By A. Faizur Rahman

26 June 2023

(With Permission from the author to publish this chapter ‘Muslimophobia in India: Reasons and Remedy’ from the Book ‘Politics of Hate -Religious Majoritarianism in South Asia’ Edited by Farahnaz Ispahani)

Rethinking Muslim Theology

The categorical rejection of terrorism by the entire Indian Muslim community in the face of taunting incitements is testimony to the fact that they don’t believe in violence and have never harboured extra-territorial loyalties. It was this nationalistic fidelity that was also the reason for their rejection of the idea of Pakistan in the 1940s and their decision to choose a democratic state over a theocratic one. Yet, if Muslims continue to be suspected even decades after India’s independence, there must also be reasons other than strategic Islamophobia. And these reasons are rooted in their theological acts of omission and commission. Historically, it was not just the Hindus who saw Muslim rule in India as ‘Islamic rule’. Muslims themselves promoted this myth.

When the Mughal empire started tottering after Aurangzeb, it was thought that apart from the problems created by the Marathas, the ‘grave breakdown of public morality’ among the Muslims and the ‘deep crisis in character’ that they suffered from was the cause. Shah Waliullah (d. 1762), the renowned Hanafi theologian and Naqshbandi Sufi from Delhi, believed that the best way of remedying this situation was to revive Muslim rule in India. To this end, he combined his reformism with military action to prevent the Marathas and the Jats from completely decimating the floundering Mughals, and invited the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India to liberate it from the Marathas.

Abdali acceded to Waliullah’s request, perhaps also encouraged by similar messages from several Muslim states and nobles. This ultimately led to the historical Third Battle of Panipat in 1761 in which the Marathas suffered a humiliating defeat. Shah Waliullah had expected Abdali to build the Muslim empire anew but Abdali had his own compulsions. According to historian I.H. Qureshi, it was the withdrawal of Abdali after the Battle of Panipat that unwittingly paved the way for the establishment of the British rule in India through the East India Company because neither the emaciated Mughals nor the defeated Marathas were in any position to resist. Waliullah’s son Shah Abdul Aziz (d. 1823) tried to carry his father’s revivalist movement further. He issued a controversial fatwa which declared that India was no longer Daar al-Islam (abode of Islam) as the British rule had rendered it Daar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A legal implication of the ruling was that it was the duty of every Muslim to restore the region (India) to its former status of Dar-ul-Islam.

In various periods of Mughal history, writes scholar Ahmet Kuru, there were always conservative ulema who insisted on the emperors’ ‘duty’ to convert the Hindu ‘infidels’ to Islam, but the rulers, including even Aurangzeb, did not pursue such a policy. In fact, the emperor was so unimpressed with the madrasa-style classical education he himself had received from the ulema that he accused them of wasting the precious hours of his youth ‘in the dry, unprofitable, and never-ending task of learning words (the Arabic language).’

These facts clearly show that when it comes to Islam, the ulema are more loyal than the king. They took on even the mighty Akbar when he tried to promote a syncretic creed called Tawheed-e-Ilahi (a.k.a. Deen-e-Ilahi). In the forefront of this revolt were two well- known Sufis, Shaikh Abdul Haqq Muhaddis of Delhi and ShaikhAhmad of Sarhind, who had always wanted to raise orthodoxy ‘to a place of partnership in the Empire’.

Thus, it was not the Muslim rulers but the ulema who had conceived of India as an Islamic territory, a fact that has riled the Hindus ever since and led to gross mistrust between the two communities. If this suspicion persists today, it is because a section of Muslim clerics and televangelists in India continue to publicly display their supremacist arrogance.

For instance, advisories such as Ghair Muslimon Ko Unke Tehwar Par Wish Karna Haraam Hai (wishing non-Muslims on their festivals is prohibited) are routinely issued during festivals such as Diwali and Christmas. The trend was started by Zakir Naik, who doesn’t lose an opportunity to callously mock Hindu deities and urge his followers to tell their non-Muslim friends how wrong their religion is, and why their gods are not really divine. The Darul-Uloom Deoband too has issued a fatwa stating, ‘Wishing merry Christmas to Christians on 25 December is not right. Likewise, congratulating people of other religions on their festivals is not correct.’

Zakir Naik shocked many recently when he exposed his ill- informed belief in the concept of salvific exclusivity by asserting that even ‘good non-Muslims like Ravish Kumar’ (a prominent TV journalist in India) will not enter paradise because they commit the ‘major sin’ of shirk (belief in gods other than Allah). Only conversion to Islam can rescue them from hell, he said.118 Naik is also on record stating that Muslim countries should not permit non-Muslim places of worship because Islam is the only true religion on earth.

In July 2020, in the context of the construction of a Hindu temple in Pakistan, he reiterated this ‘fatwa’, saying that non- Muslims in a Muslim state do not have the right to construct their places of worship even with their own funds, and went on to castigate Muslim countries which allow temples or churches on their soil.

However, in the context of the Hagia Sophia, Naik hypocritically declared that it is permissible for Muslims to convert a non-Muslim place of worship into a mosque after conquering their land.

Such horrifyingly eccentric statements go against the Quran, which mentions with respect non-Muslim holy places such as Sawaami’u (monasteries), Biya’un (churches) and Salawaatun (synagogues), and states that the name of God is invoked in them in abundant measure (Yuzkaru Feeha Usmullahi Kaseera). Even anti-Quranic pronouncements could have been ignored had they been the isolated babble of attention-seeking grandstanders. But the bigoted preachers who issue them command a huge base of blind rooters and if the Muslim community fails to question and stop these fanatics, it would be unwittingly contributing to Islamophobia. If the truth be told, Muslims have failed to publicly challenge and reject televangelists such as Naik. On the contrary, they appear to be under their influence.

This is evident from the conspicuous absence of condemnation from Muslims in India when Hindus, Christians, Ahmadis, Shia or other minority communities and their places of worship in Muslim countries (especially Pakistan) come under attack. But they are quick to highlight (and rightly so) the sufferings of the Rohingya in Myanmar and the Uyghurs in China.

Similar hesitation prevails when it comes to condemning draconian laws in Muslim countries such as those pertaining to blasphemy in Pakistan, whose blatant misuse has resulted in the murder of both Muslims and non-Muslims.123 This reluctance is also the cause of a terrifying pan-Islamic solidarity when it comes to justifying wrongful acts of Muslim majoritarianism. The AIMPLB’s tweet that tacitly supported Turkey’s conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque can be cited as a classic example of this theological arrogance. It read –

#BabriMasjid was and will always be a Masjid. #HagiaSophia is a great example for us. Usurpation of the land by an unjust, oppressive, shameful and majority appeasing judgment can’t change its status. No need to be heartbroken. Situations don’t last forever. #ItsPolitics.

Although the tweet was removed and reformulated after severe criticism, the insinuation in it was clear: that the day is not far when Muslims would convert the temple to be built in Ayodhya into a mosque. The tweet was also an allusion to Muslims ruling India again because implementing the warning it contained is not possible in the absence of political power. It would be the height of naiveté to presume that the implication of such an ominous suggestion was lost on the people of India.

The shocking ideas contained in the deleted AIMPLB tweet are rooted in a fabricated statement attributed to Prophet Muhammad on the so-called Ghazwa al-Hind (war against India), in the context of which he is supposed to have said that two notable groups of Muslims will be saved from hell—the group that invades and conquers India (Taghzu al Hind), and the group that will stand with Prophet Jesus.

Little do the extremists who exploit this narration realize that the Prophet could not have made such a statement because of his categorical declarations in the Quran that he was not a clairvoyant (Laa A’lamul Ghaib) to predict the future, which God alone knows (Innamal Ghaibu Lillaah), and that he does not know what will be done with him or others (Maa Adri Maa Yuf’alu Bi Wa Laa Bikum). But Ghazwa al-Hind continues to be invoked by the Hindu right129 to question the loyalty of Muslims, and thus, along with the aforementioned reasons, it forms the basis of Hindu-Muslim mistrust.

Among the many ways of eliminating this lack of confidence in Muslims is for the Indian ulema to emphatically declare the concept of Ghazwa al-Hind to be un-Islamic. They must also collectively clarify that India is not Daar ul-Harb (abode of war), the word Kafir has no pejorative overtones and that it does not refer to non- Muslims. Apostasy and blasphemy must be removed from the list of capital crimes under Islamic law.

The idea of Dawah (invitation to Islam) as a tool of Islamic supremacism must also be given up, for Prophetic Islam is not a churchy or propitiative religion, but a system of life that defines a ‘Muslim’ as one who seeks to achieve human progress through peaceful means. Hence, the Quran does not expect its readers to ‘convert to Islam’ or ‘have faith’ in its message, but ‘be convinced’ of the truth after examining it deeply. Even God is not to be blindly ‘believed in’ but recognized based on scientific evidence and logical substantiation.131 This approach, which intends to wean Muslims away from doctrinaire arrogance, also shuts the door on any display of theological supremacism by them. Put simply, the Muslim clerical obsession with making the whole world ‘Islamic’ has no Quranic basis.

Another Muslim belief that is closely related to the conversion- fixated Dawah is the power-hungry dream of a global caliphate. Barring the glorious thirty-year Caliphate of Prophetic Companions Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (known as Khilafat-e-Raashida or the Rightly Guided Caliphate), no Muslim political rule measured up to the standards laid down by the Quran and the Prophet. In fact, there never existed a global caliphate in the history of Islam. Even the Golden Age of Islam (800–1,258 CE) does not offer a prototype of the ideal caliphate. During this period, three opposing caliphates competed with each other for the loyalty of Muslims: the Baghdad-based Abbasid Empire, the Cordoba-based Umayyad rule, and the Fatimid Shia caliphate headquartered in Cairo. Therefore, it is time Muslims are freed from the caliphate delusion, and the sooner the better.

In short, what is needed in India today is a radical rethink of Muslim theology. Renowned Indonesian scholar of Islam and the general secretary of the Nahdatul Ulama Supreme Council, Yahya Cholil Staquf, calls it the ‘recontextualisation’ of the teachings of Islam. It involves drawing on the peaceful aspects of Islam to encourage respect for religious pluralism and the fundamental dignity of every human being. Citing the example of Catholics and Protestants who ‘routinely killed each other’ a few centuries ago but now coexist peacefully, Staquf says that the same type of change can occur within Islam in one or two generations provided it is developed and promulgated by those with religious and political authority in the Muslim world.

As this is not possible in India with the outdated madrasa curriculum in existence, the ‘religious authority’ here, especially the Darul Uloom Deoband, must seriously consider revamping it completely to harmonize the pluralistic teachings of Islam with modernity. This entails a shift in focus from Taqlid (zealous imitation) to ijtihad (a process by which Islamic principles are deduced from the original sources).

In doing so, Deoband will be opening up Islam to modern interpretations within, of course, the framework of its original sources. In the long run, it would inculcate a sense of tolerance among Muslims for different points of view and equip them to respond positively to the requirements of a multicultural society like India.

Even Saudi Arabia has realized the importance of modernizing and moderating the religious curriculum and started removing anti-Semitic and misogynistic content from school textbooks. Textbook editions introduced in 2019 no longer contain Quranic misinterpretations that say men are in charge of women and that rebellious wives may be struck by their husbands.

This is an excellent example for Indian madrasas to follow. If they dither, then the Muslim laity must organize itself and challenge the hegemony of the ulema over the interpretation of Islam. For this, the community will have to become theologically informed, develop a secularized consciousness, and be bold enough to raise questions. Failing to do this would mean letting the ulema keep the Muslim masses forever engaged in emotive and haram–halal issues.

But if Muslims manage to assert their independence and succeed in pressuring the self-appointed custodians of Islam in India into modernizing their thought, it could herald the beginning of a transformative relationship with Hindus in which confrontation will give way to cooperation. With the fear of a Shariah-obsessed Muslim community gone, ordinary Hindus would begin to realize that a fantasized confrontation between Islam and Hinduism, which they have been made to believe in, is not purely a Hindu-Muslim problem but concerns the entire nation, and could seriously affect its development if allowed to continue. It is well-known that poverty and backwardness are mainly the result of violent internal conflict. Pakistan is a classic example of this malady.

As the foregoing arguments have shown, Hindu-Muslim mistrust in India today is based on imaginary fears. Both communities are not responsible for what their respective ancestors did. But they would be if they buy into the politically motivated propaganda that seeks to keep them divided. If the larger goal is to make India an epitome of peace, stability and progress, the communities have no option but to work together.

Sant Eknath (1533–1599) in his bharud titled Hindu-Turk Samvad, drives home this point through an imaginary Hindu- Muslim argument. His drama-poem (as translated by historian Eleanor Zelliot) begins with the lines:

The goal is one; the ways of worship are different Listen to the dialogue between these two

The Turk calls the Hindu ‘Kafir’!

The Hindu answers, ‘I will be polluted—get away’ A quarrel broke out between the two;

A great controversy begins …

After a lengthy polemical confabulation, the disputants end up saluting and embracing each other with great respect. Eknath’s final lines capture this moment beautifully.

You and I quarreled

To open up the knowledge of the high truth, In order to enlighten the very ignorant.

In place of karma—awakening!

‘In place of words we have established the word’s meaning’ The highest truth pierced them both

Enlightenment was the purpose of this quarrel. Both have been satisfied

The argument was about oneness. The argument became agreement. Eka Janardan says, ‘Self-knowledge And great bliss came to both’.

If a Hindu–Muslim argument can become agreement in the sixteenth century at the height of Muslim power in India, there is no reason why the two communities cannot live together in concord within the borders of the world’s largest secular democracy, especially in the age of information technology, where it is not difficult to identify the ‘fakeness’ of animosity-provoking propaganda and disinformation.

Previous Parts:

Muslimophobia in India: Reasons and Remedy (Part One)

Muslimophobia in India: Reasons and Remedy (Part Two)

Muslimophobia in India: Reasons and Remedy (Part Three)

Muslimophobia in India: Reasons and Remedy (Part Four)

URL:    https://newageislam.com/books-documents/muslimophobia-india-reasons-remedy-part-five/d/130074