There is a growing tendency in India to single out Muslim religious organizations for their symbolic gestures. For example, the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) is believed to have embraced secular politics as it no longer considers it against Islam to participate in democratic elections, and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind ( JUH) is commended for accepting it. Caste exists among Indian Muslims because it has legally demanded reservation for “Dalit Muslims” in educational institutions and government jobs.
Truth
As researcher Irfan Ahmed reminds us in his essay on Islam in South Asia in Practice edited by Barbara Metcalf, the original mission of Abul Ala Maududi’s Jama’at-e-Islami was “the establishment of the Islamic State/Kingdom of Allah (Hukumat-e Illahiya)”. of)”. qayam)”, and thus it considered participating in elections in a “kafir (kafirana) state” to be a clear violation of Sharia and Islamic monotheism.
But when the Jamaat-e-Islam lifted the ban on contesting elections in the mid-1980s, was it because it rejected Maudaudian Islam? According to Ahmed, the JIH had already declared in 1961 that it was appropriate to compete in elections if the aim was to “Islamize” the Indian constitution, not to maintain the current “unrighteous order” (ghair ilahi nizam).
Ahmad points out that for this the Quranic phrase “Iqamat-e Din” (Establishment of Islam) was inserted into the Jamaat-e-Islami constitution as its new mission statement, replacing the earlier one i.e. Hukumat-e-Ilaahiya (Emperation of Allah). State) was changed. This change is reflected in Article 4 of the Constitution, which states that “Iqamat-e-Din” should be “so applicable and effective in all aspects of human life, personal and corporate, that the development of the individual, the reconstruction of society And the constitution of the state should be according to this religion.
Even the Jamaat, the promoter of composite nationalism against the two-nation theory of the Muslim League, had full hope that one day all Indians would become Muslims.
In Muttahida Qaumiyyat and Islam, Hussain Ahmad Madani (1879–1957), a prominent member of the JUH, wrote that there would be no need for liberation (najat) from the miseries (masaib) imposed on Indians by the British when all citizens of India ( Tamam Bashindagan-e-Mulk) entered the sphere of Islam (enter into Halka-e-Islam).
As far as caste among Muslims is concerned, JUH has never questioned the tribal definition of marital equality (qafat) propounded by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) in section 117(3) of its Compendium of Islamic Laws Raised: “The relationship shall be that of descent between the Arabs, especially the Quraysh, and those non-Arab families who have preserved the lineage. People in the rest of the non-Arab Muslim world are equal. Based on this principle, a girl can get her marriage terminated by a non-equal person contracted by her guardian; And a guardian has the right to terminate the marriage of an adult woman with non-equals.
The fanatical exclusion of most Muslim religious organizations can be traced back to pre-colonial times when Muslim sovereignty in India was equated with Islamic conquest. For example, we know from the historian KA Nizami’s account of the elimination of “polytheistic practices” given by Shah Waliullah (1703–1762), the famous Hanafi theologian, to invite the Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali to save the Mughal Empire. was one of the reasons. Similar to the Marathas and Jats, it was the fear of dilution of Islamic ideals that compelled another Hanafi mystic, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564–1624), to oppose the religious universalism of Emperor Akbar.
However, although Islam was exploited by Muslim rulers in India to idealize their rule, the one they presided over was by no means an Islamic state or caliphate. Nevertheless, the tentative temporality of their empires persisted under the clerics’ arrogant belief that they were pagan states divinely ordained to establish monotheistic Islam in a polytheistic India.
power vs power
The failed attempts at Islamization of pre-colonial India were an expression of not only unrelenting particularism, but of the struggle between power (the state) and power (the ulema) that has been ongoing since the establishment of the Umayyad dynasty in 661 CE.
The clerics’ demands have been simple: in a Muslim polity, Islam should be the state religion, and the ulema should have the authority to interpret it. Thoughtless implementation of this condition can be found in Articles 227–231 of the Pakistani Constitution, which states that all laws shall be in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as set forth in the Quran and Sunnah and the “Council of Islamic Ideology”. decide whether “the proposed law is contrary to the prohibitions of Islam.”
no change in attitude
The surprising thing is that some religious organizations are still under the illusion that even in a democratic India they will be allowed to impose their authority over Muslims in the name of protecting personal law without reform. They are oblivious to the fact that their silence and statements on contemporary issues give the impression that they live in a medieval bubble.
For example, there is no evidence that these organizations condemned the conversion of a historic church into a mosque in Turkey in July 2020 or the abuse of blasphemy laws in Pakistan.
But when the Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq illegal, the JUH general secretary reportedly replied that the practice would be recognised. Jamaich had expressed similar views even before the verdict, when its president issued a ludicrous warning that “banning triple talaq will not benefit Muslim women”.
Similarly, on the issue of inter-faith marriages (under the Special Marriage Act, 1954), AIMPLB in a press release dated August 2021 asked Muslim parents to keep a close eye on their children’s mobile phones and explain. They that the life partner of a Muslim can only be a Muslim (for a Muslim only a Muslim can be the life partner). The board also directed Muslim religious organizations to visit the homes of those giving information of intended marriage to the registrar of marriages and inform them that after their name Nihad Nikah (so-called marriage), they would spend their entire lives in a prohibited manner. . Rishta (His whole life will be spent in Haram).
The fact that such blinking consultations enjoy a free reign in India begs the question: how long will Muslims allow religious tyranny to undermine their individual autonomy?
A. Faizur Rahman is the general secretary of the Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought. Email: themoderates2020@gmail.com