaire consisting of three questions to Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi, the first of which was: Is India Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam? In response to this questionnaire, Imam Ahmad Raza wrote a pamphlet namely "E’laamul A’alam Bianna Hindustan Dar-ul-Islam" which was first published by Hasani Press Bareilly in form of a treatise in 1927 and later included in “Fatawa Razviyya”, a collection of his Fatawa. The fatwa begins with the following words: “India is Dar-ul-Islam, not Dar-ul-Harb at all. This is based on the jurisprudential school (Mazhab) of our great Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah bless him and grant him peace)” (Fatawa Razviyya, vol.14) Maulana Amjad Ali Azmi, a very trustworthy and close spiritual caliph (Sufi Khalifa) of Imam Ahmad Raza also issued a similar fatwa in response to a question posed in a later period as follows; “India is Darul Islam. It is a grave mistake to call it Dar-ul-Harb” (Fatawa Amjadiyya, Vol. 3, published and printed by Dairatul Ma’arif al-Amjadiyya, Ghosi, Maunathbhanjan, UP) According to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, a pioneer in the Deobandi School of Thought, India is not Dar-ul-Harb but Dar-ul-Islam. He writes; “Generally, the meaning of Dar-ul-Harb is mistakenly understood that it is the place where war is obligatory; then in this sense, India is not Dar-ul-Harb, because war is not valid under the terms of the treaty” (Ashrafia, Ashrafia Publishing House, Bhoon Police Station, Saharanpur District) He further writes: “And India is not Darul Harb also according to the Sahibayn (Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yusuf, the two great students of Imam Abu Hanifa), because although the rules of polytheism are practiced in it, the rules of Islam are also practiced without fear and danger. That both types of rules and practices freely exist in one land or one country does not make the country ‘Darul Harb’. Similarly, India is not Darul Harb as per the criteria and words of Imam Abu Hanifa” (Tahzeer al-Ikhwan, Maulana Thanwi, printed by Ashraf al-Matabi’, Thaana Bhawan, Saharanpur, UP) In the biography of the Salafi Ghair-Muqallid cleric and Muhaddith (hadith scholar), Maulana Nazeer Hussain Bihari (d. 1902), the biographer Maulana Fazle Hussain Bihari (d. 1916) writes; “He (Maulana Nazeer Hussain Bihari) never called India Dar-ul-Harb” (Fazl-e-Hussain, Al-Hayat Baad al-Maut, printed by Al-Kitab International Muradi Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi) The founder of the Markazi Khilafat Committee (1919), Maulana Abdul Baari Firangi Mahali Lakhnawi (d.1926) writes: “We declare India Darul Islam” (Maktoob Maulana Abdul Baari Firangi Mahali, printed by Akhbar-e-Mashriq, Gorakhpur) The above-mentioned religious leaders and pioneers of Indian Muslims declared India to be Darul Islam under the condition that Muslims were free to exercise their religious rituals, including prayer (Namaz/Salah), the call to prayer (Azaan), Eid prayers, and annual fasts. These Indian jurists and authorities did not stipulate that Islam must be a state religion for a country to become Darul Islam, in adherence to the early Islamic jurists. This means that if a country grants fundamental religious freedoms, regardless of whether or not Islam serves as the official religion of that country, that country is Darul Islam and not Darul Harb. India is currently a democratic nation that accords both Muslims and non-Muslims religious liberties and rights. It is not a land of war [Darul Harb]. Thus, the jihadist ideologues, especially those connected to the mysterious group known as the "Islamic Resistance Council," have no authority to declare their purported "Jihad" against India. It is time they must stop misleading the Muslim youth and turn away from the disastrous path they have. URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/indian-ulema-refuting-islamic-resistance-ideology-temple/d/128605 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Dilip Kumar, an Actor and Gentleman Par Excellence

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 10 December 2022 The memories of my first meeting with Dilip Kumar are still verdant in my memory. I met him at Turf Club, Poona, way back in 2007. My journalist friend Naeem Akhtar, who worked with a Pakistani Urdu daily, Azkaar (plural of Zikra) wanted to interview the thespian. He had already fixed an appointment. Yusuf Sahab used to visit Turf Club, Poona, and was particularly associated with Poona and Deolali (Nasik). We met him at 5 pm. Contrary to today's actors and their supercilious attitude and a retinue of assistants, secretary and a host of fawning admirers, Yusuf Sahab himself attended to my friend's call when he gave him a tinkle. That was in Bombay. He told him that he'd be in Poona where he, my friend, could meet and interview him. We both had a sense of trepidation before meeting him. After all, we were meeting a living legend who in addition to being a great actor, was also an erudite conversationalist. But lo and behold, he turned out to be so down to earth and humble, a sign of real greatness. “Adaab, Yusuf Sahab," we said in unison. “Adaab, Barkhurdar”, he replied politely. Dilip Kumar ------ Readers may be aware that Dilip Kumar never spoke loudly. He once told an interviewer, “Humne Taa-Hayaat Kabhi Kisi Se Oonchi Aawaaz Mein Baat Nahin Kee. Oonchi Aawaaz Mein Baat Karna Humein Shaaistagi Ke Khilaaf Lagta Hai '' (Never in life have I spoken aloud. To me, speaking loudly is against the very tenets of etiquette). To put us in ease, he continued, "Shahar-e-Poona (he never said the most awful-sounding Pune, Mumbai and Chennai and always used the old names of these metros) Se Hamari Beshumaar Yaadein Vaabista Hain. Na Jaane Iss Shahar Ki Hawa Main Aisi Kya Baat Hai Ke Jo Koi Yahan Aata Hai, Iski Muhabbat Mein Aseer Ho Jaata Hai” (I've fond memories of Poona. There's something so special about this city that whoever visits Poona, gets enamoured of it). He spoke at length about his life, career, his friends and co-actors and regaled us with his anecdotes. Extremely well read, Dilip Kumar would quote his friend and favourite Urdu poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz's Urdu poetry. He'd also quote Pablo Neruda and Robert Frost. He was devoid of all pretensions and was humility personified. When asked, how did he feel having achieved so much in life, Dilip Sahab quoted Raghupati Sahay 'Firaq' Gorakhpuri's famous couplet, " Bulandiyaan Sar Keen, Safar-E-Taveel Tay Kiya / Palat Ke Dekhta Hoon, Kya Khoya, Kya Paaya" (Reached dizzying heights, travelled a long way / Now when I look back, I ruminate over what I achieved and lost). There was no stipulated time given to us. It was a long interview followed by dinner. When we finished the interview, we thanked him for sparing time for us. He said, “Shukriya Toh Humein Ada Karna Chahiye, Baad-E-Muddat Aap Donon Se Adabi Urdu Mein Baat Karne Ka Mauqa Mila” (I should thank you as I got an opportunity after a long time to converse with you in chaste Urdu). That was his greatness. No airs, no attitude. The memories of that meeting are forever etched in the crevices of my heart and mind. URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-personalities/dilip-actor-gentleman-excellence/d/128601 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Unpardonable Silence of Ulema as Bomb blasts and Suicide Bombings continue to torment Islamic Countries, trashing the image of Islam and Muslims

Suicide Bombings In Indonesia And Afghanistan Have Killed Numerous People In The Last 10 Days Alone, Though It Is A Continual Process. Some Kinds Of Attacks Keep Happening All The Time. Islamist Terrorists Do Not Even Spare Worshippers In Mosques Or Students In Madrasas Or Schools. Main Points: 1. A suicide bomber blew himself up in a police station in Indonesia's Java killing a police officer. 2. A bomb exploded in Mazar Sharif in Afghanistan killing 7 people. 3. On December 2, 19 students were killed in an explosion in a madrasa in Afghanistan. 4. In August, 20 peple died in an explosion in a madrasa in Afghanistan. 5. In September, 18 people including a cleric were killed in a bomb explosion in Afghanistan. ----- By New Age Islam Staff Writer 9 December 2022 Dr Tahirul Qadri Declares Suicide Bombing Totally Haram And Un -Islamic, Dr Zakir Naik Considers It Partly Permissible - Permissible In Special Circumstances. ------ Recently leading Ulema of India and Indonesia had met in New Delhi and discussed ways to fight extremism and terrorism in the Muslim society. The outcome of the meeting was not known. The resolution taken up in the meeting was also not known. It seems that it was a formal get together of Ulema in which sweet nothings were whispered and exchanged with one another. Much was read into the meeting by the Urdu media and Urdu journalists and columnists. But that the situation has remained as grim as ever is evident from the fact that a suicide bomber blew himself up at a police station in Java in Indonesia killing one police officer and injuring several others on 7 December. The previous day, on 6 December, a bomb planted on a roadside, targetting the bus carrying the employees of an oil company exploded killing seven people. On 3 December, a terrorist hurled a grenade on a mosque when people had assembled to offer prayers. One person was killed and 20 people were injured in the attack. The attack is said to be the fallout of tensions between tribals. On December, 19 people including students were killed in an explosion in a madrasa in Aibak district in Afghanistan. 23 persons have been injured. On 28 November, 4 people killed in a bomb explosion in a hotel near the Presidential palace in the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. Finance Minister of Somalia had a miraculous escape. Bomb Blast: Huge blast in madrasa.. 16 people killed.. 24 people injured | 16 people were killed in a huge explosion in a madrasa in Afghanistan Telugu News --- All these incidents show that suicide bombings and bomb explosions have become commonplace incidents in Islamic countries. Most of the terrorist attacks go unclaimed because the terrorists know that their act is un-Islamic and inhuman. Still no voice is raised condemning the attacks. The Islamic scholars and muftis don't even issue fatwas against such attacks. In Yemen, a mosque was attacked only because of tribal confrontation. It seems that sectarian differences were at the root of the attack. These are some of the attacks that have taken place only in the last ten days. The Ulema of India and Indonesia had discussed ways to fight terrorism and extremism without any framework before them. Those attacking mosques and madrasas in Yemen and Afghanistan are Muslims. Children are killed in attacks in madrasas. But no statement of denouncement was heard from collective Muslim religious leadership. In Afghanistan, schools and madrasas of Hazara Shias have been attacked in the past. Shias and Ahmadiyas have been declared Kafir by many Sunni Ulema and even their slaughter has been declared permissible. The attacks on mosques and madrasas are carried out due to sectarian confrontation and the fatwas of Kufr issued by Ulema are behind such attacks. This is the reason Ulema remain silent when a mosque and madrasa is attacked and Muslims including children are killed. Some years ago, after Shia children had been killed after an attack on a school van of Shias by the Taliban in Pakistan, a Taliban leader had said that snakelings will only grow up to be snakes. To the Taliban, Shias are snakes and their children snakelings whose heads deserve to be crushed ruthlessly. ISIS enjoyed the overt and covert support of a section of Sunni Ulema as the enemy of Shias and even a globally acclaimed Sunni scholar like Qaradawi supported it openly during 2014 . Global Muslim muftis and Ulema have failed to come together on religious extremism and terrorism because their views are different on this issue. While Dr Tahirul Qadri declares suicide bombing totally haram and un -Islamic, Dr Zakir Naik considers it partly permissible - permissible in special circumstances. Now, the ISIS and other terrorist organisations like the LTTE could have said they carry out suicide bombings in special circumstances. The TTP may also say so. The silence of Ulema on suicide bombings and bombings in mosques, madrasas, market places and police stations, therefore, betrays their ideological dilemma. If they declare these incidents of violence haram, they will negate the fatwas and opinions of their own or of their teachers. They also fear angry reactions from their fellow sectarian Ulema if they make any out of the box statement on the issue. Maulana Salman Nadwi was called ' Kutta ' (dog) and ' Ganda Nutfa ' (man of illegitimate paternity) some time back by a junior Aalim for expressing his views on Gadeer Khumm. (The Ghadīr Khumm (Arabic: غَدِير خُم) refers to a gathering of Muslims to attend a sermon delivered by Prophet Muhammad on 16 March 632 CE (18 Dhu al-Hijjah 10 AH) in which, according to Shia belief, he is supposed to have anointed his cousin and son-in-law Hazrat Ali as his successor) Sectarian and extremist ideology is at the root of much of the violence and bloodshed taking place in Muslim societies today. It is an irony that children in madrasas are killed by Muslims and mosques are attacked due merely to tribal ( sectarian) differences and the entire Muslim leadership remains dead silent. This section comes out of hibernation when a non- Muslim makes a blasphemous remark against the prophet pbuh or the Quran, though the Quran asks them to ignore such things. They issue statements of condemnation and even provoke Muslims to act against the 'enemy of Islam'. But they remain silent when Muslim children are killed by Muslims on sectarian grounds though the Quran declares such terrorists and extremists Mufsideen (mischief makers) and asks Muslims to fight them and punish them. The suicide bombings and bomb explosions in mosques, madrasas, churches, hospitals and religious processions will, unfortunately, continue in the time to come because our Ulema have been caught in their own web of extremist ideology. They cannot take a united stand against terrorism because of the ideological and sectarian baggage they carry on their back. They will, however, continue to meet in New Delhi or Jakarta to whisper sweet nothings into the ears of one another to serve the political interests of their masters. URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/ulema-bomb-suicide-bombings-islamic-muslims/d/128593 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Hijab: The Peaceful Revolution That Changed The World

By Grace Mubashir, New Age Islam 8 December 2022 The 'Feminist' Approaches Emerging Today Have Certain Characteristics. The Most Important Thing Is That Devout Muslims Are Ready To Re-Read Islamic Scriptures-------- A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence, from the Middle East to America Leila Ahmed Yale University Press (2011) ------- A flood of books on Islam is evident after 9/11. In, ‘Welcome to the Desert of the Real: Five Essays on September 11’, Slavoj Zizek observes that when he suddenly sees copies of the Qur'an in Euro-American airports, he is reminded of the white man's astonishment and curiosity as part of the colonial tradition. There are few books that have deviated from the general flow of books published in the last ten years, in favour of, or against, reforming and condemning Islam. The point is that those who oppose and support Islam through Euro-liberal perspectives, as Zizek observes, do not fundamentally differ in their ways of seeing the Islamic world or in their conceptions. Saba Mahmood and Charles Hiskind have overcome the theoretical and analytical weaknesses of these dual narrative methods. Especially Mahmood's ‘Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject’. Saba Mahmood is instrumental in questioning traditional secular-feminist ways of looking at the Muslim woman. Saba Mahmood wrote about Muslim women in Egypt. Of course, hugely liberal Islamic feminist narratives exist about Egypt. Huda Shaarawi to Laila Ahmad are in that tradition. Islam must be freed from the hands of practicing Muslims. Moreover, the hijab is only a political dilemma for Muslim men. Laila Ahmad has said in many ways that hijab is the imposition of religious priesthood on women. They also held the position that traditional Islamic movements are dangerous and inimical to women. However, the book released in April 2011 shows a change in Laila Ahmad's thinking. The book is titled ‘A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence from the Middle East to America’. Laila Ahmad says that the hijab, as the name suggests, does not represent violence, but a transition to calmness and peace. Critics consider the book to be a self-critical take on the 1992 work ‘Women and Gender in Islam’. Born into an ultra-liberal family in Cairo, Laila Ahmed remembers urban life without the presence of the hijab. They say that her mother never wore hijab. From the 1920s to the 1970s, the hijab—in many forms—was not in the mainstream of Egyptian life. Laila Ahmad traces the spread of the hijab through the history of Egypt. Viewing Egypt's own history in three parts: pre-colonial Egypt, colonized Egypt, and post-colonial Egypt, Ahmad examines how the hijab was represented within broader Islamic considerations of life in these three historical phases and in their specific political contexts. The first half of the book is description of this internal process. In the second half suddenly Laila Ahmad leaves for America. There she examines the influence of Islamic movements on immigrant and African American Muslims in the United States and the representational nature of the hijab through the formative history of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Strengthened by two thousand members, they see new advances and policy developments under the leadership of Ingrid Matson - the first woman in history to lead a modern Islamic movement. She is excited to see Islamic movements evolve to include women like herself. Laila Ahmad left Egypt in the 1960s. At that time the Islamists were oppressed by Nasser's henchmen. Like the first decades of decolonization in all Third World countries, Nasser had dreams of National Socialism. Nasser also dreamed of the same dams that Nehruvian nationalism dreamed of in the form of the Aswan Dam. The peculiarity of the third world countries is that the anti-colonial struggle and the struggle of the backward peoples have been overthrown by the nationalist elites. Such countries—in India and Egypt—were transferred to the hands of nationalist elites after decolonization. The religious contexts that actually involved the struggling masses were forgotten and new nation-states in the image of the invaders came into existence with grand claims of secularism. In India, the state of emergency invited the collapse of the national elite, while in Egypt, the defeat of the war against Israel consumed the story of the national elite. The '70s saw the return of the Islamic movement Ikhwanul Muslimoon. Later, the Ikhwan conquered Egypt in a gradual process. Laila Ahmad says that long-term persecution has not upset the balance of the Ikhwan. Laila Ahmad says that the Ikhwan has been ready to reject Ayman al-Zawahiri's extremism since the 1960s. Laila Ahmad studies Qutb and Zainbul Ghazzali in detail. Laila Ahmad says that the adventurous life of Zainbul Ghazali, who started her political activities as a feminist at the age of sixteen, still needs to be studied. Laila Ahmad argues that the Ikhwan did not give due consideration to Zainbul Ghazzali, who influenced the lives of Muslim women around the world. It is estimated that Zainbul Ghazzali has not received the social recognition that Ingrid Matson has received in America. The book also examines the attitudes of Islamic movements towards young people and women. It has also been observed that movements such as the Ikhwan have been slow to adopt the open methods of self-criticism that have led to the exodus of a large Islamic group of young men and women from the Ikhwan in Egypt. The reader will, of course, be surprised to know that Laila Ahmad, who criticized the Ikhwan in the first place, is the one who is doing this well-intentioned criticism. Laila Ahmad cheerfully undertakes the dialogical relationship that Islamic movements have with all the diversity of the world. Laila Ahmad greatly appreciates the organic nature of the Islamic movement, which adapts and interacts with all kinds of Islamic movements and ways of thinking. She realizes that movements like ISNA have become a learning and teaching platform for a liberal like her. Moreover, Laila Ahmad recognizes that conventional discourses about Islam and gender also enabled the Iraq-Afghan war that cost of lives in the first half of this decade. 'Why is everyone concerned only about the Muslim woman?' the question is very relevant. The fact that Muslim women have concerns that do not apply to other women in the world is certainly worthy of scrutiny. Laila Abu Lughd and Saba Mahmud, who raised such questions, discuss them at length and understand the relevance of these studies that problematize the imperial anxiety and the white male gaze about the Muslim woman. As mentioned earlier, this book tries to see the hijab through the politics of the time. However, Laila Ahmad shares some commonly shared historical conclusions about the hijab. Thus: "The meaning of hijab is not something common in society and history. The hijab seen after the 1970s is not the hijab seen in the pre-colonial era. Hijab in the pre-colonial era confined and divided women into gendered hierarchies. Later in the colonial period, the hijab became a taboo subject to be suppressed within the European worldview. As the hijab came under European control, it came to symbolize the civilized decline of Islam and the oppression of women. In the anti-colonial struggle and post-colonial conditions, the Islamic movement Ikhwan Hijab was regarded as a formidable defence armour. The hijab became a symbol of the anti-colonial struggle'' (p. 212). So what do these women—whether in Egypt or America—accomplish through the hijab? Are women re-oppressed by the hijab? Being caught by a Muslim radical patriarchy? Laila Ahmad faces such doubts with optimism. "Initially, I was afraid of the presence of Muslim women. But I got to see these women's activism up close. I am amazed that the most authoritative voice among those talking about gender and justice is now that of Islamist women. Their struggles need to be appreciated. The conclusions I reached are more optimistic than I thought. "Happier things are happening than I thought I could achieve" (p. 303). Laila Ahmad continues: "The 'feminist' approaches emerging today have certain characteristics. The most important thing is that devout Muslims are ready to re-read Islamic scriptures. Certainly, secular women like Nawal Saadawi have done this. But another important point is that women who have fundamental faith are involved in such initiatives. This is also helped by the situation of women's interventions for equal rights in religious institutions and leadership. This reveals the new presence and potential of Islam in the Western world” (p. 306). The structure of the book has already been mentioned. The two-part book has eleven chapters excluding the introduction. The first chapter brings us to Egypt in the 1950s. People generally do not wear hijab. Discussions about hijab and secularism come into play here. It contains accounts of Qasim Amin's life. The statement that ‘Liberation of Women was written by Mohammad Abdu along with Qasim Amin’ is quite surprising. Later it is said that the book was published under the name of Qasim Amin only. The book reveals Abdu's fascination with colonialism. Subsequent chapters analyse Egypt's history from the 1920s to the 1970s. Life of Hasanul Banna, Dialogue with Banna and Zainbul Ghazzali, Leadership of Hasanul Hudaibi have also been discussed. The first eight chapters deal with the Islamic movement in Egypt. Later, the first generation of Islamists arrived in America from the Indian subcontinent and countries including Egypt. They were activists of Jamaat-e-Islami and Ikhwanul Muslimoon. Most of the early Muslim immigrants to the United States were not Islamists or Islamist sympathizers. But a systematic, step-by-step program of action nurtured the Islamists. After 2000 there was a massive participation of youth and women in movements like ISNA. An important point that Laila Ahmad observes is that she sees two types of hijab in such movements in the first stage. One is those who wear hijab only when they come to ISNA events. Two, that ISNA’s events were attended only by hijab-wearers. The ISNA then resolves such contradictions with an open approach. Such movements are taking up new discussions of gender justice and pluralism after 2000. After 9/11, young men and women in America began speaking out about justice and politics at Islamist events. They demanded justice not only in politics but also in the world across. On the contrary, they demanded equal participation of women in various organizations of Islamists. They invited not only Muslim scholars of different views but also anti-imperialist activists to the events. She kept a very critical approach towards everyone and maintained a dialogical relationship. This is what gives Laila Ahmad new beliefs outside of mainstream liberal life. Moreover, Laila Ahmad has an ethical analysis that one does not generally have when studying Islam. In fact, the main lesson Laila Ahmad gives is this: Islamists must look at themselves in their own mirrors and criticize themselves. ----- A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Mubashir V.P is a PhD scholar in Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia and freelance journalist. URL: https://newageislam.com/books-documents/hijab-peaceful-revolution-world/d/128590 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

All Religions And Societies Have Tried To Suppress A Woman's Sexuality

By Sumit Paul, New Age Islam 8 December 2022 Recently, Javed Akhtar said that if a man can have more than one wife, a woman should also have the same right. First of all, this statement shouldn't be taken in a literal sense because how many Muslim men have four wives? Hardly a few. What he meant was equality for both the genders in the matters of marriage, sex, sexuality and sexual gratification. More or less all religions and societies have tried to suppress a woman's sexuality. Whether Quran or Puran (there're 18 Puranas in Hinduism), all scriptures have evaded the issue of female sexuality and her sexual gratification. Righteous Muslim men will get to screw most exquisite Houries in heaven who will never lose their virginity even if screwed umpteenth times! But what about a righteous Muslim woman? Will she also get well-hung, beef-cakes in heaven? Markandeya Purana says that noble men will get Apsara in heaven but doesn't mention whether a pious ( Hindu) woman will also get a battalion of gigolos up there. Isn't a woman also a human? Doesn't she also have sexual desires? In fact, according to Malang Vatsyayan's Kam Sutra, ' Striyanaam Ashtagunah Kaamam Asti ' (a woman's sexual desire is eight times higher than that of a man). And you're not giving her anything on earth and heaven to satiate that! This is grossly unfair. Here comes the gender discrimination which must be fought and condemned by people like Javed Akhtar. Yet, he's being chastised by all Janus-faced, self-proclaimed custodians of (faux) morality. ----- A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian. URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-women-feminism/religions-societies-woman-sexuality-/d/128588 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

Fall Of The Babri Masjid Was Not Like The Fall Of Bastille

Muslims Have Move Forward Leaving Babri Mosque Behind Main Points: 1. Fall of Babri Mosque catapulted BJP to power. 2. Muslim related issues have retrieved BJP's career. 3. Muslims have remained the axis of BJP politics. 4. Baba Budan Dargah and Gyanvapi mosque are the next issues. ---- By New Age Islam Staff Writer 7 December 2022 In many ways it appears that the demolition of the Babri Masjid provided courage to unveil the hatred cloistered in hearts of a significant number of Hindus for Muslims and Christians, the two main non-Indic religions ------ Thirty years have passed since Babri mosque in Ayodhya was demolished by the Hindutva brigade. Since then the dsy is commemorated as Shaurya Diwas by the RSS affiliates. The demolition catapulted the BJP to power. But the demolition was not the end of the communal politics of the BJP and its affiliates. It proved to be a useful tool to gain political power. In 1998, the VHP started celebrating Dutta Jayanti within the premises of Baba Budan Dargah in Chikkamagaluru in Karnataka. In 2002, Gujarat riots gave another blow to the Muslims of the country. However, the Babri mosque remained a contentious issue till the supreme court adjudicated in favour of the Hindus. Muslims forgot Babri mosque and moved forward paying more attention to their educational and economic development. They decided to build hospital and other welfare projects on the land given to them in lieu of Babri mosque. The fall of the Babri mosque was like the fall of Bastille for some BJP leaders like Govindacharya. One may not agree with him but given the narrative of Muslim domination over Hindus and persecution of Hindus under the rule of Muslim rulers, it might have brought a sense of vengeance among the Hindutva brigade as their politics depended on this narrative. Thirty years have passed since the tragedy happened and Muslims have learnt to adapt to the new socio- political changes. The sense of victimhood has made them more religious and this has given way to another causes of cultural conflict like the beard and the hijab. Now school students have started sporting a beard and college girls insist on wearing hijab. This means the demolition of a mosque causes a religious reaction among the Muslims. Juloos -e- Mohammadi was not heard of 15 years ago. Now it is a major religious event in Islamic society. Now more young people visit mosques for five-time prayers. ----- Impact Of Babri Masjid Demolition: Unveiling The Hatred 30 Years Later By Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay 6 December, 2022 “The face of Indian polity has undergone a dramatic change in the last decade, and a new political and social order appears to be around the corner. The model evolved in India after Inde­pendence, during Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure, is under threat and close to being dismantled.” I began writing my first book, The Demolition: India At the Crossroads, in January 1993 with these lines. Several friends initially accused me of being “obsessed” with Ayodhya and argued that “I was wrong in believing that the RSS clan would come to the centre-stage in India. And, when the Babri Masjid was demolished, it was a sad hour of personal vindication for me.” At the book’s launch, a year later, KN Govindacharya, then an important Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, asserted that the Babri Masjid’s demolition was comparable to the fall of the Bastille, in terms of what it represented, as well as the impact its erasure would have. Other panellists, including the deceased journalist and then Congress leader Nikhil Chakravarty and P Rangarajan Kumaramangalam, respectively, along with historian KN Panikkar and political scientist Kamal M Chenoy, disagreed equally passionately. Govindacharya’s two contentions appeared untenable – certainly, the Babri Masjid did not symbolise absolute power of any medieval emperor, much less Babur at whose command the mosque was purportedly built. The structure in Ayodhya also did not represent ceaseless tyranny. The impact that Govindacharya claimed it would have, appeared exaggerated for the BJP was defeated barely weeks after in the first set of post-demolition polls in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh and barely cobbled together a majority in Rajasthan – these states were ruled by the BJP but the governments were dismissed after the events of December 6 1992. Some years after the demolition, I too veered around to the view that my response in 1992-93 was an instance of overreaction; Atal Bihari Vajpayee had become Prime Minister a few months after the fifth anniversary of the demolition at the head of an ideologically awkward coalition, where partners had not joined the political jumble for fulfilling stated programmatic objectives, but to acquire and remain in power. What many secularists asserted paradoxically in the immediate aftermath of the demolition, that the tragedy would in the long run “prove to be good for India,” appeared to have been an accurate reading. This lot had argued that the sixteenth century mosque was a ‘small’ price to pay for ensuring that the BJP and its Sangh Parivar affiliates “lost their hate symbol” forever. Arousing communal passions, hatred for Muslims and spreading incessant otherisation on every issue would prove to be difficult, it was believed, because there no object would remain that could exemplify humiliation of Hindus in the past, for which vengeance had to be secured. The Misleading Continuity This assessment appeared correct for the BJP eschewed not just the Ram temple imbroglio, but also chose silence on two other contentious issues that marked its ‘difference’ from other parties: abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution and enacting a Uniform Civil Code. Vajpayee also pursued peace with Pakistan and travelled to Lahore on a bus that kick- started another form of public transport between the two countries. Incidents like the killing of the Australian missionary Graham Staines, the 1998 attacks on Christian tribals in south-eastern Gujarat and finally the horror of the riots in the state in 2002, caused concern, consternation and condemnation from even several alliance partners. As a result, it appeared violent incidents like these were aberrations and not the result of deeply nurtured prejudice against the religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians. Communal riots and orchestrated attacks for electoral and political purposes were part of India’s post-colonial history. Despite episodic violent attacks like those aforementioned, the moral compass of Indian polity remained more or less in the pre-Babri demolition position. The BJP surprisingly lost the 2004 elections and a ‘non-politico’ in the traditional sense, became prime minister. Vajpayee candidly confessed that his government was voted out because of the Gujarat riots. When the original polariser, Lal Krishna Advani discovered virtues in Mohammed Ali Jinnah, that too in Pakistan, it appeared that India had exorcised the ghost of Babri Masjid and it appeared that the makeshift temple shall remain in perpetuity; no grand temple would ever be constructed. Anniversaries of the demolition became routine – celebrated as a day of ‘valour’ (Shaurya Divas) by Hindutva groups and as a day of sorrow and betrayal by secular groups and Muslim organisations. Yet, the temple per se did not evoke enthusiasm and it looked certain that none of the affiliates of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh would succeed in mustering the kind of crowd that assembled in Ayodhya for confrontational programmes in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Watershed anniversaries too – fifth, tenth, etc., – failed to become major flashpoints and merely served as markers of time for commentators to take stock and for civil society to debate and hold discussions. The 10th anniversary in 2002 added to the din of the epochal Gujarat Assembly polls but by the time of the 15th anniversary in 2007, the Ram temple issue had become inconsequential. In another five years, the BJP’s period in wilderness seemed to be coming to an end with the UPA government crippled for a variety of reasons but aptly explained by a two word phrase: policy paralysis. But more importantly, 2012 was ushered out with Narendra Modi leading his party to victory in Gujarat for the third time since his assumption to office in 2001 and immediately launching a dash to become the prime minister. Modi’s ‘Victimhood’ Construct Although the 2014 Lok Sabha election was contested with ‘development’ as a keyword, there was little doubt that retribution was the foundational sentiment on which Modi constructed his campaign. A decade of victimhood, in the course of which he constructed a troika of adversaries – enemies across the border, Indian Muslims and their supporters, (which included dynastic parties) besides the combination of intelligentsia, civil society (NGOs) and the Delhi-based English media with all of them backed by the so-called Lutyens elite, was beginning to resonate with people. People liked to lay blame on the doorstep of someone identifiable for their woes and Modi gave them courage to do so. It was clear that Modi had not left his Hindutva mornings behind. But, middle-India required the fig leaf of ‘Vikas’ – majoritarianism had not yet become politically correct. The 25th anniversary of the demolition was observed when the Modi bandwagon, for the first time, appeared to be facing difficulties in maintaining its political dominance in Gujarat. Eventually, the BJP salvaged victory after Mani Shankar Aiyer handed Modi a plateful of slander that could be heaped on the Congress party by hosting a dinner attended by dignitaries, including former Pakistani diplomat Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh besides former Vice-President Hamid Ansari. It was the ‘perfect’ cast – a Pakistani, someone high up in the Congress and a Muslim not a favourite by yards. This was followed by Aiyar calling Modi a “lowly” person. The result was for all to see. More than a decade of Modi’s responses to accusations against him were resurrected in people’s minds after he recast the old formula of inimical forces working to derail his efforts to revive India’s past glory. The BJP eventually snatched victory with a slender majority that could have further thinned, even may have been denied, had not Aiyer asked friends and colleagues to come and dine with him. Subsequent events demonstrated that in the decade since the defeat of the Vajpayee-led BJP, the Ayodhya issue by itself may have paled into relative insignificance, but issues flagged in the course of the agitation, especially ones pertaining to cultural nationalism that people once had no understanding off, had gained traction with people. The 30th anniversary of the demolition is being observed days prior to yet another verdict from Gujarat. But regardless of the outcome, the socio-political drift shall remain the same, as demonstrated during the campaign when no party raked issues that might offend the Hindu voters. Merging Of Myth And History Today in India, mythology and history are spoken in one breath, not just by the establishment but also by large sections of people. The Ram temple in Ayodhya will not act as a full stop that even the Supreme Court believed it would when the five judges awarded the disputed land to a Trust handpicked by the Centre. A long list is in existence and it is just a matter of time before full-blown agitations are mounted for the demolition of Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and Shahi Idgah in Mathura and for these sites to be handed over to Hindu parties. Expressing Islamophobia in public is no longer considered ‘improper’ in New India. Several Muslims think twice before revealing their identity. Already, many have been officially notified in several cities, towns and villages that they must go ‘invisible’ – not offer namaz in public, not wear hijab in educational institutions, eat no home-cooked non-vegetarian food while travelling on public transport, and so on. In India today, there is greater sense that this is “our country” and “they” must live on “our terms”. None of this has any co-relation with the Babri Masjid or the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. But the mosque-temple dispute is at the root of each issue that makes religion the main basis of social identity and vengeance a justified sentiment. In many ways it appears that the demolition of the Babri Masjid provided courage to unveil the hatred cloistered in hearts of a significant number of Hindus for Muslims and Christians, the two main non-Indic religions. The list of what is now possible is much longer. The catalogue of what is likely to happen can fill reams. For the moment, my last confession today should suffice: Govindacharya was prophetic three decades ago when he said the Babri Masjid’s demolition shall have unfathomable impact on the country’s governance and polity like the way the fall of the Bastille did. I, however, continue disagreeing with the formulation that the Babri Masjid mirrored the fortress, stormed in July 1789. ---- Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a NCR-based author and journalist. His latest book is The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. He has also written The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. (The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal) Source: Impact Of Babri Masjid Demolition: Unveiling The Hatred 30 Years Later URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/babri-masjid-mosque-bastille/d/128577 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism