Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 16, 2005
There has been a tendency among people to
ignore the role of religion in terrorism perpetrated by Islamists, says Prafull
Goradia The evening after the bomb blasts took up to a hundred lives in Delhi
(October 29), I happened to meet Mr Michael Ismail - a compromise name as
a simultaneous tribute to his Christian mother and Muslim father.
He is an Englishman and a graduate of Edinburgh
University who is on a brief visit to India. My question to him was: Why do
not moderate Muslims condemn terrorism, which butchers innocent people? With
the combination of his educated English upbringing and his part Muslim parentage,
I felt I would evoke an objective explanation.
Mr Ismail's answer was that there can be no
such thing as a moderate Muslim. Either one is a momin (a faithful Muslim)
or a murtad (an apostate). If one cherishes faith in Islam, humanity is divided
between Muslims and kafirs (non-believers). No matter how much one has been
exposed to Western or secular thought, in his heart of hearts his instinctive
first priority is: On which side of the religious divide a person is? This
statement immediately reminded me of Maulana Muhammad Ali's declaration made
in 1924 in Lucknow: "According to my religion and creed, I do hold an
adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr Gandhi." (Indian
Muslims by Ram Gopal, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1959).
If Mahatma Gandhi can be on the wrong side
of Allah the Merciful and a fallen Muslim on the right side, where is the
scope for moderation? A fallen believer has a chance of redeeming himself
with the help of good deeds and finding a place for himself in jannat, heaven.
But a non-believer has no such opportunity. "Where then is the question
of looking upon him as preferable to a Muslim no matter how degenerate the
latter may be?" asked Mr Ismail.
Moderate and extremist are European distinctions
that came to light with the evolution of ideologies - like nationalism, socialism
- which were not based on religion. Prior to the 16th century, in Europe,
there were either Christians or infidels, no moderates and extremists, claimed
the English visitor. To this day, in the Marxist lexicon, there are Communists,
revisionists, deviationists, adventurists, etc., but no moderates or extremists.
If in the cause of religion, innocents are
killed (as they were in Delhi on October 29), those who set off the blasts
became ghazis, the conquerors of kafirs. The innocents were fodder; they were
legitimate or rightful in the eyes of Allah the Beneficent.
They were, therefore, dispensable. If there
were Muslims among the killed, they became shaheeds (martyrs) for they died
in the cause of religion. Assuming the blasts were in protest against the
expected court judgements on the attackers of the Red Fort, they were bombs
as part of jihad for converting Hindustan into a dar-ul Islam. Theologically,
no crime was committed on that evening which seemed barbaric to Christians
and Hindus. If Islamabad endorsed this view, it was canonically wrong, explained
Ismail.
Hardly any Muslim in the world blames Osama
bin Laden for provoking the US, and all the lives lost as a result - whether
in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere. The reason given is that the casualties
are all a part of jihad. The dead became shaheed and went straight to heaven
without having to wait for qayamat, doomsday. Which explains why Messrs Ram
Vilas Paswan and Lalu Prasad Yadav have pursued the look alike of bin Laden
for their electioneering in Bihar. Evidently, the hero to many Muslims, although
the rest of the world looks upon him as a villain.
Osama's followers have perpetrated their crimes
across five continents, all except South America. Australians were killed
in Bali and Jakarta. The Philippines have their continual share of secessionist
attacks, especially on the island of Minaldo. Thailand is having to fight
for its national integrity because Muslims in its southern province of Pattani
undertake frequent killings to secede from the country. The long Indian experience
needs no reiteration. Russia has had its share of terrorism in Moscow, Beslan
and Nalchik. Spain has its share of mass killings in Madrid. London on 7/7
was widely publicised. New York and Washington on 9/11 hardly need mention.
It is uncanny that not a single mullah has
issued fatwa disapproving any of these heinous crimes against innocent people.
The all pervasive silence of the world's ulema proves a universal consensus
behind the widespread terrorism. Many a scholar would not find this surprising
as a Muslim's declared first loyalty is to the world's ummah. The non-Muslim
sector of humanity does not figure in the catalogue of Islamic priorities.
Most acts of terrorism have been followed
by the perpetrating organisations claiming responsibility. In fact, the quickly
made claims reflect a degree of pride in their success in the pursuit of jihad.
Such claims are made openly for the sake of religion. President George Bush
calls the terrorists Islamist radicals. But hardly anyone else mentions Islam
as responsible for the crime.
The Indian media is also shy of referring
to religion. Is this the way to approach an enemy? Is there a chance of even
winning with the help of such a defeatist attitude?
