A buzurg of the family for whom I have a lot of respect both as a scholar and an intellectual recently published a book. It provides the moderate Muslim with the information required to deal with bombardment of contradicting extreme views both from the liberal West and the hard-line religious fanatics. Without a doubt, it will provide the reader with a more balanced and concrete understanding of both Islamic ideology and history, than is possible from motor-mouthed TV evangelists. The book is called Islamic Society: Need for Revival and Development of Confidence, Creativity and Pluralism by Wajihuddin Siddiqui.
This is an excerpt from the book on how the blasphemy law should be handled:
For dealing with blasphemy cases in the Muslim world, an attempt should be made through Ijtihad to do away with the dead penalty altogether and adopt a lesser punishment, keeping in view the following considerations,
• Allah has not ordained death punishment to blasphemers. In fact He is allowing them a little time (during their life on earth) to enjoy their acts of blasphemy, as He is going to inflict severe punishment on them in the Hereafter.(39:8)
• Allah has ordained death punishment only in two cases (5:32). Blasphemy is not one of them.
• It is doubtful if the Prophet awarded death punishment to anybody solely on charges of blasphemy. Let us consider the case of Kab ibn al Ashraf who was executed on the orders of the Prophet. He was a Jew and was writing derogatory poetry about the Prophet and his family. But additionally he was also engaged in instigating people of Medina against the newly developed community of the Muslims. Hence the death punishment awarded to him cannot be attributed entirely to his blasphemous utterances. Some other people were given death penalty during the Prophet’s time were mostly poets, poetesses or reciters of disparaging poetry against the Prophet and Islam. These people were creating mischief in the society and were trying to wean away the new Muslims from their faith, especially the ones whose had not yet taken deep roots. They were thus guilty of multiple crimes, not of blasphemy alone.
• Imposition of death penalty for blasphemy is not the exclusive feature of the Islamic Society. It existed in many other societies for a long time. Jews condemned Jesus Christ to death punishment on charges of blasphemy. Christian Church has killed thousands of renegades and blasphemers in pre-modern times. But both these religions have now abandoned these practices.
The author recognizes that the death penalty in dealing with cases of blasphemy is a time-honoured tradition and to expect a complete dismissal, for now would be incorrect. The author however, proposes the following changes to the laws as they stand today,
• The blasphemers should be given an opportunity to repent and thus escape death punishment.
• The blasphemer should be given a chance to defend his position. Besides, he should not be executed instantly by any individual. The punishment should be awarded by a court after hearing the accused and taking necessary evidences. In this connection, “Every man’s fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgment We shall bring out for him a scroll which he will be see spread open. It will be said to him ‘Read thy own record: Sufficient is thy soul this day to make an account against thee’." (17:13). It is thus clear that even on the Day of Judgment Allah would show the record of men before imparting judgment. Thus there is no justification for killing the blasphemer on the spot.
My personal views on the subject are very close to the ones expressed above. What I find surprising, and more than a little amusing is that even after all this, I do not know what that woman Aasia-bibi allegedly said. I’m sure not many do. Her actual guilt or innocence seems so irrelevant now.
For generations in this country people have been acting and reacting impulsively to the challenges that arose and have achieved very little. Intolerance and impatience towards the views and sensitivities of others has left us incapable of resolving anything through dialogue and understanding. Almost all change, be it positive or negative has come through either political backscratching or forced down our throats by dictators. I myself have often been blamed of being intolerant and impatient to opposing view, a habit I have worked hard to curb (even though those who helped me in this regard have become both intolerant and impatient to my views :)). There is great need for dialogue, and informed discussions on sensitive subjects such as blasphemy, but not on Live Television. Not on the loudspeaker of mosques or in religious gatherings. These discussions need to be conducted between scholars of all views in a private atmosphere of tolerance and respect. I firmly believe that Qadri may have pulled the trigger, the masjid's Imam's rousing sermon may have brought him to that decision, but it was ratings-hungry TV channels and TV show hosts who milked these issues to create sensationalist viewing at the price of mutating the nation's feelings on a sensitive matter and now the whole country is burning.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Being a Muslim - desi style
A few years ago, there was a panel discussion on one of the Indian TV channels about the challenges of the modern Indian-Muslim. Unsurprisingly, Bollywood stars and TV-evangelists formed the panel. Who needs average people to discuss the problems of commoners when you can have Shahrukh Khan blitzing the screen? What was surprising however, was the absence of any cricketers from the panel; but I digress.
I found the discussion very interesting. In a nutshell: the practicing Muslim is having a hard time settling into secular India. He can be roughly divided into two categories. One who is holding the hard-line and orthodox religious interpretations very common to this region and thereby alienating himself amongst his fellow countrymen. The other, who in his eagerness to assimilate into the secular/liberal social surroundings is alienating himself amongst his fellow Indian-Muslims. Both situations creating strife and conflict which have often reached nationwide vandalism and bloodshed. According to the mentioned discussion the lack or complete absence of the moderate, practicing Muslim society is widening the gap between practicing Indian-Muslims and the rest of the country. Funnily enough, any suggestions of intolerance of the non-Muslim majority were quickly brushed aside.
The Indian-Muslim can learn from his Pakistani brothers about this. Pakistan being a Muslim majority country does not have India’s problems so a straightforward comparison might seem a bit inane. However, the way the Pakistani society developed a moderate, socially acceptable version of Islamic practice can be a fine example for the Indian-Muslims. It is understandably difficult to envisage Pakistan as an example of a moderate religious society so soon after the murder of Governor Taseer. It is easy to ignore the moderate Muslim that makes up most of this country’s population. He does not vote, his opinions being moderate are not interesting enough to justify attention.
The moderate Pakistani Muslim, and it will not be wrong to say that the moderate Sunni-Muslim has diluted his religion; not just the ideology but also the practice. Instead of five prayers a day he only prays once a week on Friday. He fasts with great fervor and displays piety during the Holy month of Ramadan. He indulges in music and cinema but does not drink alcohol or eat pork. He feels no obligation to grow a beard or wear his trousers above his ankles. The women may or may not cover their heads, doing so more out of traditional conformity than religious obligation. The moderate Pakistan-Muslim has confined religion to select occasions and situations. He believes it to be a private matter and does not apply it to all forms of his life, as is expected from a believer of almost any organized religion. Religious devotion for the average Pakistani is aimed more towards the annual Urs or mela than a greater Islam VS the-rest-of-the-world agenda that is touted by the extreme right; a trend that is changing drastically.
In Pakistan today the identity of the moderate Muslim is under threat. There is a clear sense of confusion as the voices (and actions) of the extremist, fundamentalist right and the liberal, secular left are getting louder and louder. In addition to his constant battle against poverty and declining living standards, he is now being forced to relinquish his conflict-free beliefs and to jump on one bandwagon or the other; a situation being made worse by the tactless handling of the so-called secular democratic government.
I found the discussion very interesting. In a nutshell: the practicing Muslim is having a hard time settling into secular India. He can be roughly divided into two categories. One who is holding the hard-line and orthodox religious interpretations very common to this region and thereby alienating himself amongst his fellow countrymen. The other, who in his eagerness to assimilate into the secular/liberal social surroundings is alienating himself amongst his fellow Indian-Muslims. Both situations creating strife and conflict which have often reached nationwide vandalism and bloodshed. According to the mentioned discussion the lack or complete absence of the moderate, practicing Muslim society is widening the gap between practicing Indian-Muslims and the rest of the country. Funnily enough, any suggestions of intolerance of the non-Muslim majority were quickly brushed aside.
The Indian-Muslim can learn from his Pakistani brothers about this. Pakistan being a Muslim majority country does not have India’s problems so a straightforward comparison might seem a bit inane. However, the way the Pakistani society developed a moderate, socially acceptable version of Islamic practice can be a fine example for the Indian-Muslims. It is understandably difficult to envisage Pakistan as an example of a moderate religious society so soon after the murder of Governor Taseer. It is easy to ignore the moderate Muslim that makes up most of this country’s population. He does not vote, his opinions being moderate are not interesting enough to justify attention.
The moderate Pakistani Muslim, and it will not be wrong to say that the moderate Sunni-Muslim has diluted his religion; not just the ideology but also the practice. Instead of five prayers a day he only prays once a week on Friday. He fasts with great fervor and displays piety during the Holy month of Ramadan. He indulges in music and cinema but does not drink alcohol or eat pork. He feels no obligation to grow a beard or wear his trousers above his ankles. The women may or may not cover their heads, doing so more out of traditional conformity than religious obligation. The moderate Pakistan-Muslim has confined religion to select occasions and situations. He believes it to be a private matter and does not apply it to all forms of his life, as is expected from a believer of almost any organized religion. Religious devotion for the average Pakistani is aimed more towards the annual Urs or mela than a greater Islam VS the-rest-of-the-world agenda that is touted by the extreme right; a trend that is changing drastically.
In Pakistan today the identity of the moderate Muslim is under threat. There is a clear sense of confusion as the voices (and actions) of the extremist, fundamentalist right and the liberal, secular left are getting louder and louder. In addition to his constant battle against poverty and declining living standards, he is now being forced to relinquish his conflict-free beliefs and to jump on one bandwagon or the other; a situation being made worse by the tactless handling of the so-called secular democratic government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)