Zafar Islam wants Muslims to give BJP a chance. Here's a reality check for him

It is tough being a Muslim in the Bharatiya Janata Party for it involves inculcating  three habits: denial, hypocrisy and self-loathing.

Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, presently the Union Minority Affairs minister, has perfected this state of being after years of conditioning. So when dairy farmer Pehlu Khan was murdered by Gau Rakshaks in Alwar last month, Naqvi didn't bat an eyelid before asserting that “the incident never happened”. Naqvi's classical conditioning as a BJP Muslim would put the subjects of Pavlovian experiments to shame. That was the BJP Muslim in denial mode.

For the self-loathing mode – attacking fellow Muslims –  consider Naqvi's response when erstwhile JD(U) leader Sabir Ali tried to join the BJP in 2014. Naqvi promptly accused Sabir Ali of being Dawood Ibrahim's agent and scuttled his induction. The RSS patted Naqvi on the back for being a good BJP Muslim. Naturally, classical conditioning does require some positive reinforcement.

Following in Naqvi's footsteps is BJP spokesperson Syed Zafar Islam who, on May 4, wrote an opinion piece in Indian Express titled “Why Muslims must give BJP a fair chance”. The article is recommended reading for BJP Muslims as it represents the denial, hypocrisy and self-loathing they need to absorb.  Here's what he wrote:

THE ARGUMENTS

“They (Muslims) fear that the BJP will now create a Hindu Rashtra, starting with UP.”

Zafar Islam is right, such fears do exist among Muslims across India. But this isn't a result of “fear-mongering by Mullahs and secular parties” as he presents. In his very first interview after becoming the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath said “I see nothing wrong in the idea of a Hindu Rashtra”.

In 2005, the Adityanath had reportedly said in Etah, “I will not stop till I turn Uttar Pradesh and India into a Hindu Rashtra”.

Despite such utterances, or may be because of them, the Gorakhpur MP was made the CM of Uttar Pradesh. He continues to propagate such views. So should the Muslims believe in Adityanath's public statements or Zafar Islam's delusions?

“There are sounds of helpless whispering that they (Muslims) should be bracing themselves for a bleak future in which they would be reduced to the status of Mohammedia Hindu, which they fear is a long-term project of the RSS.”

At a rally in 2015, Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat had said that India was already a Hindu Rashtra and all those living in Hindustan are Hindus. Indian Muslims, therefore, are “Hindu Muslims”.

Mind you, these aren't the words of a fringe Hindutva loony but the Sarsanghchalak of the RSS.

Indian Muslims didn't invent the term Mohammedia Hindu or Hindu Muslims. Sikhs didn't invent the term Keshdhari Hindu. These are long term projects of the Hindu Right and this is proved by the Sarsanghchalak's comment.

“Some others, with more fertile imaginations, have been alluding to the forced exodus of Muslims by Catholic Spain from Granada in 1492 or talking of a possible repeat of the 1857 situation.”

Please, Mr Zafar Islam, do not insult the intelligence of Indian Muslims. They don't need to go back to events that happened 500 years ago in another continent.

If your state of denial hasn't reached MA Naqvi proportions, these cases may ring a bell: Mohsin Shaikh (Pune, June 2014), Mohammad Akhlaq (Dadri, September 2015), Zahid Ahmad (Udhampur, October 2015), Noman (Saharan, October 2015),  Majloom Ansari and 12 year old Imtiyaz Khan (Latehar, March 2016), Mustain Abbas (Kurukshetra, April 2016)  Mewat gang-rape (September 2016),  Pehlu Khan (Alwar, April 2017).

All these victims were Indian citizens who were targetted mainly because they were Muslims.

“ Muslims are being made to believe that the BJP is communal and a confirmed anti-Muslim party though in reality it’s the opposite.”

That the above attacks happened, is itself tragic. But what is even more shameful is that the BJP ended up justifying many of these atrocities.

Akhlaq's alleged killer Ravi Sisodia was draped in a tricolour when he died of illness and Union Minister Mahesh Sharma came and paid his respects to him.

Incidentally, the son of a local BJP leader is also named in the chargesheet in the murder of Mohammad Akhlaq

BJP MLA in Rajasthan Gyan Dev Ahuja, justified the murder of Pehlu Khan saying “He was a cow smuggler...sinners like him will meet this fate.”

If BJP isn't anti-Muslim, why has no action been taken against Sharma and Ahuja? Why are leaders accused of rioting and hate speeches consistently rewarded in the party? 

“They (Muslims) are being warned that they would become second class citizens.”

Sanjay Raut, an ideologue of the BJP's ally Shiv Sena, in 2015 openly called for disenfranchising Muslims. He wrote in the Sena mouthpiece Saamna that the community's “voting rights should be withdrawn in order to end vote bank politics”.

Leave alone taking action against him, Raut wasn't even chastised for making a statement that goes against India's Constitution.

BJP and the right wing brigade as a whole have made it a point to target prominent Indian Muslims. Telangana BJP leader K Laxman questioned Sania Mirza's patriotism despite the accolades she has won for India. Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan are routinely branded as traitors by right wing outfits. The Hindutva brigade didn't even spare the Vice-President of India Hamid Ansari and targetted him for not saluting the  Republic Day parade in 2015, even though he was merely following protocol.

Even when BJP's Mahesh Sharma praised former president APJ Abdul Kalam, he said "he was a nationalist, despite being Muslim". It is clear that for the BJP, Muslims aren't Indian enough or nationalist enough.

THE GUJARAT MODEL

Zafar Islam cites the "prosperity" and well being of Muslims in Gujarat as proof of the BJP's magnanimity towards the community. He gives cases of businessmen and local self-government leaders who have an optimistic view of the state.

To set the record straight, Gujarat's Muslims have been better off than their counterparts in rest of India since much before Modi. If they remained in Gujarat despite the 2002 pogrom, it is a testimony to their resilience. If they have done well, it is due to their own hard work and the grace of God, not the BJP government in the state.

The Modi government in Gujarat  consistently blocked the centrally sponsored scholarships meant for minorities. Civic infrastructure in Muslim-dominated areas is still poorer than in Hindu areas in the state.

Muslims have benefitted from schemes and services that were meant for all Gujaratis. So does that mean the community should be grateful that they weren't actively discriminated against? Or that they are more fortunate than their brethren who were killed in the 2002 pogrom? What exactly should the Muslims be grateful to the BJP for?

Zafar Islam's assertions are no different from Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad's statement that "BJP gave sanctity to Muslims even though they don't vote for us". There seems to be a deep-seated belief in the BJP that Muslims need to be thankful to the party that it isn't actively denying them benefits from government schemes or services like power, roads, health and so on. This is another way of saying that Muslims are indeed second class citizens in India, who should be grateful for every little crumb they get.  

"THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY’S CONCERNS, HOWEVER, ARE NOT BASED ON REALITY."

Slow clap for this line. Perhaps, Zafar Islam should go and tell the families of Mohammad Akhlaq, Pehlu Khan, Zahid Ahmad, Mohsin Shaikh, Majloom Ansari etc that what happened to them isn't "based on reality".

The reality, that Zafar Islam and MA Naqvi continue to deny, is that people have been killed just because of being Muslim. The reality is that if you are Muslim, even being the Vice-President of India doesn't give you immunity against communal hatred. The reality is that the BJP is leading a dispensation that is unabashedly majoritarian.

But then one can't expect someone like Zafar Islam to understand this. After all he is someone who jumped the Congress ship to join the BJP in April 2014, when the Modi wave had become evident. 

To modify a Mirza Ghalib couplet: "Kaaba kis munh sey jaogey Zafar Islam, sharm tumko magar aati nahi".

(Credit: Aditya Menon, Catch News)

Islamophobia on the rise

Islamophobia on the rise

French Have My Condolences, Not My Apology

This is not an angry letter, and if you insist it is, feel free to say that, for we seem to have a global consensus on free speech in a long time.

A  friend remarked in good humor hours after the firing at the French satirical newspaper "Why yaar, you Muslims kill all the time?" It was a remark made in good humour, she suggested, just as my friends in Class 5 would ask me, presumably in similar fun ribbing spirit, before an Indo- Pak cricket match "So Pakistan today, na?"

For the longest time, I have evaded questions on Islam on official fora.

My faith is a personal matter and sacrosanct. Having said that, I consider myself a proud Muslim. I have taken the most bigoted comments on my work in my stride though most of my investigations seen through the prism of religion, judging by the comments posted on my pieces and the reactions I provoke in person from people who discuss my work.

My reportage on fake encounters has been dissected with clinical precision, generating fury and an interrogation of my credentials, while my investigations on tribals and Dalits, for which I have received prestigious awards, have largely gone unnoticed by my critics and friends alike. 

As and when ignorant assumptions about my faith have been raised, I have, with the little knowledge of Islam imparted to me, mostly by my father, tried to clarify the misconceptions. 

My father belonged to the progressive writers' movement. While his Communist friends would cherish their whisky and cigar at mushairas or get-togethers in the 70s, he would sneak into a room with dimmed lights, offer his namaaz and then return to the soiree to exchange his qalaam (couplet).

For him, his namaaz was a private and personal affair, just like his decision to kindly refuse the alcohol served at such mehfils.

While he would never touch alcohol, there was never an attempt to influence his friends and seniors alike with his beliefs - the group included Kaifi Azmi, Ali Sardar Jafri and Ahmed Faraz amongst other liberal writers. 

His Islam and Koran began with the word "iqra" (read/recite). It was for this reason that the son of a zamindar chose to spend a good part of his career, till he retired, teaching at a government school in Mumbai, as opposed to reaping the profits of his family business. A majority of his students were non-Muslims.

We, a family of six, stayed in a one-room kitchen modest apartment in Mumbai, situated next to an RSS karyalaya, whose members chose to spend most afternoons with my abba, their 'Masterji', discussing worldly affairs.

Abba was popular as the Masterji who would get students admitted to his school, give free tuitions and make frequent visits to the shakha despite his ideological differences with the RSS. On Guru Poornima, his was the first wrist which had the red thread tied on it by the shakha head.

Diagonally opposite to our housing society was an Ayyappa mandir loved by my siblings and me for the jaggery prasadam. On occasions that we didn't make it there, the pujaari would send it home on a banana leaf. During the annual Ayyappa pooja, all the plants from our garden would be packed off to the mandir, and mom would help them connect their water pipes to our kitchen.

Such was the joy of being a part of a cosmopolitan country like India. 

When I write this today, every word seethes with frustration. Because, my identity today appears to have value only as a terror apologist, a Muslim who stands up to bigotry. I have to frame a politically-correct response post every terror attack, some allegedly by members of the Muslim community, and others where the perpetrators were clearly misguided Islamic fanatics who stand in absolute contradiction to everything believers like me have ever stood for.

It baffles me when I am singled out for an apology. I wonder if my Tamil friends have ever been asked to apologise for the terror acts of the LTTE, for the suicide bombings by the Tamil Tigers, including the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

It baffles me when Brahmins in the country are not singled out when a family of Dalit women is raped and murdered in broad daylight in Khairlanji, and when the upper caste commits atrocities on Dalits across the country in the name of faith.

It baffles me that never is a Christian looked at with suspicion or anger over the attacks on abortion clinics, or the seemingly placid acceptance of a white who goes on a shooting spree of innocent students, or a Jew asked to apologize over the carnage of Palestinians. Is an American asked to apologize for innocent Afghans and Iraqis killed by the US Army in collateral damage?

Why do you sit in assumption over my morals and my essential humanity when you call me and ask me, "So what do you think about that attack?"

Yes, I do not quite enjoy when a hundred school kids in Peshawar are brutally slaughtered in the name of faith. And, if you think Islam teaches this brutality, you are as misguided as them, perhaps why you and these terrorists could be in agreement over Islam.

I feel compelled - sometimes pressured - to tweet stories of the religious identity of the officer who died saving the lives of journalists in France. Why? 

Why am I forced to let everyone know that the employee of a kosher supermarket, who risked his life to save the lives of Jews from a desperate gunman, was a Muslim?

Why am I forced to post pictures of Muslims in France offering namaaz for the slain journalists?

Why am I forced to reiterate to my friends, "Hey, listen, the commanding officer in the final raid on the assailants was a Muslim"?

I am tired and embarrassed at having to reassert that my faith has nothing to do with the lunacy of some misguided rascals who claim to be protectors of my faith. They are as misguided as the Buddhist monks in Myanmar who are targeting Muslims in riots, the very idea being contradictory to the Buddhist faith.

Yes, I have stood against anti-Muslim bigotry and will continue to do so in the light of the events in present times and that does not translate into being a terrorist sympathizer. No, I am not a "moderate Muslim" because the term is insulting to my faith just as it would be to a Hindu or a Jew or a Sikh - any faith demands honesty and not a quantitaive assessment or degree of your belief in it.

As I write this today, I am also assured that bigotry and this mindless Islamophobia will not be allowed a free rein, and the front-runners who will defend my faith and its followers from this mindless hate will be non-Muslims.

It is heartening to see that for every Rupert Murdoch who gives voice to this pandemic bigotry, there are a hundred other journalists, activists, humanists across the globe who are fighting an unpopular battle each day to defend Muslims from this rampant prejudice.

As fellow journalist Owen Jones, from The Independent, who I greatly admire for his unrelenting journalistic crusade against bigotry, once wrote, "Those few of us with a public voice who defend Muslims from bigoted generalisations are currently fighting an unpopular battle. But it is the right thing to do, and history will absolve us."

(Source: Rana Ayyub - is an NDTV award-winning investigative journalist and political writer.)

Islamic difference and radicalisation - The Hindu

Islamic difference and radicalisation - The Hindu

What I Learned About Life After Interviewing 80 Highly Successful People

"You interrupt too much," people email me. "Let your guests finish talking." But I can't help it. I get curious. I want to know! Now!

Over the past year I interviewed about 80 guests for my podcast. My only criteria: I was fascinated by some aspect of each person.

I didn't limit myself by saying "each one had to be an entrepreneur" or "had to be a success."

I just wanted to talk to anyone who made me curious about their lives. I spoke to entrepreneurs, comedians, artists, producers, astronauts, writers, rappers, and even this country's largest beer brewer.

Will I do it for the next year? Maybe. It's hard.

Sometimes I would pursue a guest for six months with no reply and then they would call and say, "Can you do right now?" and I'd change all plans with kids, Claudia, business.

I had no favorites. They were all great. I interviewed Peter Thiel, Coolio, Mark Cuban, Arianna Huffington, Amanda Palmer, Tony Robbins, and many more. I'm really grateful they all wanted to talk to me.

Podcasting, to be honest, was just an excuse for me to call up whoever I wanted to call and ask them all sorts of personal questions about their lives. If I wanted to talk about "Star Wars," I called the author of a dozen Star Wars novels.

If I wanted to talk about Twisted Sister, I called up the founder of the band. If I wanted to talk sex I called the women who ran the "Ask Women" podcast.

I wanted to know at what point were they at their worst. And how they got better. Each person created a unique life. I wanted to know how they did it. I was insanely curious.

As Coolio told me, "You got me to reveal some deep stuff I didn't want to reveal. Kudos." Tony Robbins had to literally shake himself at one point and say, "Wait, how did we end up talking about this?" I can't help it. I want to know.

Here are the most important things I learned. I can't specify which person I learned what from. It hurts my head when I think about it because many of the 80 said the exact same thing about how they ended up where they were.

Here is some of what they said:

A) A life is measured in decades.

Too many people want happiness, love, money, connections, everything yesterday. Me too. I call it "the disease." I feel often I can paint over a certain emptiness inside if only...if only...I have X.

But a good life is like the flame of a bonfire. It builds slowly, and because it's slow and warm it caresses the heart instead of destroys it.

B) A life is measured by what you did TODAY, even this moment.

This is the opposite of "A" but the same. You get success in decades by having success now.

That doesn't mean money now. It means, "Are you doing your best today?"

Everyone worked at physical health, improving their friendships and connections with others, being creative, being grateful. Every day.

For those who didn't, they quickly got sick, depressed, anxious, fearful. They had to change their lives. When they made that change, universally they all said to me, "that's when it all started."

C) Focus is not important, but Push is (reinvention).

Very few people have just one career. And for every career, it's never straight up.

When you have focus, it's like saying, "I'm just going to learn about only one thing forever." But "the push" is the ability to get up every day, open up the shades, and push through all the things that make you want to go back to sleep.

Even if it means changing careers 10 times. Or changing your life completely. Just pushing forward to create a little more life inside yourself.

Compound life is much more powerful than compound interest.

D) Give without thinking of what you will receive.

I don't think I spoke to a single person who believed in setting personal goals. But 100% of the people I spoke to wanted to solve a problem for the many.

It doesn't matter how you give each day. It doesn't even matter how much. But everyone wanted to give and eventually they were given back.

E) Solving hard problems is more important than overcoming failure.

The outside world is a mirror of what you have on the inside. If Thomas Edison viewed his 999 attempts at creating a lightbulb a failure then he would've given up. His inside was curious. His inside viewed his "attempts" as experiments. Then he did #1000. Now we can see in the dark.

Dan Ariely was burned all over his body and used that experience to research the psychology of pain and ultimately the psychology of behavior and how we can make better decisions.

Tony Robbins lost everything when his marriage ended, but he came back by coaching thousands of people.

It's how you view the life inside you that creates the life outside of you. Every day.

F) Art and success and love is about connecting all the dots.

Here are some dots: The very personal sadness sitting inside of you. The things you learn. The things you read about. The things you love. Connect the dots. Give it to someone.

Now you just gave birth to a legacy that will continue beyond you.

G) It's not business, it's personal.

Nobody succeeded with a great idea.

Everyone succeeded because they built networks within networks of connections, friends, colleagues all striving towards their own personal goals, all trusting each other, and working together to help each other succeed.

This is what happens only over time. This is why giving creates a bigger world because you can never predict what will happen years later.

Biz Markie described to me how he helped a 7-year-old kid named Jay-Z with his lyrics.

Peter Thiel's ex employees created tens of billions of dollars worth of companies.

Marcus Lemonis saves businesses every week on his show "The Profit." It doesn't come by fixing their accounting. It comes from fixing the relationships with the partners and the customers and the investors.

The best way to create a great business over time: Every day send one thank you letter to someone from your past. People (me) often say you can't look back at the past. But this is the one way you can. You create the future by thanking the past.

H) You can't predict the outcome, you can only do your best.

Hugh Howey thought he would write novels that only his family would read. So he wrote ten of them. Then he wrote "Wool," which he self-published and has sold millions of copies and Ridley Scott is making the movie.

Clayton Anderson applied to be an astronaut for 15 years in a row and was rejected each time until the 16th.

Coolio wrote lyrics down every day for 17 years before having a hit. Noah Kagan was fired from Facebook and Mint without making a dime before starting his own business. Wayne Dyer quit his secure job as a tenured professor, put a bunch of his books in car and drove across the country selling them in every bookstore. Now he's sold over 100,000,000 books.

Sometimes when I have conversations with these people they want to jump right to the successful parts but I stop them. I want to know the low points. The points where they had to start doing their best. What got them to that point.

I) The same philosophy of life should work for an emperor and a slave.

Ryan Holiday told me that both Marcus Aurelius, an emperor, and Epictetus, a slave, both subscribed to the idea of stoicism. You can't predict pleasure or pain. You can only strive for knowledge and giving and fairness and health each day.

Many people write me it's easy for so-and-so to say that now that he's rich. Every single person I spoke to started off in a gutter or worse. (Well, most of them.)

Luck is certainly a component, but in chess there's a saying (and this applies to anything) "it's funny how always the best players seem to be lucky."

J) The only correct path is the path correct for you.

Scott Adams tried about 20 different careers before he settled on drawing Dilbert. Now, he's in 2000 papers, has written Dilbert books, Dilbert shows, Dilbert everything. Everyone was shocked when Judy Joo gave up a Wall St. career to go back to cooking school. Now she's on the Food Channel as an "iron chef."

Don't let other people choose your careers. Don't get locked in other people's prisons they've set up just for you. Personal freedom starts from the inside but ultimately turns you into a giant, freeing you from the chains the little people spent years tying around you.

K) Many moments of small, positive, personal interactions build an extraordinary career.

Often people think that you have to fight your way to the top. But for everyone I spoke to it was small kindnesses over a long period of time that built the ladder to success. I think I'm starting to sound like a cliche on this. But it's only a cliche because it's true.

L) Taking care of yourself comes first.

Kamal Ravikant picked himself off a suicidal bottom by constantly repeating "I love you" to himself. Charlie Hoehn cured his anxiety by using every moment he could to play.

I've written before: The average kid laughs 300 times a day. The average adult...5.

Something knifed our ability to smile. Do everything you can to laugh, to create laughter for others, and then what can possibly be bad about today? I think that's why I try to interview so many comedians are comedy writers. They make me laugh. It's totally selfish.

M) The final answer: People do end up loving what they succeed at, or they succeed at what they love.

Mark Cuban said, "My passion was to get rich!" But I don't really believe him. He loved computers so he created a software company. Then he wanted to watch Ohio basketball in Pittsburgh so he created Broadcast.com. I worked with Broadcast.com a little bit back in 1997. They were crusaders about bringing video to the Internet.

Sure, he wanted to use that to get rich. Because he knew better than anyone then how to let a good idea lead him to success.

But deep down he was a little kid who wanted to watch his favorite basketball. And now what does he do? He owns a basketball team.

N) Anybody, at any age

The ages of the people I spoke to ranged from 20 to 75. Each is still participating every day in the worldwide conversation. I asked Dick Yuengling from Yuengling beer why he even bothered to talk to me. He's 75 and runs the biggest American-owned brewery worth about $2 billion. He laughed and said, "Well, you asked me."

I just realized this list can go on for another 100 items.

The specifics of success. How to overcome hardships. How any one person can move society forward.

Down to even what are the most productive hours of the day, what's the one word most important for success, and what we can look forward to over the next century and maybe 100 other things.

Then I learned many things about myself.

Most of the people I asked to come on my podcast said, "NO!" I told Claudia the other day I haven't been rejected this much since freshman year of high school. I had to re-learn how to deal with so much rejection.

I've always been a big reader but never as much as this year. I read everything by all the guests.

Some weeks I felt like I was spending 10 hours a day preparing for podcasts. I learned to interview, to listen, to prepare, to pursue, to entertain, to educate.

Podcasting seems like it's becoming an industry, or a business idea, or something worth looking at by entrepreneurs or investors. I have no clue about that.

For me, podcasting this year was just about calling anyone I wanted to call and talking to them. I felt like a little boy interviewing his heroes.

I highly recommend finding ways to call people for almost no reason. I learned a huge amount.

But it was hard.

It's one of those things where I can say, "I don't know if I can ever do that again." But I also know I'm probably going to say the same thing next year.

(Source: James Altucher, Linkedin)

Blasphemy and our anger

Blasphemy and our anger

“...hidden in this reaction against disrespect of the Prophet is the feeling of our own contempt. This hurts the ego of Muslims, i.e., how dare you show disrespect to the personality we regard our Prophet! It is this ego that gets injured and we mix up this egotism with our selfish reactions that we wrongly assume to be the result of our love for the Prophet. This is delusion ... the one who does not care about the wishes of the beloved, keeps himself busy in meaningless gossips and does not respond to the call of the muazzin, should be honest with himself and think if his claim to be a lover of the Prophet really suits him.” Shaikhul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hasan

‘Ishq hai pyare khail nahiN hai

Ishq hai kar-e-sheesha-o-aahan’

A believer is not free to act at will. His beloved Prophet (pbuh) has left behind examples of an ideal social behaviour to be followed. In his lifetime, the Prophet (pbuh) encountered many blasphemous attacks on him, not only at Makka but even in Medina but the Almighty had provided him and his companions with a basic guidance:

“You shall most certainly be tried in your possessions and in your persons; and indeed you shall hear many hurtful things from those to whom revelation was granted before your time, as well as from those who have come to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God. But if you remain patient in adversity and conscious of Him - this, behold, is something to set one’s heart upon.” (Al-Imran 3:186)

Permission to take revenge and punish the blasphemer, should the situation so demand, may be inferred from this verse. However, ignoring such provocations has been strongly recommended.  

Nothing could be dearer to the Prophet (pbuh) than the pleasure of Allah (SWT) and the good of Islam and Muslims.  He saw it in the interest of Islam and Muslims to treat everyone in the best possible manner. So sublime were his morals that after the death of the chief of hypocrites, Abdullah ibn Ubai, who did not spare the Prophet (pbuh) during his life in Medina, that the Prophet gave his blessed shirt to be put inside his coffin and led his funeral prayer notwithstanding the fact that the revelation relating to hypocrites had come, “[And] whether you do pray [to God] that they be forgiven or do not pray for them - [it will all be the same: for even] if you were to pray seventy times that they be forgiven, God will not forgive them...” (Tauba, 9:80). When reminded by Umar (RA), known for his temper, about this Qur’anic verse, the Prophet (pbuh) replied that he had not been forbidden from doing so and whether or not to pray for the deceased had been left on his discretion. He then emphasised that if he was sure that the dead person would be forgiven after being prayed for, for more than 70 times, he would have prayed even more.

Such was the practice of the Prophet (pbuh) for whom our love is being discussed here. On several occasions Abdullah ibn Ubai committed acts that made him deserve execution so much so that at times it appeared to the companions that order to end his life would surely be issued. But in the interest of the Ummah, the Prophet (pbuh) thought it more appropriate to ignore his provocations.  How magnificent and how great were the manners and practices of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)!

Our anger against the blasphemy against the Prophet (pbuh), as is being repeatedly committed for the last few years by the enemies of humanity, is a sign of our strong faith. But in our reaction to such incitements we need to bear in mind the interest of the Ummah and Islam and should follow the example set by our beloved Prophet (pbuh), if we are true followers and true lovers of the Prophet. Otherwise, we will merely be satisfying our personal egos and will be defaming the true spirit of love for Rasool Allah (pbuh).

We have seen how a young Muslim man risked his life and killed the Dutch film maker of the blasphemous film. But it has done no good and has had no effect upon the soldiers of Satan not to mention our slogans and daily demonstrations. Each day some cursed person in the west appears and tries to supersede the previous blasphemer in his incivility, rowdiness, blatant dishonesty and mischie.  

Is there any sense then in continuing to use these methods, witnessing their ineffectiveness and interpreting our outbursts as the display and requirement of the love for the Prophet? This is nothing but a show of our helplessness. Through such demonstrations we are encouraging and telling the devils that they can get away with any crime and that, as far as we are concerned, we cannot do anything more than beating our chests.

Why do we like to display, again and again, our shameful weakness?  Regardless of the ineffectiveness of our methods, one wonders if we have come to believe that our protests are virtuous deeds. God forbid, if this is the case then neither we have been able to understand the stature of the Last Prophet (pbuh) nor are we realising the dignity that we, as the slaves of Allah’s Prophet, have been blessed with by the Almighty. How sad and how shameful is this display of our weakness, coupled with our fallacy that this is a virtue, through these ineffective demonstrations, organised in the Prophet’s name!

What do we do then? This is a difficult question. This scribe tries to answer, from experience, according to his best ability and understanding. I invite others to ponder over it.  

There would be very few in Britain who would not remember the active role of Islamic Defence Council (IDC) in the campaign against Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

As the convenor of IDC, this scribe felt honoured in actively participating, with his best abilities, in that campaign. As part of its campaign, the IDC organised, on 28 January 1989, in front of the publisher, Penguin, a demonstration in which at least 25,000 Muslims from all over the country participated. In view of the fruitlessness of our conventional protests and bearing in mind the culture of the new world in the west in which we had settled, a method was suggested that was different from the protests in the Indian subcontinent: instead of angry and provocative slogans, community’s emotional and spiritual anguish was expressed through placards. This was a moral appeal to win support from the British public. We were under the impression that some noble souls would come to our support and would pressurise the publisher and the government to take steps regarding this issue.

No doubt our protest was appreciated (especially because, in contrast, two weeks earlier at Bradford, demonstrators had burnt a copy of Satanic Verses) but we failed to achieve what we had aimed for. Two weeks later, Ayatullah Khomeini issued the fatwa to kill the author and the publishers. The Government, that was unwilling to hear our moral and civilised appeal, displayed such eagerness in providing protection to the author that it seemed that the cursed author was its agent.  This experience convinced us that western world had a different temperament and different mindset and that only when we have the power we could make them feel our feelings.

After America-Taliban episode, an unending series of mischiefvous acts has started. And each mischief is far more outrageous than the previous one.  The degradation and contempt in the latest film has reportedly crossed all the limits of decency and no government wants to take notice of our woes. Efforts are being made at the UN since 1999 by the Muslim World umbrella body Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to limit the scope of the shameful western culture of “Free speech” but western governments are not listening.  (Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US Ms Maleeha Lodhi has detailed these painful failures in The News of 25 September 2012).

Are the senseless methods adopted by the blasphemers part of a strategy to create hatred in the West against Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his deen? The answer is NO. There is a method in this madness. Behind these acts is the fear created by the signs of the Islamic world’s renaissance. United States launched this campaign, now in its twelfth year after 9/11, through what it calls “War on Terror”. This crusade has been waged to destroy, using most powerful weapons, all those forces that, in US’s view, are working for this renaissance. The production of the series of sacrilegious films and cartoons is part of this American crusade.

Unfortunately in the demonstrations against this latest western crusade we are witnessing as tragic and as painful incidents as took place in Pakistani cities on 20th September 2012: destruction of our own properties, worth billion of rupees, at our own hands and, as a result, our own brothers being killed by our own police. Such incidents widen even further the gulf and increase lack of confidence between our governments and the public. Who can think of an Islamic renaissance in such a situation? Further, this intensifies the anti-west, specially anti-US, feelings in Muslim youths who then do not hesitate in resorting to any available method through which, they think, they can take the revenge of this indignation. And the US looks upon them as “new terrorists”.

Does this situation not demand that, in spite of our deep emotional pain, we ignore western provocations in the same manner as we see in the life of the Prophet (pbuh)? When we are unable to do anything to stop these devils then is it not more dignified to follow the guidance shown in the aforementioned verse of chapter Aal Imran? If we think seriously, this Qur’anic guidance is particularly for a situation presently confronting us. In the given circumstances, the only solution to solve the problem is to ignore their mischief mongering, fail their plans and thus put an end to their ongoing devilish campaign.

What justification is there in expecting western nations to understand your pain and anguish? What makes you think that they will support OIC’s efforts to introduce in international law a provision to bridle these hooligans? They are even against Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law. What sense is there in expecting the nations, which oppose laws providing for the sanctity of holy personalities and places in your own countries, that they will take such measures on their own lands?

Wait for the day when we shape our lives according to the wishes of Allah and His Prophet (pbuh) and, thus, become able to bring Muslim World’s renaissance. This will not happen by carrying banners in demonstrations with proclamations of Ishq-e-Rasool. This will come by surrendering to the dictates and desires of Allah and His apostle. Without doubt, at present we are not in this state, a fact that we may be unaware of or may be deluding ourselves into believing that we love the Prophet. In order to explain this point further, listen to the following story:

In the last century among the great ulama was Maulana Syed Munazir Ahsan Geelani (1892-1975) who had been blessed by Allah (SWT) with the wealth of ‘Ilm as well as love of the Prophet (pbuh). Writing about his student days in Darul Uloom Deoband and his teacher Shaikhul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hasan, (1851-1920) he narrates, “Bukhari was being taught. The well-known hadith came: ‘None of you can be a momin until I become dearer to you than your wealth, children, and every human being.’ This faqeer submitted: ‘Alhmdulillah, even a common Muslim is blessed with the wealth of love for the Prophet (pbuh) the proof of which is that to an extent he can tolerate the insult of his parents... but slightest disrespect for the Prophet (pbuh) enrages him and he loses self-control. We have seen it many times that on this issue they have put their lives in danger.’ Upon this, Hazrat Shaikhul Hind said: ‘No doubt what you have said is true. But why does it happen? You have not reached to its depth. Love demands that each and everything is sacrificed to please the beloved. But the general behaviour of Muslims regarding the wishes of the Prophet (pbuh) is before you and me to see. What did the Prophet desire and what is that we are doing? Who is there who does not know this fact? Then surely love cannot be the reason of Muslims not tolerating disrespect for the Prophet.’

“This humble self then submitted: ‘Please tell us what the exact reason is?’ Hazrat Shaikhul Hind, a great expert of human psychology, explained: ‘If you think about it, hidden in this reaction against disrespect of the Prophet is the feeling of our own contempt. This hurts the ego of Muslims, i.e., how dare you show disrespect to the personality we regard our Prophet! It is this ego that gets injured and we mix up this egotism with our selfish reactions that we wrongly assume to be the result of our love for the Prophet. This is delusion ... the one who does not care about the wishes of the beloved, keeps himself busy in meaningless gossips and does not respond to the call of the muazzin, should be honest with himself and think if his claim to be a lover of the Prophet really suits him.’”  (Ihata-e-Darul Uloom mein beete huwai din, pp 15f).

(Source: By Atiqur Rahman Sambhli

The writer is London-based Islamic scholar of Indian origin.

For feedback, please email at atiquesambhli@talktalk.net

obaidur.rahman@gmail.com)

Yes We Khan

Muslims must not let Hindutva hotheads push them into perpetual victimhood 

Hindutva activists may want to tear Muslims and Hindus apart through love jihad and ghar wapsi campaigns, but metropolitan middle-class Hindus thronged to see Haider, some even silently shed a tear for the Kashmiri Muslim hero. Jingoists may propagate violent rhetoric against Pakistan as a dog whistle for majoritarian nationalism, but PK, Raju Hirani’s clever comic caper lampooning Hindu godmen, is reportedly the biggest grosser in the history of Bollywood, and wild-eyed agitators for a ban on the film have been roundly outvoted by the vast majority of moviegoers.

Sadhvi Niranjan and Yogi Adityanath may conjure up hatred in the quest for votes, Muzaffarnagar riots may bring poll dividends, but from the ‘Khanate’ of Bollywood to the Hamid Ansari-led Rajya Sabha to India’s tennis torch-bearer Sania Mirza to business legends Yusuf Hamied and Azim Premji to the cricketing quicksilver of Zaheer Khan and the Pathan brothers, India’s exceptional Muslim citizens are icons whose achievements are proudly, subliminally claimed by Indian nationalism even if the ‘Muslim’ is apparently antithetical to it.

Yet today with Hindutva forces on overdrive, by inevitable reflex action, Muslim victimhood and permanent sense of injury once again threaten to bury Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s dream of a Hindu-Muslim rainbow nation.

The rising star of ‘Muslim’ politics is now the rumbustious Asaduddin Owaisi, leader of MIM, the Hyderabad city MP, once dismissed as a ‘fringe’ element, but now positioning himself as a ‘national’ leader whose party rather impressively won two seats in the Maharashtra assembly elections, one more than Raj Thackeray’s MNS.

Owaisi plans to contest the Delhi and Bihar elections this year, both state elections where the Muslim vote can make a difference. In a sort of counter to ghar wapsi and to RSS sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat saying every Indian’s cultural identity is Hindutva, Owaisi has roared that every Indian — or person — is born a Muslim.

45-year-old Owaisi is fast becoming the Muslim opposite number to saffron politics, a claimant to being the sole spokesman who once warned of a ‘third wave of Muslim radicalisation’ after the Assam riots and whose intolerant cadres attacked Taslima Nasreen. Owaisi appeals massively to the young Muslim’s rage and victimhood, by projecting himself as the tough-talking saviour of his community.

In the emergence of Owaisi as sole spokesperson of the Indian Muslim lies a dilemma of the community: if the so-called mainstream ‘secular’ parties will not address their concerns, if BJP will be seen to deny them representation, then why not turn to a politician who is openly promising to promote ‘Muslim’ interests?

It is no surprise that the spectacular rise of Narendra Modi and BJP has coincided with the growing clout of MIM in Muslim-dominated areas. Parties like Congress and the Janata parivar have responded to the Modi phenomenon by spreading fear, whispering to their constituencies lines from the film Sholay: ‘So jao, nahin to Gabbar Singh aa jayega’.

The ‘secular blackmail’ of Muslims by making Modi out to be a Gabbar Singh-like ogre has only been matched by the pernicious ideology of the Sadhvis and the Yogis who have looked to demonise the Muslim as inherently anti-national. A leaderless community is now seeking refuge in their own demagogues, in the belief that they alone can offer an effective counterpoint to both majoritarian and flawed secular politics.

The 16th Lok Sabha has the lowest number of Muslims ever since the first general elections of 1952. There are just 24 Muslim MPs, down from 30 in the previous Lok Sabha, who constitute just 4.4% of the House. For the first time in an Indian Parliament there’s not a single Muslim MP from UP, as BJP did not field a single Muslim candidate across the vast swathes of north and west India except for the sole exception of Shahnawaz Hussain.

Disappearing from politics, under siege in society, the wrongful incarceration of several Muslim youth in the Mecca Masjid blast case only reinforcing perceptions of injustice and discrimination at the hands of the law courts and police, the Muslim is being pushed into a rejection of ‘secular’ truisms even as the ghetto remains a refuge.

Which is why the community is in desperate need of a leadership that will encourage it to push for its due space in the national mainstream. It won’t happen with Lalu, Nitish and Mamata who seek votes in return for ‘protection’; it won’t happen with the Congress which promises equal opportunity but in reality offers only sops; it almost certainly won’t happen with the BJP which offers no guarantee of equal citizenship while Owaisi’s present ‘Islam khatre mein hai’ message may breed a worrying separateness.

Today if the challenge of saffron majoritarianism is to be countered there needs to be an Indian Muslim leadership which doesn’t prey on fear, but offers hope: hope of a social and economic transformation, a modern yet rooted identity that can challenge the narrative of the extremists within.

An eminent writer once said that after Maulana Azad and Sheikh Abdullah, the Muslims have never had leaders, only satraps who have nursed narrow constituencies. Yet in the land of Sania Mirza and Shah Rukh Khan, why can there not emerge a Muslim leader who will cast out fear, sidestep the clergy and stride briskly into India’s centre?

Beyond the yelling bigots, there’s a silent more welcoming truth: Indian Muslims would not be the second largest community in the world, if the true Hindu was anti-Muslim.

(Source: TOI Blog, Sagarika)