|
WHY DO HINDU AND MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS
UNITE?
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Since 1980, fundamentalism has been growing in
our society. It is essentially a political phenomenon. When religion is
misused for political ends, a fundamentalist attitude is born. The
politician finds it quite tempting to exploit religion or religious
sentiments of people to garner their votes. The classic examples of this
in the last two decades are the Shah Bano controversy and the Ram
Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy.
A section of the Muslim leadership exploited the Supreme Court judgement
granting maintenance to a Muslim divorcee, Shah Bano, for their own
selfish interests. According to the Islamic Shariah, a divorcee is
supposed to get maintenance for three months, or what is known as the
iddat (waiting) period, before she can remarry. However, the Quran
prescribes no such period and makes it obligatory for the pious Muslim to
make provision for divorcees in goodly manner.
Since a divorcee is entitled to marry after three months, and in Saudi
Arabia she could actually do so, the ulama prescribed the three months
period as sufficient for maintenance of a divorcee. But in the shariah
there is always a consideration for the concrete conditions in which the
rule is applied. Imam ibn Taimiyyah even laid down that the shariah
rulings (ahkam) can change according to the times.
But those wanting to exploit religious issues for political purposes
deliberately ignore these aspects and launch even a misinformation
campaign to achieve their own purpose. For instance, it is not laid down
in the Hindu scriptures that a temple be constructed at the same site
where it once supposedly stood. And yet to garner the Hindu vote, the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) propagated the myth that the Babri Masjid was
built exactly where a Ram temple once stood.
I know personally that BJP leaders were happy about the insistence of
Muslim leaders to reverse the Supreme Court judgement in the Shah Bano
case. This was because their insistence on the maintenance issue
galvanised the Hindus behind the BJP. And the more the Ram temple issue
was aggressively propagated, the more Muslim leaders exploited it to
create fear in their community. It was then clear that fundamentalists in
the two communities were helping each other.
Indeed, this appears to be the case in the recent controversy over Water.
Hindu fundamentalists obstructed its filming and accused Deepa Mehta, the
director of the film, of insulting the religious sentiments of Hindus. The
film, in fact, was trying to focus on the plight of widows in Benaras who
are forced to live a life of misery. There was hardly anything
objectionable in the film. The film's script had also been cleared by the
ministry of information and broadcasting. But the Sangh Parivar
successfully obstructed its shooting. All this was done in the name of
religion and religious sentiments.
The question is: Who will define what constitutes religion, what are
religious sensibilities and whose? This is particularly true of Hinduism.
The Muslim fundamentalist did not lag behind his Hindu counterpart even on
the Water issue. Some muftis from Hyderabad issued a fatwa against Shabana
Azmi for tonsuring her hair for the film. They dubbed it un-Islamic and
asked her to embrace Islam again as she had ceased to be a Muslim,
according to the fatwa.
Was this in keeping with Islam? In Islam, there is no concept of
priesthood. According to the Quran, every individual is responsible for
his/her action. But it is for Allah to reward or punish and Allah is just.
No human being can sit in judgement; even if one does, it will be a human
being's judgement which can err. It is only for Allah to judge whether one
is right or wrong. No mufti can pronounce judgements on others.
Thus, fatwas such as the one passed against Shabana Azmi have no place in
Islam. The Quran says the individual is ultimately responsible for his/her
actions. But some people want to exploit such issues either for political
ends or for personal popularity. Thus, even in the case of Water, both
Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists have united.
I would also like to cite my personal example. I was attacked by the
followers of Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin at Mumbai Airport on February 13,
2000. The attack was instigated by the Bohra high priest himself. However,
the Bohra priesthood accused me of attacking and insulting the high
priest. Also, Mumbai's Muslim leaders as well as the BJP leaders supported
the Syedna and condemned me for trying to attack the Bohra high priest.
Neither bothered to check from me or any other source whether the Bohra
priesthood's claim had an element of truth.
Recently, the controversial Bangladeshi writer, Taslima Nasreen, visited
Mumbai. Some Muslim organisations of Mumbai had threatened to burn her
alive if she were to visit their city. Of course, the threat could not be
carried out as there was adequate police protection. Such pronouncements
are not, as pointed out before, in keeping with the tenets of religion.
Taslima's comments are undoubtedly prejudiced against Islam and its
teachings, but that does not give anyone the right to kill her even in an
Islamic country let alone in a secular democracy like that of India.
Fundamentalists neither work for the glory of their religion nor do their
pronouncements or actions do any good to the followers of their own
religion. Shah Bano ultimately renounced the maintenance granted to her by
the Supreme Court because of the tremendous social pressure brought on
her; she suffered because of this. The Shah Bano movement also created the
impression that Islam doesn't recognise women rights and subjects them to
arbitrary acts of men. This is certainly not true.
Similarly, the fundamentalist's opposition to Water neither helped Hindu
widows nor brought any credit to the Hindu religion. On the other hand, it
created the impression that Hinduism oppresses widows and does not respect
their rights and human dignity.
Indeed, fundamentalism is a mental attitude which demonises the other and
lacks tolerance. Fundamentalists do not hesitate to resort to violence. A
religious person, on the other hand, is respectful of the other, tolerates
the views of others and never resorts to violence. Violence is sin for
those who are genuinely religious. Fundamentalism, according to me, is
contrary to religious spirit.
Source: The Hindustan Times
|
