It's All About PluralismBy Mohammad Shehzad
The Dawn, Pakistan
17 July, 2003'The Pakistani perception of the Indian Muslims being an oppressed lot is an overdrawn picture. They do have problems, but no government in India has ever denied fundamental rights to the Muslims,' argues Asghar Ali Engineer.
Asghar Ali Engineer, the renowned Islamic scholar from India, believes there is no clash between Islam and secularism, the latter being a much misunderstood word in the Muslim world.
Born on March 10, 1940, a graduate in civil engineering, Asghar was trained in Islamic theology, tafsir (commentary on the Holy Quran), Islamic Jurisprudence and Hadith. He speaks seven languages - English, Urdu, Hindi, Arabic, Persian, Gujarati and Marathi.
With more than 40 books to his credit, Asghar writes frequently on issues of current interest in leading Indian publications. He was awarded the National Communal Harmony Award for his efforts to promote inter-religion dialogue in India.
Asghar Engineer was recently in Islamabad where Dawn Magazine spoke to him on a broad range of subjects. The following are excerpts:
Q. Secularism is a dirty word in the Muslim world. Why?
A. With the exception of Indonesia, all Islamic states perceive secularism as anti-Islam, and believe that the two cannot co-exist. This is an extremely misleading conception. There is no clash between the two. Our religious scholars acknowledged and admitted the importance of secularism, and opposed the two-nation theory. In their opinion, the state could have become composite through secularism.
Islam is based on certain values. Islam is about showing respect to all human beings irrespective of their religion. It is not that you should respect only Muslims and hold others in contempt. Quran stresses pluralism. If Allah so willed, he could have created only one community. But He didn't do that. Why? So that He could test us.
In India, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) has set up a Secular Democratic Front, and, mind you, they all are faithful Muslims, and will not deviate a millimetre from Shariat. But still they accept secularism. So, there is no clash between Islam and secularism, or Islam and any other religion. Because, in the Indian context, secularism is not atheism.
Q. Is the Indian Jamaat-e-Islami different from its Pakistani counterpart, which is has a hawkish streak?
A. They are not extremists or hawkish, particularly the ones outside the Kashmir valley. There are two JIs: one in Kashmir and the other outside Kashmir. BY their own claims, they are two separate organizations. The Indian JI talks about Ikamat-e-Deen, and do not target the establishment of a Islamic government. After the Babri Mosque incident, they accepted secular democracy and formed the Secular Democratic Front.
Q. Pakistanis are very emotional about Kashmir. How the Indian Muslims react to the happenings in the valley?
A. As far as Muslim intellectuals are concerned, they do not support the cause of separation of Kashmir from India. They think like the rest of the Indians. On the contrary, they think, with a few exceptions here and there, that Kashmir is a symbol of Indian secularism. Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority state in India. There are Muslim-majority districts in India, but not a state. They feel proud of having a Muslim-majority state in India.
Q. How do they look at the armed struggle in the valley?
A. There are different views. I can tell you about mine. I oppose the armed struggle. I do not support violence for any cause. I strongly believe that Islam's fundamental message is peace, not violence.
Q. What about all the battles that featured the Holy Prophet?
A. These ghazwaat were forced on the Holy Prophet. He never initiated any battle by himself. He had to defend the entire city of Medina from the non-believers of Mecca. Quran's injunction is also very clear: Fight those who fight you. That means a Muslim should never be an aggressor. Muslims should not start any war, battle or violent incident. Violence is the last measure in certain circumstances. It should never be the general rule.
As far as my study of Quran goes, peace is more fundamental in Islam than war. Many Muslims think that Jehad is more fundamental. I would like to explain that the word Jehad has not been used in the Quran in the sense of war. It has been used in the sense of making utmost efforts for spreading the good and containing the evil. For war, there is another word in Quran i.e. Qital.
Q. But the Jehadis can claim that they are actually defending themselves from the atrocities of the Indian army.
A. Let's understand things clearly. We are living in a democratic age in a democratic country where you have certain rights. Defence against what? If you exercise your democratic rights peacefully, no one will unleash any violence against you. I am not giving any certificate to the Indian army. If you commit a small measure of violence, the state can commit hundred times more violence. Citizens can never match state power. Whenever citizens have used violence, they have faced much greater degree of violence. So, you must use all democratic avenues to settle your grievances. And, by the way, all grievances are never settled. Some will always remain.
In any case, Kashmiris alone don't have grievances in India. When some Kashmiri militants tried to meet me and get our support, I told that it was not possible. 'Why have you taken to violence?' I asked them. 'We tried to solve our problems. We failed and picked up our guns. There is no electricity in Kashmir. In winter, we shiver. There is no employment. How long will we wait for such things?' I asked them if only Kashmir had problems like unemployment and power shortages! In UP, usually there is no power during the scorching summer. Should they also take to guns? Should all the unemployed in India take to guns?
Q. What do you think of the element of suicide bombing?
A. I totally disagree with that. First, suicide is un-Islamic. Second, a suicide bomber not only he takes his own life, but those of scores of other people as well, and they are almost always innocent people. How could they be true Muslims? I would not consider such person even a nominal Muslim. Your fight is with the state. Why are you killing innocent people? In Bombay, some Muslim youths killed 16 people in a local train. Is it Islam? Islam gives you the spiritual strength to fight against the mighty by your will, not by sword or bombs.
Q. To what extent the Pakistani perception is true that Indian Muslims are a terribly oppressed lot?
A. There are prejudices against Muslims. Violence breaks out here and there. Communal rights have taken place in India. But things are more complex. No government has ever denied constitutional rights to the Muslims. All rights that are enjoyed by the Hindus are available to the Muslims. Violence can take place anywhere. But thousands of Hindus side with the Muslims. They fight for their rights. All the Hindus cannot be blamed. I work with the Hindus for communal harmony. I could not have continued without their support. The Pakistani perception is an overdrawn picture. You see, the Indian President happens to be a Muslim.
Q. But isn't he called a show-boy?
A. Well, it is not an ordinary thing to be the president of India. It is something if Muslims have a place of honour. Sometimes, symbols are also indicative of substance. I am not saying that the Muslims have no problem. They do have problems. The sense of insecurity happening in Gujarat was unthinkable. It was a carnage. I am continuously working in Gujarat for restoring communal harmony. I have covered all the riots in India since the first in Jabalpur in 1961.
Q. What are the reasons behind such riots?
A. Riots don't take place because of religion. They take place because of politics. This is a political problem, not a religious problem. So far, no one has denied religious freedom in India. Even when Shiv Sena came to power in Maharashtra, Muslims continued to pray on the roadside. Shiv Sena made a lot of hue and cry saying that the Muslims block the road, but in their five-year term, they never banned the Muslim activity. We must try to grapple with the reality, and the reality is very complex. We must see it in totality.
Q. What do you think of Bal Thakaray?
A. He is a rabid militant who incites the Hindus for taking their votes. All secular Hindus oppose Bal Thakaray and Narindar Modi.
Q. How do you view the blasphemy laws in Pakistan?
A. As a Muslim and as a student of Islam, I don't consider the death penalty on blasphemy as the correct thing, keeping in view the teachings of compassion in Islam, and the behaviour of the Holy Prophet. Such a sentence has not been mentioned in the Quran. There are some incidents that quoted in Hadith literature, but, as I see it, they basically relate to sedition than blasphemy.
As far as the Prophet himself was concerned, we, the Muslims, consider him as the 'mercy for the world', and, that being so, he could never take someone's life just because some personal insult.
This blasphemy law is basically political. Certain sections of Muslims want to assert their power by legislating in this manner. It brings bad name to Islam. It has tarnished Pakistan's image very badly in the world. The world thinks that Pakistani Muslims have no tolerance. And what is the need of blasphemy law in Pakistan? The gross misuse of this law is taking place against the Muslims. Even indirect inferences are drawn and the accused is arrested under blasphemy laws, and the judges passes the death sentence under public pressure. Is this an Islamic country? I don't think so!
Q. To wind it up, how can relations between India and Pakistan be improved?
A. There are problems between the two countries. But this does not mean both should consider each other an enemy and go violent. We must establish goodwill between the people of the two countries. We should have trade and more interaction with each other. We should liberalize visa regimes so that more and more people could visit the two countries. We should not think that every citizen is a spy. Intelligence people are spies. They work with a certain mindset. But why punish the ordinary citizens who want to meet their relatives?
Unfortunately, both the countries are following a strict visa regime and harassing innocent citizens. That should not be the case. We should inculcate a state of friendship, and restore all the links. Snapping the links has already caused a lot of harassment to the people.