MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003
Fundamental Fallacies: Sir Vidia's Imaginary Islam
RAFIQ ZAKARIA
Do Indian Muslims fit into the concept of Hindutva? According to its author, V D Savarkar, they don't because he considered them a separate nation, much before Jinnah did. Its arch ideologue, Guru Golwalkar, clarified that under Hindutva they can, at best, be second class citizens. Only Deen Dayal Upadhyaya called them blood brothers.
Recently, the neo-proponent of Hindutva, Sir V S Naipaul, has reinforced the Savarkar edict. According to him, the Indian Muslim, being a convert, his world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab world. So how can Muslim converts be a part of the Indian story?
Apart from the Koran, which is in Arabic and the life, mission and traditions of the Prophet, non-Arabs have contributed a major part in developing Islam. As Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, had pointed out, in the very first two centuries of hijra, men of diverse creeds and cultures embraced Islam and, as a result of this admixture, strange notions began to gain currency.
In order to avoid any misinterpretation inherent in such a situation, the legal system of Islam was codified by several eminent jurists. They presented a set of rules, based on the fundamentals of Islam, for the guidance of the common man. Most of those who formalised the shaping of Islam and provided it with both the theological and legal foundations were non-Arabs. It is they who took care of the requirements of different countries, and brought about the necessary adjustment with the locals in the rites and rituals of different groups. More than Arabic it has been Persian which was more used by most Muslims and later even Turkish, especially during the Ottoman rule.
For instance, Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of the Hanifi school, which has the largest following among Sunnis, almost 80 per cent of the total population, was an Iranian. Imam Gazzali, who is hailed throughout the Muslim world as the rejuvenator of Islam, was also an Iranian. Imam Bukhari, the greatest of the traditionists hailed from Central Asia.
His compendium is regarded by Muslims as second only to the Koran. Its authenticity and sacredness are universally accepted. Shah Walliullah, an Indian, rationalised the ideological framework of Islam. The magnificent civilisation that Islam gave for almost seven centuries to the world represents all the hues, tones and tempers of different countries.
The ignorance of Sir Vidia is amazing; he does not know that the Prophet himself had admitted that he received fresh air from India in the formulation of his religion. Iqbal has put it thus: Meer-i-Arab ko aiyee thandee hawa jahaanse/ Mera watan wohi hai, mera watan wohi hai (The land which gave fresh air to the leader of Arabia/ That is my motherland, that is my motherland).
The Prophet has also declared that the love of the country is a part of one's faith. Iqbal told Hindus: Patther ki moorti may samjha hai too khuda hai/ Khakay watan ka mujko har zarra devta hai (You revere the idol in stone as your motherland/ I worship every particle of the dust of my motherland).
Sir Vidia supports his argument about the convert's alienation from the land of his birth by stating that because the Prophet was an Arab, Islam makes its followers second class Arabs. If so, why does he not apply the same argument to Judaism and Christianity?
Sir Vidia also denounces the pilgrimage to Mecca by Muslims for haj which they are obliged to undertake once in their lifetime; he cites it as another proof of the alien mentality that Islam is said to have developed in a convert. But what about the millions of Christians and Jews who go to Jerusalem, which is their holiest land?
The trouble with Sir Vidia is that he himself has lost his roots. Hence, he is absolutely unaware of the impact that Hinduism has had on Islam. In my writings, I have cited numerous examples of how the rites, rituals and style of living of Indian Muslims have been Indianised; so also their arts, literature, music and culture.
Indian Islam is very different from Islam in the Arab world; its social moorings have no relation with it. Its religious literature is all in Urdu, a language of Indian origin; no Arab can read it. Likewise, Malaysian and Indonesian brands of Islam are also different; in fact, Indonesian Muslims bear Hindu names and their Islam has drawn heavily from the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
Many eminent Hindus have acknowledged these facts; of the other two Nobel laureates, Rabindranath Tagore lauded the interaction between Islam and Hinduism; while Amartya Sen has commended it. Both of them are genuine Hindus, Sir Vidia is not. He appears to have taken over the white man's burden by attempting to divide Hindus and Muslims. He is at pains to convince Hindus that Indian Muslims are aliens, more Arab than Indian in their religious and cultural bearings.
He goes further and even implies that converted Muslims are a drag on their countries. He has, no doubt, served the cause of Hindutva; but what surprises me is why he married a Muslim woman from Pakistan, which is nurturing the most bigoted form of Islam and openly sponsoring terrorism.
Copyright 2003 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.