Various arguments are given to explain this predicament.
Many Muslims claim that this is a result of an alleged ‘conspiracy’
hatched by others. A large number of Muslim religious leaders, not just in
India alone but elsewhere too, seek to explain many of the serious
problems of the Muslims in this manner. They claim to locate the ‘hidden
hand’ of others behind all their manifold problems. Some of our ulema, or
religious leaders, also seek to provide what they claim is religious
justification for this sort of explanation, before which people, even
those who are not satisfied with the narrow-mindedness of the approach of
these ulema, are forced to keep shut.
In my opinion, it is not true to say that the Indian
Muslims have no problems at all simply on account of being Muslims and
that in practice they enjoy equal opportunities in every field with others
and that all fields are equally open to them. Nor however is it true to
say that all, or even most, of these doors have been closed to them and
that oppression has now come to be a matter decreed by fate for them. It
is unfortunate that many of our religious leaders believe that the only
way out is for a messiah-like figure to appear to deliver them from the
situation in which they find themselves. It is equally unfortunate that
the Muslim political leadership considers heated rhetoric, empty
sloganeering and angry demonstrations as the solution.
On the internal front, the single major problem afflicting
Indian Muslims is the woeful state of their education. If after
independence, we had focused simply on promoting education as our agenda,
I believe that half the problems that we appear to be confronted with
today would not have existed. It is in the field of education and
knowledge that we should be focusing our energies, not in engaging in
endless controversies with others.
For Indian Muslims, and Muslims all over the world in
general, an intellectual renaissance has now become indispensable. This
includes a renaissance in their political, social as well as religious
thought. There must be a rethinking of certain strongly held notions that
have come to be seen as an essential part of traditional Islamic thought
although these may not actually be so. In this regard, ijtihad, or
critical reflection, on issues is of immense importance and we can no
longer avoid it. Unfortunately however, many of our ulema continue to
ignore, and even deny, the need for ijtihad. Many Indian ulema have
simply no idea of the needs and conditions of today’s age. They simply
lack the capacity to understand the demands of the times and the need for
appropriately addressing these issues. This is a matter of very grave
concern.
One issue of considerable importance in this regard is
that of relations between Hindus and Muslims. There is an urgent need to
revise certain traditional negative understandings upheld by some of our
ulema about Hindu-Muslim relations and to articulate alternate
understandings that can help promote rather than hinder cooperation and
friendly relations between these two communities. Some of our ulema, based
on an incorrect understanding of certain verses of the Koran and Hadith
reports attributed to Prophet Muhammad, erroneously argue that true
friendship is impossible between Hindus and Muslims. Some of them seek to
equate the polytheists of Arabia with the Hindus and on this basis claim
that Hindus are the biggest enemies of the Muslims.
This, in my view, is not at all correct because the
polytheists that the Koran refers to as enemies of Muslims are those who
fiercely opposed the prophet and waged war against him. The laws related
to them, I believe, cannot be applied to other people who are not open and
avowed enemies of Muslims. This is why when Muhammad bin Qasim established
his rule in Sindh, he considered the Hindus to be similar to the ‘People
of the Book’ and provided them the same status that the Koran provides to
Jews and Christians and granted them religious freedom. He did not
consider them to be in the same category as the polytheists of Arabia who
waged war against the prophet. The same stance was continued by subsequent
Muslim rulers of India although, unfortunately, some ulema opposed this
position and some even continue to do so today.
Some Muslims wrongly believe that Muslims must be in a
perpetual state of war with Hindus and for this they adduce a statement
contained in a book compiled by Imam Nisai, wherein it is claimed that
Prophet Muhammad had prophesied an armed jihad against India. It is
instructive to note that this statement is not contained in any reliable
and important book of Hadith and it can be interpreted as an incident that
has already taken place centuries ago and not something that is yet to
come, as some radical self-styled Islamists claim. In this regard, a
crucial issue is that of the Shariah position on the status of India.
Numerous leading ulema have declared India to be a dar
ul-ahad, or ‘abode of agreement’, wherein Muslims must live like loyal
citizens. This was the position taken by such leading ulema as Allama
Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri of the Deoband school.
However, and unfortunately, some ulema continue to claim that India is a
dar ul-harb, or ‘abode of war’. I believe that this debate must be
ended at once and we have to accept India as dar ul-ahad. However,
the fact remains that this debate, which was gradually dying out and
moving in the direction of a sensible solution, has been sought to be
revived by the warped writings of some traditional ulema as well as by the
wrong interpretations of some Koranic verses and Hadith reports
deliberately propagated by some radical self-styled Islamist groups based
in Pakistan, in order to serve their own vested interests.
In this regard, I must also mention that many Arab ulema
are unaware of contemporary global political developments. They have no
understanding of the particular conditions and contexts of Muslims living
in largely non-Muslim countries which some of them wrongly brand as dar
ul-harb. This is completely wrong. Further, their thought is moulded
by the tradition of jurisprudence that developed in the context of Muslim
political supremacy. Their writings often leave an indelible impact on
simple minds. They rant and rave against secularism by branding it as
‘anti-Islamic’ and have produced huge amounts of literature to make this
point. And because the madrassas do not teach their students to relate the
tradition of Islamic jurisprudence to changing social and political
conditions and contexts, they are unable to understand these vital issues
properly and so become wholly conditioned by the contents of this sort of
literature. This is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed.
In every country, minorities do face additional problems
and issues and it is unlikely that these can ever be fully resolved. The
correct approach in this regard is to accept these conditions as facts and
then to work for realistic solutions instead of stirring unnecessary
controversies. Unfortunately, we Muslims focus all our attention on
seeking to highlight the causes of our problems instead of working to
solve them in a practical, pragmatic and sensible manner.