'Enemy Of Islam'

At its eighteenth annual convention last month the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) issued an appeal for Muslims tosettle their personal disputes in shariah courts or dar ul qazas instead ofapproaching state courts for the purpose. Less than a fortnight later, the Jamiat ul-‘Ulama-I Hind, an all-India body of Deobandi mullahs, followedsuit and passed a resolution at its annual conference in Delhi making a similardemand. It called for Muslim couples to sign what it called a ‘covenant’ atthe time of marriage agreeing that in the event of failure to resolve theirmarital problems on their own they would authorise shariah courts ‘completely[sic.] to decide’ on the issue. The decision of these courts would be bindingon them. The covenant rules out any possibility of the couple or of one partyapproaching state courts for redress. ‘Even if they [the shariah courts] annulour nikah [marriage]’, the covenant makes the couple undertake, ‘we willaccept their decision and shall not revert to court against it’. In this way,the Jamiat, like the MPLB, is now seeking to bring all Muslims under its ambit,propping itself as an alternate legal authority.

The demand for separate shariah courts for Muslims in India is by no means a newone. For many years now various ulama associations have been demanding thatMuslims should seek to have their family matters settled by trained mullahs,instead of by judges in the secular courts. They insist that mullahs are bestable to understand and interpret the shariah, including Muslim Personal Law (MPL),suggesting that judges trained in a secular system, particularly if they arenon-Muslims, do not have the same qualifications to do so.

Indeed, so vociferously opposed are some of them to judges in state courtsinterpreting MPL that they go so far as to claim that such judges may be inleague with ‘anti-Islamic’ forces to deliberately misinterpret MPL as partof an alleged secret plot to smuggle in a Uniform Civil Code and eventually toabsorb the Muslims into the Hindu fold.

Advocates of shariah courts claim that their campaign has the support of theentire Muslim community, because, so they argue, this demand is actuallymandated by Islam itself. To oppose this, they suggest, is tantamount toopposing Islam, a sin unthinkable by any practising Muslim. Muslims who resistthis call may, therefore, expect to be branded as apostates or at least astraitors to the cause of Allah.

Appealing to Muslims to resort to the mullahs, ratherthan to the courts, to settle their personal disputes is, of course, a means tobolster the sagging prestige of the mullahs. Painfully aware that as moderneducation spreads increasing numbers of Muslims can dispense with the mullahs tointerpret their religion for them, the mullahs face a grave challenge to theirauthority. What better way, then, to recover it than by insisting that Muslimsmust accept them as the final arbiters of their destinies and that to refuse todo so is to sin against Islam? To further seal that claim to authority themullahs can, if further emboldened, even go so far as to declare a socialboycott against those who refuse to abide by the decisions of shariah courts,branding them as ‘anti-Islamic’ and as ‘agents’ of the ‘enemies’ ofIslam.

The shariah court campaign comes at a time when numerous Indian Muslim women arebeginning to mount an effective critique of the mullahs, accusing them ofpreaching male supremacy in the name of Islam. Islam, these women seem to bearguing, stands for gender equality and justice. In this way, these womenfiercely denounce the patriarchal laws that the conservative mullahs seek topass off in the name of the shariah.

Seen in this light, the recent appeals by certain ulama associations forMuslims to set up shariah courts and to abide by their dictates is also a meansto silence recalcitrant women, such as those associated with the newly formedMuslim women’s personal law boards, who claim that educated Muslims caninterpret Islam on their own without the aid of the mullahs. It is also a way toprevent Muslim women from seeking relief from state courts that, as in the ShahBano case, might provide a more gender-just reading of MPL than what the mullahsare prepared to tolerate.

The support that the mullahs’ demand for shariah courts actually enjoys amongthe Muslim community is debatable. Although many Muslims might back it,significant numbers are critical of it and many Muslims I know denounce it aswholly preposterous. A rough indication of the diverse responses the proposalhas met is provided by the floodof mails that I received in response to an articleI wrote on the subject recently.

In his response to my article, a certain Shan Mohammmad, acollege student from Delhi, insists that the call for shariah courts is ‘fullylegitimate’ on the grounds that ‘Muslims must follow whatever the piousulama say, because they are the successors of the Prophet Muhammad’. QuotingSyed Abul ‘Ala Maududi, founder of the Islamist Jama‘at-i Islami, he says,‘Islam divides humanity into two, the "friends of Allah" and the"friends of Satan"’. Islam also warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims for‘close friends or helpers’, he claims. Hence, he insists, as far as possibleMuslims must not seek to get their cases decided by non-Muslim judges. In linewith the Jama’at-i Islami’s claim that Islam provides detailed laws forevery conceivable aspect of life, he declares, ‘Ultimately, Muslims, be theyin India or elsewhere, must struggle to have God’s laws implemented in theirentirety by a global Caliph’. ‘Man-made laws have no place in God’s schemeof things’, he tells me, adding that my opposition to shariah courts is‘entirely misconceived’.

A similar ludicrous response comes from a certain Ghulam Muhammed Siddiqui fromMumbai, whose major occupation seems to be shooting off letters to newspapereditors protesting against every conceivable case of Muslim suffering, real aswell as imaginary. His letters are to be found strewn over numerous Islamistsites on the Internet and in various Muslim magazines. Inevitably, they relatethe same story: of hapless Muslims being persecuted by ill-willed disbelievers.If Siddiqui is to be believed, non-Muslims seem to have no other aim in life butto busy themselves plotting against Muslims and their faith. It is also as ifMuslims are not to blame for any of their own ills, as if there exist no Muslimoppressors or no good non-Muslims of any sort, and as if all Muslims areinnocent, badly misunderstood, lambs.

Siddiqui’s response to my article is predictable. While defending themullahs’ call for shariah courts, he announces: ‘It is time that IndianMuslims should chose between the two virulent anti-Muslim adversaries, theLeft-Liberals and the Hindutva extremists, as to who is their Enemy No.1"."With propagandists like Yoginder Sikand raking up and proposing a jointeffort between the two anti-Muslim forces", he rants, "Muslims will have tobeware of the soothing words of liberals who are now becoming more and more likean improved version of Hindutva in denying Muslims any right to live in India as Muslims". He sees my opposition to shariah courts as reflecting the Left’sopposition to religion, claiming that ‘Left-Liberals’ are particularlyopposed to Islam, which allegedly unites them with Hindutva fascists. He endshis vituperative diatribe by threatening that the Muslims’ ‘reaction’ to‘the machinations’ of ‘Left-Liberals’ like me who are opposed to theshariah courts will ‘be as decisive as [the] Muslim response to Hindutva’.

As these two responses so well illustrate, Islamistideologues, like their Hindutva counterparts, inhabit a frighteningly Manichaeanworld, where pious believers are pitted against plotting enemies in a strugglefor global hegemony. Any critique of diehard conservative mullahs orIslamist groups, no matter how well meaning, comes to be construed as a hiddenploy against Islam, even if the critique is not directed against Islam as such,as in the case of my piece on shariah courts.

This explains why a certain Sayyed Idris, another vehement critic of my viewson shariah courts, goes so far as to denounce me as an ‘enemy of Islam’ inthe guise of a ‘do-gooder’, although nowhere in my article have I critiquedIslam at all. Judging by his profuse quotations from Maududi, he appears to beanother Jama’at-i Islami sympathiser. He is not the first person to bestow mewith the ‘enemy’ label, however. While some Hindutva writers have for longbeen accusing me of being an ‘anti-Hindu pseudo secularist’, I have recentlyearned the ‘enemy of Islam’ epithet after discovering that Hindutva fascistsand Islamist radicals need to be opposed equally consistently. Before that truthdawned on me, my denunciations of Hindutva were regularly published in theJama‘at-i Islami’s weekly Radiance, but these stopped completely ever Ibegan speaking out against Islamists and obscurantist mullahs as well.

Unlike many other fellow Islamists, Sayyed Idris, I must admit, is generousenough to acknowledge my consistent opposition to Hindutva, in addition toradical Islamists and bigoted mullahs. Yet, in true Islamist fashion, he sees inthis yet another ‘conspiracy’. ‘Your anti-Hindutva and pro-Muslimarticles’, he tells me, ‘are simply a clever ruse to fool gullible Muslimsin order to carry on with your anti-Islamic agenda’.

Interestingly, and this has given me some cause to feel cheerful about, moreMuslims have written to me to express their support of my article than those whohave sought to rubbish it. One of these is a certain Raju Mohammad, anaccountant from Chennai, who writes that ‘Muslims must focus onbread-and-butter issues instead of non-issues like shariah courts’. Thecampaign for shariah courts, he warns, ‘will only play into the hands ofHindutva fascists, in the same way as reactionary Muslim leaders did in the ShahBano case that led, finally, to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, the killingof thousands of Muslims and the alarming rise of Hindutva’. He also disagreeswith the mullahs on their understanding of shariah.

‘Shariah is not a static entity, and the rules of shariah, humanlyinterpreted in the form of jurisprudence or fiqh, can change over time’, hesays. However, he laments, most Islamists and mullahs are ‘opposed to suchchange, as that would undermine their own authority’. Accusing them of‘wrongly equating the ‘divine shariah’ with ‘human interpretation’, heinsists that the demand that Muslims resolve their personal matters in shariahcourts, instead of state courts, is ‘wholly mischievous’. It would, heclaims, only further ‘fuel anti-Muslim passions and reinforce the image ofMuslims being anti-national and unwilling to live as normal citizens of asecular state’.

Another Muslim who expresses his appreciation of my standis a certain Ghulam Faruki from New York. ‘Since, in all matters other thanPersonal Law, Muslims have rightly obeyed the laws of the land and acceptedgovernment appointed judges’, he writes, ‘and since the results of thisacquiescence have been satisfactory, extension of such a paradigm would beconsidered a natural next step’. Hence, he says, ‘attempts to set upseparate courts are bound to be frustrated as well as divisive, and probablyretrograde’. "It does appear", he goes on, "that the AIMPLB is out oftouch with reality and is unable or unwilling to consider the consequences ofits ill-advised pronouncements". He critiques the conservative mullahs of theAIMPLB for what he calls ‘their dogmatic orthodoxy’ and for misinterpretingIslam, which he describes as, in actual fact, a ‘liberating religion’.

Faruki calls for Muslims to seek to understand their religion on their own,denying the mullahs the power that he spies them as hankering after. After all,he argues, ‘Islam is supposed to be a religion of common sense, and thereforeequally accessible to lay as well as expert interpretations’. ‘If commonsense is applied to a simple and practical religion such as Islam’, he says,‘it diminishes the authority of the scholars and the experts, thereby reducingthe chances of someone leading us astray’. Bypassing the hidebound legalism ofthe mullahs, this ‘lay’ Islamic theology would, he suggests, ‘inspire usto seek equal rights for women, shed the ideology of violence, learn to respectother religions and other Islamic sects, and participate fully in the democraticand national activities of the countries we live in’.

In developing this new and more contextually relevant understanding of Islam,Faruki argues, the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the shariahneeds to be respected. This is crucial, for he rightly sees that shariah courtsthat the mullahs want to set up would inevitably apply archaic and, inparticular, misogynist, interpretations of the shariah. Speaking out against themullahs’ insistence that shariah laws ‘as they were practised a thousandyears ago’ be replicated in their totality today, he argues that ‘manyMuslims today would rather preserve the true spirit of such laws’ such as toensure justice. In support for his plea for a historically groundedunderstanding of Islam he quotes with approval a modernist Muslim intellectual,Reza Arslan, who argues that ‘The notion that historical context should playno role in the interpretation of the Koran—that what applied to Muhammad’scommunity applies to all Muslim communities for all time – is simply anuntenable position in every sense.''

Writing from Texas, America, a certain Mirza Faisal has also rushed to mydefence. The shariah court campaign, he says, ‘seems to be devoid of somebasic understandings’, the result perhaps of an absence of what he quaintlycalls ‘a reality check’. He insists that legally sanctioned shariah courtswould ‘kill Muslims politically and move them further into ghettos’.‘Religious counselling systems’, he says, are a more sensible option thanshariah courts. In a climate that is increasingly anti-Muslim, he writes,instead of raking up such ‘controversial issues’ which would not help them,Muslims must seek to ‘build bridges’ with other communities. ‘Thegoal’, he very sensibly suggests, ‘should be to make people better citizens,to motivate people to move up and have a human agenda rather than a Muslimagenda’. ‘The goal should be to take up leadership positions inadministration, politics, business, journalism, sciences etc and be uprightMuslims. That is what is required and not darul qazas’, he tells me.

The most scathing critique of the shariah courts’proposal comes from a certain Zafar, an Indian Muslim from Sydney,Australia. ‘I am unsure as to whether the AIMPLB is being malicious or justplain stupid here’, he writes, ‘but either way its talent for pickingexactly the wrong issue at exactly the wrong time is reliably breathtaking’.

‘Have these gentlemen forgotten so soon what their threatening violence andforcing the government to back down on the Shah Bano judgement resulted in?’,he asks in genuine anguish. ‘Or are they simply unconcerned’, he goes on,‘with the negative impact of their grandstanding—and it appears to me, butmaybe it’s just me—naked greed for power and influence has on India and itspeople, especially on Indian Muslims?’.

Zafar goes so far as to denounce the MPLB as ‘a grotesquely self aggrandisingmenace to India and Indian Muslims’. He critiques the MPLB and similarmullah-dominated groups for seeking to exercise a hegemonic control over theMuslims, seeking to force the state to bend to their will and demanding that thestate recognise them as the sole spokesmen of the community. The shariah courtcampaign, he says, is all about a quest for ‘money and influence’ for themullahs and the graduates of their madrasas, who would, as he puts it somewhatuncharitably, ‘otherwise be unable to use their medieval education’.

Unable to conceal his disgust with the antics of the mullahs he says, ‘Imean, how stupid do these clowns think we are? Why don’t they get a real joblike anybody else?’. He even makes so bold as to assert that if thestate caved into the demands of the mullahs and legally recognised shariahcourts he would ‘be tempted to find the closest Arya Samaj Mandir andmake inquiries about signing up’. ‘It says something that it’s only theactions of the AIMPLB that make me consider not being a Muslim’, he franklyconfesses in despair, ‘and never those of the organisations that run shuddhiprograms".

‘Hind mein Islam ko in ki bevakoofi se khatra hai’ (‘Islam isthreatened in India from the idiocy of such people’), Zafar ends his missiveby saying. Not being a Muslim myself in the conventional sense of the term, Ireserve my comments, not wanting to be branded, once again, as an ‘enemyagent’. But I must confess that I suspect that many Muslims might well concurwith him.

Yoginder Sikand is the author of Sacred Spaces: Exploring Traditions of Shared Faith in India and Inter-Religious Dialogue and Liberation Theology: Interviews with Indian Theologians and Activists