India: Uttarakhand HC bans fatwas after panchayat asks rape victim to leave village

Hindustan Times

Uttarakhand HC bans fatwas after panchayat asks rape victim to leave village
Fatwas violate “rights, dignity, status, honour” of individuals, says court.
india Updated: Aug 30, 2018 21:54 IST

Neeraj Santoshi
Hindustan Times, Nainital

The Uttarakhand high court on Thursday banned fatwas in the state, stepping in after a media report that a panchayat in Haridwar district had asked a 15-year-old rape victim and her family to leave their village.

Fatwa are religious edict issued by Islamic clerics that have no legal force but are influential. A fatwa “infringes upon the statutory rights, fundamental rights, dignity, status, honour and obligation of individuals,” said the High Court as it ordered the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Haridwar to ensure security for the girl and her family in the village.

“The panchayat, instead of sympathising with the rape victim, had the audacity to extern the family from the village. Fatwa is nothing but extra-constitutional adventurism, not permissible under the Constitution”, the court said.

The court ordered criminal proceedings against the panchayat members and other people who issued the fatwa. A division bench of acting Chief Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma ordered that the matter be registered as a public interest litigation (PIL).

Advocate Vivek Shukla, who brought a newspaper report about the fatwa to the court’s notice, was appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case.

Amar Chand Sharma, the officer in charge of the village police station, said the accused is absconding.

India: 46 Assam clerics issue fatwa against singer Nahid Afrin

The Times of India

46 Assam mullahs issue fatwa against singer Nahid Afrin

Prabin Kalita | TNN | Updated: Mar 15, 2017, 09.29 AM IST

 

Highlights: 

• Police are investigating whether the fatwa was a reaction to Nahid recently performing songs against terrorism
• Leaflets bearing the fatwa in Assamese and the names of the clerics were distributed across Hojai and Nagaon districts 

GUWAHATI: Forty-six Muslim clerics in Assam have issued a fatwa against up-and-coming singer Nahid Afrin, who was the first runner-up in the 2015 season of a musical reality TV show, asking her to stop performing in public.

Police said they were investigating whether the fatwa was a reaction to Nahid recently performing songs against terrorism, including the Islamic State terror group. "We are looking at this angle as well," ADG (special branch) Pallab Bhattacharya said.

Leaflets bearing the fatwa in Assamese and the names of the clerics were distributed across Hojai and Nagaon districts in central Assam on Tuesday. According to the fatwa, a March 25 programme at Udali Sonai Bibi College in Lanka, Assam, where Nahid, 16, is scheduled to perform is "against the Sharia".

"If anti-Sharia acts like musical nights are held on grounds surrounded by masjids, idgahs, madrassas and graveyards, our future generations will attract the wrath of Allah," it said.

The young singer, a Class X student who lives in Biswanath Chariali, broke down on hearing news of the fatwa. "I am speechless. I think my music is God's gift to me. I will never bow down to it (such warnings) and never leave singing," she said.

Her mother added, "The organisers of the musical night told us that the programme on March 25 will not be cancelled." Police said Nahid and her family would be provided security cover.

Nahid, who made her Bollywood debut singing for Sonakshi Sinha in the 2016 film 'Akira', first rose to stardom after her successful innings on reality TV . Her beautiful renditions of songs written and composed by the Vaishnavite saint Srimanta Sankardeva have made her especially popular in Assam.

India: Fatwa from the Majlis-e-Shura-Ulema-e-Kolhapur directs Muslim women not to contest Kolhapur civic polls (Ashwin Aghor @CatchNew)

Catch News

MUSLIM WOMEN IN POLITICS

Fatwa directs Muslim women not to contest Kolhapur civic polls

Ashwin Aghor @CatchNews

|3 October 2015

The diktat

• An anonymous handbill is doing the rounds of mosques in Kolhapur
  
• It claims to be a fatwa from the Majlis-e-Shura-Ulema-e-Kolhapur
  
• It directs women to stay away from contesting elections, as it is anti-Islamic
  

The context

• Kolhapur is set to undergo civic elections on 1 November
  
• Muslim women are said to be keen on contesting about 20 wards around the city
  
• This fatwa is now making them reconsider
  

More in the story

• Muslim leaders and scholars debate the veracity of the fatwa
  

Kolhapur city in Maharashtra has been at the centre of social reforms such as women's education, upliftment of the downtrodden and various other social movements spearheaded by erstwhile ruler Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj.
He is still remembered for his efforts to bring underprivileged people into the mainstream, and has become synonymous with the progressive image of Maharashtra. Kolhapur has traditionally made news for various reasons that have only added feathers to its cap.
It has again hit the headlines. But this time around, it's not for any innovative movement.

Fatwa or mere handbill?

An anonymous handbill is making the rounds of mosques in Kolhapur. Reportedly issued by the Majlis-e-Shura-Ulema-e-Kolhapur, it is a fatwa directing Muslim women not to contest elections, as it is against Islam.
The handbill has caught the eye of all and sundry as the city is all set to go for civic elections on 1 November.
Muslim social and religious leaders from Kolhapur have denied that any such fatwa has been issued. However, they do accept that the handbill is in wide circulation.
"It is not a fatwa - just a handbill distributed at mosques in the city. The main emphasis is on standing up against corruption and immoral practices during the elections," said Gani Ajrekar, president, Muslim Boarding, Kolhapur.

Muslim leaders claim there's no such fatwa. But they accept the presence of an anonymous handbill

Ajrekar said when social and religious leaders from the Muslim community came to know about the handbill, it was immediately clarified that it is not a fatwa. The search for the person who printed and distributed the handbill has been started.
"After we came to know about the handbill, we called the Muslim Personal Law Board and clarified that we have faith in the Indian Constitution and democracy. Anyone can contest elections. But at the same time, Islam doesn't allow women to go alone out of the house. A male relative from among the blood relations must accompany her anywhere she goes," Ajrekar said.
"Muslim women were free to contest elections as per their wishes. We are not against elections, but the malpractices and corruption in the process."

Voice of dissent

Noted Muslim scholar Abdul Quadar Mukadam has lamented the people behind the handbill.
"It is disgusting to know that someone has circulated such a handbill in mosques. It's high time that people from the Muslim community refused to follow such diktats as it is taking the community back to Stone Age," he says.
"The concept of fatwa itself is anti-Constitution and anti-religion. It should not be taken seriously, as it is the mere opinion of a handful of people claiming to be religious leaders.
"The Prophet preached women's empowerment and these self-proclaimed saviours of religion are acting precisely in contradiction to what The Prophet preached. It was one of The Prophet's wives who rode a camel and fought against Khalifa Hazrat Ali to reclaim her kingdom.
"It is a different matter that she lost the battle. But the bottom line is that Islam is not against women's empowerment. It is the opinion of selfish Ulemas and self-proclaimed saviours of the Muslim community."
Mukadam opined that all rational-thinking people from the Muslim community must come out openly against the Ulemas misleading innocent people.

Forcing a rethink

Political considerations will compel all parties to have Muslim and women candidates in certain areas, depending upon the voter composition. There are many Muslim women aspiring to be candidates in around 20 wards.
However, the handbill has scared them. Most of them are rethinking about contesting the elections.
On one hand, the handbill has 'requested' Muslim women to keep away from contesting elections, while on the other, it has appealed to people not to encourage corrupt practices.
"The handbill says that the electoral process has been marred with corruption. Candidates and political parties go to any extent to buy votes. The handbill says that Muslims should not sell their votes for short-term gains. It is a good thing," Ajrekar said.
However, Mukadam is not ready to buy this theory. He feels this is a subtle effort to scare Muslim women away from contesting elections and coming into the decision-making arena.
"The so-called fatwa or handbill must be condemned publically in Kolhapur. Protests must be organised at the main square of the city. I will readily do this if needed," Mukadam says.

India: Jawed Akhtar on the Fatwa by Raza Academy Against A.R. RAhman

http://thewire.in/2015/09/20/the-current-situation-in-india-terrifies-me-11138/

The Current Situation in India Terrifies Me

by Javed Akhtar

I must say at the outset that most people, particularly the media, give way too much importance to a fatwa. First of all, they insist upon calling any statement a fatwa. I have no hope that the media will change anytime soon because fatwa, for them, is a sexy term. It’s juicy and interesting and it creates a counterpoint of Muslim communalism. If the Hindus have Bajrang Dal and VHP you also need some hate-mongering Muslim institutions to create a fine balance.
But few people know what fatwa actually means. It’s a tradition where you go to a qazi (judge), and a qualified one at that, with a matter. You have to ask him in writing, ‘Sir, what is your opinion of this particular issue and according to Islam, what is the right thing to do.’ He will give you an answer and in the end, he will write, ‘This is what I think. But God knows better.’ You can then go to another qazi with the same issue and he may offer an entirely different opinion. Why is it that a fatwa nowadays sounds like some kind of an ordinance, a murder or an assassination? So, let us not get so alarmed by fatwas.
The very fact of Raza Academy issuing a fatwa against A R Rahman (for giving music to Majid Majidi’s film Muhammad) is absurd. They are not qualified to give a fatwa. They can only give out a statement as an organisation. Even if somebody does issue a fatwa against Rahman then perhaps some other qazi will say something else. How do we take them seriously? Some years ago, a channel conducted a sting operation to expose the so-called fatwas. They shot some qazis who agreed to issue a fatwa for as less as Rs 10,000. Can you imagine anything that can influence the opinion of 18 crore people being sold for Rs 10,000 in the market! It’s a steal, I must say. Jokes apart, let’s not create an aura around fatwa.

Who is Raza Academy?
As far as the Raza Academy is concerned, I have no idea who are the people who run it, where is their office and how many people are its members. I only hear their name whenever some outrageous and controversial statement is released by them and is subsequently lapped up by the media. I didn’t bother about Raza Academy’s reaction. It was expected.
The other day, I found myself reading A R Rahman’s response on Facebook. It’s a marvellous piece of literature. I know Rahman personally and he’s a wonderful person. I’m a rationalist and an atheist. But if people are religious in the way Rahman is, I wouldn’t have any problems with religion. For him, faith and religion is a very, very private affair. He prays and goes on pilgrimages. But as a man, music director and artist, he’s secular. Now, why should I bother how he prays and how many times he prays? As long as people keep their religion to themselves and don’t impose on others or create upheaval in society, why should we bother? After all, religion is a personal choice.
Good people remain good, even if they are religious or otherwise. Somebody once said very aptly that there are two kinds of people in the world. Good people and bad people. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. It’s only religion that can make a good person do bad things. I can vouch that Rahman is incapable of doing anything bad.
Like Rahman, I too have been a target of fundamentalists in the past. I was given police protection only twice and both times, not because of any Hindu fundamentalist group but because of Muslim fundamentalist groups! Muslim fundamentalist groups can tolerate criticism from non-Muslims. But if somebody with a Muslim name criticises them, then that becomes very intolerable for them. They get outraged.

Abuses from everywhere
I must be one of those rare and fortunate people who get abuses from both sides. Hindu fundamentalists tells me, ‘You are a jihadi. Go away to Pakistan.’ They suggest I change my name to a Hindu one. Some call me a pseudo-secularist. On the other side, they call me a kafir and condemn me, saying I’ll burn in hell. I believe that as long as both of them are abusing me I must be doing something right.
The current situation in India terrifies me. Fundamentalists and reactionaries are getting bolder by the day. Look at what’s happening to the rationalists. Three are dead and another is getting death threats. Worse, their deaths and assassinations are celebrated. What kind of a mindset does the Bajrang Dal have that one of their members burns a man and his two small children alive and is honoured by them for doing so? And then, Graham Staines’ widow comes to India and says, ‘I forgive the killer of my husband and children.’
Now, those who are very proud of their culture and heritage should look into their conscience and think for a while about the difference between these people who killed Staines and honoured his killers and the woman who suffered and yet, forgave them. People always say ancient India was a peaceful society. That’s a myth and a lie. It’s just as much of a lie as when Muslims say Islam has always been a peaceful religion.
In known history, only two indigenous religions preached Ahimsa (non-violence.). Just answer a simple question. Where do you sell an umbrella? Where there is rain. Why would two religions come and emphasise on non-violence in an already non-violent society? It doesn’t make sense. India was always a violent society. If you want to maintain the caste system, even today, you have to use violence. If you want to make a huge segment of society untouchable and subhuman, somewhere between human beings and animals, you cannot maintain this system without violence.
Nowadays, the Hindu fundamentalists proudly appropriate Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Ironically, the same Raja Ram Mohan Roy was opposed tooth and nail by the Hindu hardliners in his time. There was tremendous opposition of Mohan Roy and also, of Syed Ahmed Khan. At every juncture in history fundamentalists of all communities, without exception, have proved to be anti-progress, anti-reform, anti-liberal thought and anti-enquiry. But the good thing is: in the end, the bigots never win.
(Javed Akhtar is a poet, lyricist and screenwriter. He spoke to Shaikh Ayaz)

 

India: Faith and fatwa | Upendra Baxi

The Indian Express - July 22, 2014

Faith and fatwa

Upendra Baxi

Summary
The Supreme Court injunction is welcome, but limited.

Nothing prepared us for the pleasant constitutional surprise, an incredibly brief order by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that “the decisions of Dar-ul-Qaza or the fatwa” are neither “created nor sanctioned by any law made by the competent legislature”. The fatwa issued by Dar-ul-Qazas (a sharia court) or “for that matter anybody, is not adjudication of dispute by an authority under a judicial system sanctioned by law”. In our constitutional legal system, a “qazi or mufti has no authority” nor any legal powers to impose “his opinion and enforce his fatwa on anyone by any coercive method”.

However, any decision affecting 65 million Indian Muslim women must be read closely. First, the decision is not a judgment at all; it is merely an advisory. The court does not overtly declare the law; it merely dismisses the petition with an observation “that no Dar-ul-Qazas or for that matter, anybody or institution by any name, shall give verdict or issue fatwa touching upon the rights, status and obligation of an individual unless such an individual has asked for it”. Fatwas that do not do so are constitutionally valid. And a non-citizen may still fall under the sway of a fatwa.

The court’s observations deserve to be given great weight, but in so far as the sharia is a matter of faith and that faith is interpreted by its custodians, only rebelling women may take recourse to civil courts. And even they must bear the intolerable ambiguities of constitutional as well as pious Islamic interpretation of the Quran. For example, the 2005 “model nikahnama” issued by the Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB) says, in its last clause, that the “Ulema would take the decision and whatever judgement he gives would be binding on us”. As sociologist Sabiha Hussain points out, this “clause apparently closes the option for women to approach the secular courts”.

Second, the court does not make prior fatwas invalid. Victims may file for proceedings with the police or approach the courts. But whether a crime has been committed by the issuance of a fatwa remains a matter for the police and courts to decide, eventually.

Third, only the fatwas “touching upon the rights of an individual at the instance of rank strangers”, which “may cause irreparable damage” and so are “absolutely uncalled for”, would “be in violation of basic human rights” and “cannot be used to punish innocent”, as no “religion, including Islam, punishes the innocent”. Religion, moreover, cannot be “allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force”. These great words do not, for example, help Muslim women forced to marry their fathers-in-law under some strained interpretation of the Quran. Women are dragged to so-called sharia courts not by “strangers” but by near relations. Is it any relief if the fatwa were asked for “by the person interested”?

Fourth, although a fatwa can be asked for on behalf of a person in “case of incapacity”, what constitutes that incapacity and who is best suited to represent physical or mental disability or impairment is a vexed question. Would the judicial injunction on the “stranger” seeking a fatwa deter pious Muslims from taking genuine care of the incapacitated? The question is not fully answered by the clarification that “any person interested in the welfare of such [a] person may be permitted to represent the cause of [the] concerned individual”.

Fifth, what does the very last judicial observation signify? It says that, in “any event, the decision or the fatwa issued by whatever body being not emanating from any judicial system recognised by law is not binding on anyone including the person who had asked for it”. Does the word “binding” refer to law or religion or both?

The MPLB had already argued for the “necessity of establishment of a network of judicial system throughout the country” through which “Muslims should be made aware that they should get their disputes decided by the qazis”. True, “this establishment may not have the police powers but [it] shall have the book of Allah in hand and sunnat of the Rasool and all decisions should be according to the Book and the Sunnat”. But according to the MPLB, “this will bring the Muslims to the Muslim Courts. They will get justice”. The judicial position that while fatwas may be enforced as religion, they cannot be coercively implemented by the religious community, does not address the problem of pious Muslims being asked to believe, often to the point of harm and even death, that the decisions of the Islamic tribunals are always “just”.

According to Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband, which admitted issuing the fatwa in the Imrana case “as per Fiqah-e-Hanafi, which is based on Quran and Hadith” it is “not running [a] parallel judiciary”. It contended that it “has no agency or powers to enforce its fatwas” and it is up to “the discretion of the persons or the parties who obtain fatwas to abide by it or not”. It can, however, do nothing if “God fearing Muslims being answerable to the Almighty, obey the fatwas”. But such coercive implementation of community decisions on deeply religious matters is not new. Hindus succeeded in maintaining untouchability for nearly 5,000 years and some are doing so even today, despite it being constitutionally and legally outlawed. Even now, caste biradari panchayats deliver patently unconstitutional decisions violating the equal rights of women as persons and as citizens. This does not, however, justify the hurtful, and even wounding, Muslim apartheid against Islamic women, if only because several wrongs never make a right.

Overall, the court is discharging its duty under Article 44 of the Constitution to “endeavour” towards a uniform civil code. But nowhere does it say so, and wisely. Wisely because the code raises complex issues of the politics of cruelty, survival and identity, which the representative institutions find unfeasible to answer. The court rightly asserts that, in the meantime, the Constitution normatively forbids barbaric treatment of Islamic women citizens of India. Although the Hindu law lacks the institutional piety of fatwas, its viciousness towards women seems impliedly addressed.

The writer is professor of law, University of Warwick, and former vice chancellor of Universities of South Gujarat and Delhi.

express@expressindia.com

With The Pracharak Modi Soon Breathing Down Our Necks - Indian's ought listen to Fehmida Riaz’s Poem ’Tum Bilkul Haum Jaisay Nilay’

Audio Recording: Fehmida Riaz’s Poem ’Tum Bilkul Haum Jaisay Nilay’ [You have turned out just like us]
The Pakistani feminist poet Fehmida Riaz through this wonderful poem in Hindustani suggests how India with its Hindutva religious right on the upswing is turning up to be on the same road as Pakistan.
http://www.sacw.net/article8237.html

India: Fatwa banning cartoons issued by clerics

From: The News, September 02, 2013

NEW DELHI: India’s leading Islamic seminary, the Darul Uloom, issued a fatwa (a religious decree) declaring that watching cartoons on television is un-Islamic, and a violation of sharia law, according to a report issued Aug. 27.

Senior cleric Mufti Arif Quasmi explained the ruling by saying: “[A] cartoon is a picture. Besides, it is not for the children. It should not be watched.”

Islamic teachings on the depiction of animate objects vary, with the most strict Muslim clerics banning animation completely on the basis that it imitates Allah’s acts of creation. Other clerics, however, permit photography, video, and even cartoons.

Some are not happy with the ruling. All India Shia Muslim Personal Law Board convenor Maulana Yasoob Abbas said the Darul Uloom was “misleading” Muslims and handing out fatwas “on anything and everything, making a mockery of Islam”. He said Islam was a tolerant religion, but the Islamic seminary had brought a bad name to it by giving out “irresponsible and impracticable” fatwas.

According to reports, the seminary has “created a record of sorts in terms of the number of fatwas issued.” In the past, the Darul Uloom has declared it to be unlawful for women to use perfume containing alcohol; wear tattoos, jeans, or “Western hairstyles”; take part in modeling; wax “from knees to navels”; and be appointed as receptionists; calling it “illegal and against the Sharia.”

Kashmir: Is the girls music band ‘Pragaash’ really at fault?

From: The Hindu- March 1, 2013

Is ‘Pragaash’ band really at fault?

VIJDAN MOHAMMAD KAWOOSA

The three little souls who were perhaps dimly mistaken to choose music in their lives must have been anguished to see how they were treated in recent times. Number of people in Kashmir valley, from common masses to the grand mufti, went on troubling the all-girl rock band "Pragaash' which came into limelight soon after its first public appearance in the month of December last year.

Now the question arises, were the girls wrong on their part? They might have been aware of the fact that music is not allowed in their religion and that it might not be accepted by locals. However, their inspiration lies in the valley itself.

In recent years, a number of music bands have evolved in valley especially in Srinagar city which got tremendous appreciation from people and have been applauded in various events organized in the city. Seeing people being awarded for their particular talent perhaps induces interest in minds of those who have similar talents. I believe the case is same with regards to the ‘Pragaash’ band.

One cannot overrule the fact that various elements of music have flourished in the valley including a private radio station majority of whose’ content is based on music. The station reflects that numerous music lovers are present in the valley. Obviously the channel would not survive the market without any audience. Another fact, majority of the privately owned cars have audio systems installed just because people listen to music while travelling.

Same is the case with various events which are some way or the other related to music, may it be a full-fledged music event or a small backdrop in other events. Music is not only about songs; it is as well used in the movies and television programs in background which gives a soothing effect to the sequence. News channels which people watch on daily basis also use music in the backdrop of headlines and other programs. Although music in this form is listened by all who watch the programs, they perhaps do not realize it.

Accepted, music is ‘haraam’ (prohibited) in religion - Islam, but is it prohibited only for a portion of society? No, it is not. So I believe, if ‘Pragaash’ has not been accepted by people, they should even not accept music from other sources or allow all of them to continue with the same.

(The author, a native of Kashmir valley, is an under-graduate student of Journalism and Mass Communication at a Noida based University

India: The offence calculator

The Telegraph (Calcutta) - 17 Feb 2013

THE OFFENCE CALCULATOR - A disease of the mind, and how to eradicate it

The Thin Edge - Ruchir Joshi

Many of us have been living with Fatwaitis for a long time now. Fatwaitis, also known as the ‘Offence Virus’, entered humanity’s bloodstream around 1988, about six years after AIDS was discovered, and has proved to be an even more dangerous disease. In fact, we are closer to eradicating AIDS and overcoming many cancers than we are to getting rid of Fatwaitis. The Offence Virus is replicating and mutating rapidly in different human societies faster than we can counter it. Even as we search for antidotes, more and more people are falling victim to the tentacles of the dread disease. The thing is, Fatwaitis is a tough enemy. It is not a physical disease, it’s a condition of the mind and spirit. In this, too, some people are, in a sense, what you might call ‘innocent’ victims, while others are ‘carriers’, a small minority of ruthless people who deliberately carry the virus and infect others, sometimes hundreds of thousands of others, without any pity or care. Below, I put down an ‘Offence Calculator’, which offers some basic steps to fighting this grave illness of the mind. 1. Learn to Differentiate Between Offence Virus and Hate Speech. F-itis, or OV, is a very different sickness from the disease of Hate Speech, though sometimes people mix them up — again, some without thinking things through and others with great pre-meditation. Hate Speech has certain clear indications. One such marker is when someone, publicly, exhorts people to physically attack someone or some community. The ‘publicly’ bit is important. For example, if sitting at home, over drinks with friends one evening, I were to say “God, I want to kill everyone who thinks So-and-So is a great writer,” that is not hate speech, that is an emphatically critical opinion. But if I were to say on TV, or on a stage at a literature festival, that “people who regard Sir So-and-So as a great writer should be beaten up mercilessly”, then that would, indeed, qualify as hate speech against the community of readers who, whether ill-judged or not, worship the writing of Sir So-and-So. The second bit that’s important in identifying Hate Speech is the exhortation to assault or to in any way deny a community or a group of people their human rights. So, if standing on a stage in Shivaji Park I say “I think everyone who still insists on calling this city Bombay is an idiot”, that’s, technically, not hate speech. But if I say “Everyone who still utters the names, ‘Bombay’ or ‘Bumbai’, is a traitor and you know what we should do with traitors” then that’s hate speech and a jailable offence. Similarly, if I say something like “The poor are greedy and leeches on society” then that’s not hate speech, it’s completely stupid and may be offensive to many but it’s not a crime. But if I say “Everyone begging at traffic lights should be jailed” then that veers close to hate speech because I’m suggesting that beggars’ human rights be taken away. The third pointer has to do with the ‘speech’ bit. This is tricky but not that tricky. For instance, people do, and should have, the license to insult or make fun of different groups of people in books and films. In fiction, especially, it could just be an accurate depiction of a character. A good example of this is Mario Vargas Llosa’s great novel, Aunt Julia and the Script-Writer. In this Peruvian novel, there is a character who hates Argentinians with nuclear venom. So, on every third page, there is an insult either to Argentina or Argentinians — some insults funny, some of them vicious. If a writer had similarly insulted India we would have been ‘offended’, accused the book of ‘hate speech’, burnt it, banned it, and arrested the offending writer if he ever came to the country. As far as I know Argentinians celebrate Vargas Llosa as a great writer of their region. 2. Who Reaches for Violence when an Offence is Claimed? Hate Speech is dangerous because it demonstrably leads people into attacking other people either physically or socially. Similarly, when looking for Fatwaitis, look out for signs of violence — who is threatening violence, who is exhorting people to become martyrs, who is implying that riots and arson will take place if their demands are not met? A book or film or a painting that offends someone does not demand physical violence. In fact, the book, film or painting is a non-violent, passive, thing (you can shut the book and throw it away, it won’t bite; you can walk out of the cinema, you can walk away from the gallery, neither the film nor the painting will follow you out) and it is the ‘protests’ that often threaten violence or are actually violent. So one classic symptom of Fatwaitis or OV is that a passive product, usually some sort of artistic or scholarly product, is labelled as having offended some group and then this offence is used as a license for violence by that group. The disease runs on a sick tautology: I have the right to be offended = I have the right to be violent if I’m offended. 3. Who Profits when an Offence is Claimed? A wise friend once told me: “After any riot or terrorist attack, always look to see who profited from the incident. That will usually indicate who caused the riot or attack.” Similarly, when looking to identify and cure OV, always look to see who gained an advantage from a group being offended. So, when Rushdie was stopped from coming to Calcutta did the city’s Muslims suddenly find their lot improved? New schools for poor Muslim kids? Sanitation for the slums where Muslims are in majority? No. The people who gained, or might imagine they gained were the ruling party. What did they gain, exactly? They gained the right to say “Look, we care about Muslims, we stopped Rushdie from coming to Calcutta!” Have we seen this kind of calculation before? Yes, when the Left Front stopped Taslima Nasreen from returning to Calcutta in order to pander to the same voters’ sentiments. A minister in the TMC apparently told a journalist, “Thirty per cent of our voters are Muslim. There is no way we will let Rushdie come here.” Again, a tautology: If you are a Muslim in West Bengal, whether you read novels in English or not, you will be offended by Salman Rushdie. If you are not offended, we will ask you to be offended. Then we will stop the bad Rushdie and show you how much we care about you. Similarly, who gained when M.F. Husain was driven out of India? Poor Hindus who had never set foot in an art gallery? Nope. The VHP and the BJP who could say, “We defended Bharat Mata!” Who gains when people chase Ashis Nandy with an FIR (when a massed, loud derisive guffaw would have hurt old Ashis-da much more)? The Dalit leaders who can beat the drum and say, “Look we stood up like lions for Dalit rights!” 4. Isn’t Religion Special? Shouldn’t we be Extra Protective of it? No. People have made fun of religious figures — whether mythical figures or actual historical figures — ever since those figures came into being, and people have a right to make fun of or insult these figures. Also, the moment you practise a particular religion you are, in a sense, denigrating all other religions. If you say “There is no god but my god,” you are insulting and dismissing the gods of others. So, if you have a right to practise your religion, then others have a right to practise their belief, or to not practise any religion, and that right includes dismissing or insulting figures you may hold sacred. If you actually believe in your deity or your saints, if you actually believe in an all-powerful being, then let that being or that prophet or that son of god, or that Maha Godddess take their own offence. If someone’s spitting at the sky, let the sky answer back. Who are you, an ant, to play bodyguard to Mount Everest? 5. When is a Good Time to Start Fighting Fatwaitis? Now. Because the more we let the disease spread, the harder it will be for future generations to eradicate.

Amul Cartoon in Defence of Girls Band in Kashmir

http://www.sacw.net/article3658.html

Kashmir girls rock band going underground facing fatwa and threats

The Hindu

Srinagar, February 4, 2013

Rock band girls go into hiding after social boycott threat

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

Despite Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s reassuring tweets, the teenage members of the Valley’s first all-women rock band have gone into hiding immediately after receiving a threat of ‘social boycott’ from the Dukhataarn-e-Millat, a radical women’s outfit

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/rock-band-girls-go-into-hiding-after-social-boycott-threat/article4378341.ece?homepage=true

black hair was not in accordance with the shariah - Darul Uloom Deoband

Now, Darul Uloom Deoband issues fatwa against dyeing hair black
By Shailvee Sharda, TNN | Dec 11, 2012, 03.30 PM IST

Now, Darul Uloom Deoband issues fatwa against dyeing hair black
Darul Uloom Deoband has said that colouring hair black was not in accordance with the shariah.


LUCKNOW: After terming tattoos as anti-shariya, the Darul Uloom Deoband has issued a fatwa against dyeing hair black.

According to the Islamic seminary, sharia does not permit one to colour his or her hair black. Some believers had sought the view of the authorities of the seminary on this issue. Answering the questions, the seminary said colouring hair black was not in accordance with the shariah, though one could apply a colour like henna (mehndi) on the hair.

According to the seminary, the sharia prohibits use of such dyes that leave a layer on the hair as it obstructs water from reaching the roots of hair during wazu (ablution) and make it invalid. Answering the question if namaz was permissible after applying colour on hair, the seminary said that it was allowed to use colour other than black provided the colour does not contain impure things and does not leave such a layer on the hair that prevents water from reaching the roots.

"Otherwise wazu (ablution before offering namaz) shall not be valid and when wazu is not right then namaz shall also not be valid," the seminary said. Another question was related to use of ammonia-free dyes for the hair. On this question, the seminary issued the fatwa that "if the hair get black with the use of that dye, then it shall not be lawful to apply it, but if the hair get red-like colour of henna then it is permissible".

India: 'Le Gaya Saddam' filmmaker goes into hiding after edict against him by Rajasthan mufti

Fatwa issued against 'Le Gaya Saddam' filmmaker
Jyothi Prabhakar, TNN | Nov 6, 2012, 12.00AM IST

Fatwa issued against 'Le Gaya Saddam' filmmaker

A fatwa has been issued against Le Gaya Saddam filmmaker Amjad Khan, for allegedly depicting the Muslim marriage tenets in a wrong manner.

The filmmaker has promptly gone into hiding, but says, "Jo Rajasthan ke Mufti hain, unhone fatwa lagya hai mujhpe. But I think there has been some misunderstanding. Perhaps those who issued the fatwa haven't seen the movie properly. I have kept the Shariat Laws in mind while making the film. The issue is the scene where it is shown that to remarry the same girl, the boy gets her married off to her grandfather.

"Aisey thodi na hota hai, koi bhi kahin se bhi fatwa issue kar de. I am trying to contact them, but till now, it hasn't happened. Aamne saamne baith ke yeh baatein honi chahiye. Let them tell me what they object to, and if it is ethical, and not the fancy of one person, I will even make changes to the film. They are saying that dada poti se and pote ke Mrs se shaadi nahi kar sakta. But that is not the case. This fatwa has put a restriction on me, aane jaane mein mushkil ho gayi hai," adds Amjad.

India: Kashmir cleric asks govt to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims

From: The Times of India

Kashmir's grand cleric asks govt to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims
M Saleem Pandit, TNN | May 4, 2012, 04.58PM IST


Ahmadiyya is a reformist movement within Islam, founded in British India towards the end of the 19th century, originating with the life and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (1835–1908) of Qadian in Punjab. (Reuters photo)
SRINAGAR: In yet another act of religious extremism, Kashmir's mufti azam (grand cleric) Mufti Muhammad Bashir-ud-din has demanded a legislation to declare the Ahmadi sect of Kashmiri Muslims as "non-Muslims".

The dogmatic demand was unanimously made by the Muslim religious leaders of Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Board in a meeting convened and headed by the grand cleric on May 2, 2012.

Mufti Azam told the TOI that the valley's religious leaders had informed him that a set of people, belonging to the Ahmadi school of thought, were spreading their message through literature in the valley. "Therefore, I convened a meeting of the Ulmas (Islamic scholars) wherein a resolution was adopted asking the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature to pass a bill during the coming summer session declaring Ahmadis as non-mulsims," Mufti Azam Bashir-ud-din said.

The grand cleric said that the Islamic Sharia Council had made it clear that in all parts of the world Qadiyanis or Ahmadis were declared non Muslims. "And they should be declared as non-muslims here as well." He added the Ahmadis were already declared as "non-Muslims" in Pakistan during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's tenure as prime minister.

Ahmadiyya is a reformist movement within Islam, founded in British India towards the end of the 19th century, originating with the life and teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed (1835-1908) of Qadian in Punjab. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed claimed that he was the divine reformer and the promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by Muslims. The followers of this school of thought are called as Ahmadis.

The Ahmadi sect is a minority in the Sunni dominated Kashmir valley. According to some estimates, Ahmadis, in the valley, are not more than a few hundred people. The adherents of the Ahmadiyya movement own only one mosque in Kashmir. It is located just adjacent to Inspector General police's office in Srinagar.

Mufti Azam created a furore in the state last year when he summoned several Christian priests and pastors to his sharia court in down town Srinagar for their alleged involvement in conversion of Muslims boys and girls to Christianity. At his orders, the Christian priests and pastors had to quit the valley.

Liberals and left wingers should not support Muslim Right opposition to liquor shops and cinema halls in Kashmir

[Surely the brutalised Kashmiri's massively need human rights, democracy and a de-militarised daily life but while they struggle for those objectives what's the problem with having access to liquor and cinema halls. A recent statement by the former chief minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah has drawn the expected criticism from the Muslim right, but why are liberal and left opinion makers lending their support to the moral police?. See below report in The Hindu and an Editorial in Kashmir Times.]

The Hindu

SRINAGAR, December 10, 2011

Mirwaiz, Geelani call for religious decree against Farooq

Shujaat Bukhari

“His statement will boost immoral acts in the Valley”

Union Minister Farooq Abdullah's statement favouring the reopening of liquor shops and cinema halls in the Valley continues to draw flak from political and religious groups, even as he has reiterated his stand saying that Jammu and Kashmir was a secular and not an Islamic state.

On Friday, All-Parties Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq called for a religious decree against Dr. Abdullah for his “un-Islamic utterances.” Addressing the Friday congregation at the Jamia Masjid here, the Mirwaiz said Dr. Abdullah's statement was “aimed at boosting immoral acts in the Valley, and people should raise their voice against it.”

Supporting hardline Hurriyat Conference chairman Syed Ali Geelani's call for a religious decree against the former Chief Minister, the Mirwaiz said Dr. Abdullah had “lost his ability to distinguish between right and wrong”.

“Religious scholars should rise above their sectarian lines and give a tough fight to such elements who are bent upon eating the vitals of the society,” the Mirwaiz said.

The Mirwaiz, who heads the moderate faction of the Hurriyat, said it was true that Jammu and Kashmir was not an Islamic state but “that does not mean that you do not respect the sentiments of Muslims who are in majority in this State.” He said Quranic teachings prohibit liquor in society. He also maintained that tourists did not come to Kashmir for consuming liquor or indulging in any immoral activity. So the question of boosting tourism through these means did not arise.

Dr. Abdullah had on Monday said liquor shops and cinema halls in the State should be reopened as it would boost the economy and tourism in the Valley. Though a few shops and bars did operate, the alcohol business was mostly negligible. In the early 1990s, militant outfits banned liquor shops and cinema halls. Two cinema halls were later reopened, one of which closed down soon after, and the other musters little business.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) State secretary M.Y. Tarigami has said this was not the time to reopen liquor shops and cinemas. “Priority is to end corruption and restore honour and dignity of people.”

---

Kashmir Times, Editorial, 10 December 2011

A toast at Sher-i-Kashmir’s mazar

By: BY ANURADHA BHASIN JAMWAL


Farooq Abdullah decided to pay a unique tribute to his illustrious father, resting in his grave – a promise to souse the Kashmir valley he had fought for, and later compromised on, in bottles of liquor and paint it bright with reels of glamour from Bollywood. He chose the occasion of Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah’s birth anniversary to announce, soon after he had offered his fateh prayers, that Kashmir should now have liquor bars and cinema halls. Leave alone, whether the resting Sheikh would be flattered by this toast of flamboyance from his apple of the eye, there is much that remains fluidly unknown and undecipherable. The locals may or may not get titillated by the entry of this newfound glamour of inebriated splendour, atleast high spirited people around them, and full 72 MM cinema screens to enthrall them with the gyrating Munnis, Jalebis and Sheelas of the tinsel town. But it is sure a jackpot winner if it can keep tourists hooked on to Kashmir, inspite of and despite its lagging tourism infrastructure, is what the Abdullahs believe.
There is no statistical evidence to prove whether tourism in Kashmir can or cannot sustain with or without liquor and cinema. Neither is there any tabulated data of how many locals would welcome this change and how many would be opposed to it. Personally, gulping down beer mugs and sipping goblets of wine is a matter of personal choice, if the levels of decency are maintained. So is watching films – good or bad ones. There is nothing rather devilish about them, nor something that should make hearts go rocking.
What punctuates the announcement with flaws is not just the choice of timing and venue but also lack of grasp about ground realities it betrays. That a former chief minister, a serving union minister and head of a party that rules Jammu and Kashmir should deem this as a matter of top priority in a place like Kashmir springs an ugly surprise. It requires both a sense of the present and the history of Abdullahs to grasp the foolishness of what senior Abdullah indeed said on his father’s birth anniversary.
Forgiving him for his follies of his very remote past, of days of his motorcycle rides with film stars and his Disco image, let’s start at the fresh beginning he made about a decade and a half back when he was re-crowned as the Crown Prince after winning an election with absolute majority. His first tears, at the swearing-in ceremony, were shed for Indian security agencies fighting insurgency. His first real contribution, joining hands with BJP led NDA government, the first real toast to his dad, who fought all his life the Sangh Parivar and its influence. His second major contribution was introducing his son via backdoor into the Indian political map, not of Kashmir. The son, of course, never let his father down, by sticking on loyally with BJP, as per his father’s honourable word to the party, remaining a faithful minister in its government even as the Gujarat carnage went on shocking everybody including Kashmiris to the hilt. Unlike the father, however, son Omar had a belated realisation, sadly only after he was ousted out of power, both from centre and the state, and was belatedly quick in tendering an apology and being man enough to condemn, after two years, what happened in Gujarat.
In power, Omar or Farooq, they rarely ever have wasted much words for expressing sympathy with the people, caught in the crucible of a complex and military conflict, hit badly both physically and psychologically. But they have oodles of ideas about how they can keep the incoming tourists happy or how they can boost the morale of the security personnel, neither of whom are their subjects. Last year, when 130 youth were gunned down during a period of five months of street protests, the younger Abdullah had genuine lines of worries on his forehead, his concern: the sagging tourism, or at best the education of children, whose safety or psychological health was not something he needed to deal with as chief minister of the state.
Even now, when locals continue to brave unpredictable curfews, crackdowns, arrests, torture, fake encounters and other kinds of influences of heavy militarism, when voices for justice – whether it is in seeking human rights or basic amenities like paani, sadak, bijli - remain stonewalled, the merry Abdullahs feel that all will be well with either their cacophony of Rap performance on AFSPA or with more happy and high spirited tourists coming to the Valley. And this is what makes Farooq Abdullah’s words so tragic. They betray a complete indifference and apathy for the major issues that bog the people of Kashmir and an exaggerated concern for the things that even tourists may deem trivial.
This issue, however, should not merit much brouhaha, and should only galvanize our ticklish bone, keeping us amused with a son’s toast at the mazar of the Lion of Kashmir. Cinema or no cinema, we already have the entertainer Abdullahs to quench our thirst for entertainment and ensure that our sense of humour doesn’t perish in an unpredictable world, where life remains too vulnerable, so that the wittiest, if not the fittest, may survive in the end. Atleast, the ‘ungrateful’ Kashmiris, opposing liquor bars and cinema halls, can be gracious enough to thanks him for that!

Baptist Chrurch in Meghalaya: Pray dont play

Church groups in Meghalaya want followers to pray, and not play music on Sunday. From politics to the arts, religious leaders want to control all spheres of public life. But people are fighting back equally hard.

http://tinyurl.com/cayl63b

Retrograde Fatwas and Media

Projecting Retrograde Fatwas: Reinforcing Stereotypes

Ram Puniyani

The Islamic seminaries issue fatwas by the dozen, day in and day out. It is only on few occasions that these get media publicity, and the quantum of media publicity is also not uniform. Some fatwas are really projected very much hogging all the lime light ; some others are hidden on the back pages in small column centimeters while few others never taken note of. Which are these one’s where media interest and curiosity is maximum? This is the question which media pundits can introspect and debate but few observations are in order.

One such fatwa, which was in the lime light recently (May 2010) related to women working outside, there income being haram (immoral) and it being obligatory on them to wear burqa. All major commentators wrote on this, all papers carried banner headlines on this and the chat show anchors had a gala time mediating between warring guests on their interpretation of this retrograde fatwa. To begin with one must point out that this fatwa was issued in response to a question, “Can Muslim women in India do Government or private jobs? Shall their salary be Halal or Haram or Prohibited?” Answer published on April 4th, 2010 simply put it as: “It is unlawful for Muslim women to do job in government or private institutions where men and women work together and women have to talk with [to] men frankly and without veil.”

Interestingly this fatwa got very sensational headlines, picking on one or the other aspect of the opinion of the Mufti. The headlines ran like, “Women’s earning haram”, “It is illegal to work for women to support the family, “Fatwa against working women”, Fatwa to Working women, don’t talk to male colleagues” etc. There are two important points here. One is that this fatwa which shows the height of conservatism was flashed powerfully and second the headlines picked up the part of the whole and sensationalized it further. The outcome of media projection was uniform, it reinforced the stereotypes about Muslims. The associated points about fatwas did not get prominent projection.

True, these opinions should have no place whatsoever in the present times, but there is more to these projections than meets the eye. Some fatwas get heavy projection, while some other but more important ones’ do not get enough coverage. This can be said more so because of the recent observation about undermining of another fatwa. That fatwa was issued by two congregations of thousands of Maulanas. In these congregations which were historic in more ways than one, the fatwa was issued against violence, against terrorism in the name of Islam. Needless to say this fatwa was historic as it aimed to nail down the popular misconception, carefully grafted by the US administration, US media and local communal forces that Islam is the religion of violence, Muslims are violent community and all terrorists are Muslims. This misconception prevails even at a time when the terrorists of the ilk of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Assemanand and those related to Santan Sanstha etc. have been under the heavy cloud of suspicion and some of them are now behind the bar also.

As such fatwa is an opinion by a mufti, given in response to the question sought by laity, on the same issue there can be different fatwas, they are not biding on the seeker of fatwa. As such the community is largely divided about following the fatwa’s. While some stick to these opinions, hook line and sinker, others ignore them as ravings of some outdated old maulanas, cut off from the modern society. Javed Akhtar, the renowned multifaceted writer came out strongly against this fatwa. More interestingly he pointed out that these fatwas are not taken seriously by the community at large. Overall he is just partly right, as there still are some elements in the community, who prefer to be guided by these Muftis, irrespective of the fact that there is no formal hierarchy in Islam. Akhtar is partly undermining the fact that many retrograde elements amongst Muslim community make these fatwas as a crutch to implement their anti-women and other regressive attitudes.

The broader point is how come such a serious fatwa, one related to terrorism, which has a big impact on the totality of social perception was not given as much importance as it deserves? One recalls that there were many a fatwa’s which did affect the lives of people, like the one against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen. One concedes that the fatwa’s need to be looked at in the particular context and highlighted accordingly. Today the scenario is a bit different. The media is looking for sensation; it is flowing with the stream, and is not much concerned about fathoming deep to unravel the truth. Unfortunately once news is flashed in a powerful way, its counters the next day get buried in the din of hysteria, popular opinion created by the headline the previous day.

Currently whatever reinforces the prevalent stereotypes against Muslims are a hot favorite with large section of media. Since the global superpower had decided to pursue its goals of control of oil wealth, it did create “consent” for its lust of oil by popularizing the image of Islam which was totally conservative. It deliberately promoted those tendencies within Muslim World, which talked of insane interpretations of the words Jihad and Kafir. After 9/11 the matters became worse off when the word ‘Islamic terrorism’ was propped up by US media and was lapped up by the global media in general. One also recalls that US media also dragged Islam in the murkier world of politics when US stooge, Raza Shah Pehlvi, was overthrown in a revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini captured power. The political phenomenon was given religious veneer.

While media partly has also played a positive role in social transformation, standing with the deprived, occasionally, broadly its role has been supplementary to the role of the rulers, the global and national ones’. Nationally it has mostly gone with the perception devised and popularized by communal forces. These popular perceptions are the base of ruling politics and the vehicle of the political actions of dominant sections of society. While ignoring these Muftis, we do need a proper mechanism of media, communication and cultural mechanism of progressive values to propagate the voice of weaker sections of society.

Today while this fatwa got a particular projection in the media, the case of espionage by Madhuri Gupta was underplayed, while any real or alleged terrorist with a Muslim name is a permanent front page news, the involvement, allegations against the likes of Swami Assemanand are bypassed on the ground that this is a conspiracy of a particular government or political party. Even today when the media focuses a lot on these irrelevant retrograde fatwa’s, lot of poor Muslims suffer due to physical insecurity and lack of social opportunities, which is not given adequate attention by media. Lot of anti Dalit atrocities is going on but they hardly find prominent place in the media.

From within the Muslim community more voices are coming up against these fatwas and there is need that that more voices, including those of women should be projected against such retrograde fatwas. While the majority of the people of the country must realize that the fatwas do not represent a homogenous community waiting to lap them up. It is obligatory on the part of media to give equal projection of those Muslims who are opposed to the cult of such fatwas. These fatwas do come from the section of Muslim community/Muftis, most of who are fairly insulated from the vagaries of the World, and are becoming more important due to the insecurity into which Muslim community has been pushed all around. And media has to answer as to why fatwas like the one against violence and terrorism were grossly underplayed?

Bankarupt Mullah's decree against Madushala

The Times of India
16 November 2008

A FATWA AGAINST MADHUSHALA

Manjari Mishra, TNN

LUCKNOW: It’s an indictment that came 73 years too late. Harivansh Rai Bachchan’s magnum opus Madhushala, which made him an overnight celebrity with its publication in 1935 has ruffled holy feathers here for “it’s potential for promoting moral depravity and licentiousness in society, particularly among youth”.

On Friday evening, Shahar Qazi Lucknow, Maulana Mufti Abul Irfan Ahmad Jaimul Aleem Qadiri who is also the president of Idara-e-Sharia issued a fatwa against Madhushala.

The book he decreed, “was anti Islamic and also unfit to be taught at any academic institute”. And even as the edict by the veteran cleric, generally regarded as a liberal, has invoked a passionate debate among literary circles, not to mention a feeble protest from his younger colleagues like Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahali, the mufti justifies his stance. Mufti Qadiri said that a Muslim organisation from Madhya Pradesh approached him on November 10 with a copy of Madhushala.

“They had sought my opinion over the wisdom of prescribing as text book in schools and colleges a book that eulogised alcohol and drunkenness in society.

The decree, said mufti, was passed after going through the contents which “turned out to be extremly hurtful to the setiments of devout, though this kind of writing has its own set of admirers”. Bachchan sahab may have been a good shair but artistic license can be allowed upto permissible limit which he obviously crossed in his writings, the fatwa maintained.

It categorically states that “paeans to alcohol can only pollute young and impressionable minds and bring about social ruination. Moreover, use of words like masjid, muazzin, Allatala, Eid, marsia, namazi etc along with sharab, sharabi and maykhana is truly blasphemous. The usage only signified mental bankruptcy.”

Deoband issues fatwa against photography

Times of India
7 September 2007

Deoband issues fatwa against photography

by Pervez Iqbal Siddiqui, TNN

LUCKNOW: A fatwa issued by Darul-uloom Deoband in Saharanpur district banning photography for Muslims has created a flutter in the community and beyond. The fatwa has called photographs unlawful and against Shariat.

Interestingly, the Islamic seminary has made it compulsory for students to afix their photographs in admission forms. It has also not taken into account that photographs are mandatory all over the world for those applying for Haj pilgrimage and passports.

The fatwa was issued in response to a query on photography by an Assam-based NGO by four senior clerics of Darul Ifta (fatwa section) of the seminary. The clerics are Mufti Habib-ur-Rehman, Mufti Zain-Ul-Islam, Mufti Mehmood and Mufti Zafiruddin. They stated that photography, which includes taking pictures or posing for picture, was completely against Shariat.

Mufti Arifuddin, a senior faculty member at the Darul-uloom Deoband (Waqf) in Saharanpur, told TOI, "Taking photographs is completely proscribed under Shariat.''

Asked about the seminary's directive to students to affix their photos in admission forms, Mufti Arif said photographs were allowed only when mandatory. "The ban applies on photography during marriages and other social functions or for commercial use,'' he said.

Asked about passports particularly for Haj pilgrimage, he said since Islam gives importance to intentions, photographs clicked for such purposes can be permitted. "But even such photographs must not be distributed or kept with oneself with the intention of showing it to others or for the heck of it,'' said Maulana Khalid Rasheed, member of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and Imam of Aishbagh Eidgah in Lucknow.

What If The Satanic Verses Had Not Been Banned? (Mir Ali Raza)

Outlookindia.com
Web | Aug 16, 2004

What If The Satanic Verses Had Not Been Banned?

For one, Ayatollah Khomeini would probably never have seen a televised protest which prompted him to issue that infamous fatwa proscribing a book he had himself never read....

MIR ALI RAZA

On the 24th of February 1989, barely 10 days after the infamous and shameful fatwa of apostasy delivered against Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini, 12 people were killed in police firing in Bombay. The police was apparently forced to open fire when a crowd of around 10,000 Muslims protesting outside the British Consulate began to turn violent.

Almost fifteen years later, when Rushdie returned to his home city, it had been renamed Mumbai, and by January 2004, the very forces that had contributed to the city’s name-change had succeeded in circumscribing the power of the theocrats who had organized the February 1989 demonstration. Instead of exhorting the faithful to die for the cause, Islamic groups now offered to pay a mere lakh of rupees to anyone who succeeded in blackening Rushdie’s face. It appeared that after the riots of 1993, the patent on death threats in Mumbai had been transferred to the Shiv Sena.

What might the political landscape of India look like, had Rajiv Gandhi's government chosen not to proscribe the book in 1988 - the first such ban on the book anywhere in the world - that no one who was a party to the decision had read? For one, Ayatollah Khomeini would probably never have seen a televised protest which prompted him to issue that infamous fatwa proscribing a book he had himself never read.

Two, it is interesting to note that so quick was the government to proscribe that the protests, the possibility of which had been cited as a reason for the ban, happened after the ban. So, certainly, those 12 unfortunate Indians who fell in the police firing would not have died. As would the six or more Pakistanis who had died in earlier riots and the 37 who were gunned down in anti-Rushdie riots in Sivas, Turkey in 1993, four years after the fatwa. The Belgian Muslim leaders Abdullah Al Ahdal and Salim Bahri, who were shot for opposing the ban and Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the book, would be alive today. The Norwegian publisher William Nygaard and the Italian translator of the book, Ettore Capriolo, would not have been seriously wounded.

Apart from these tragic and totally avoidable deaths and destruction, more importantly, in India, an entire community would not have to constantly renegotiate the secular space by having to reiterate their positions on the Rushdie affair. Progressive Muslims like Ali Sardar Jafri, Mushirul Hasan and Abid Raza Bedar could not have been hounded by semi-literate bullies from their own community who had neither read the book nor Islamic scriptures.

The word fatwa would not have entered the mainstream dictionaries, and would not have the cache it developed, with opportunist religious leaders declaring anyone who asked inconvenient questions apostate. Life would have been easier for Javed Akhtar and MF Husain and a variety of other unsung Muslim activists, especially the women who worked so hard to change patriarchal community practices relating to marriage, divorce and inheritance that had been given the veneer of religious edicts. Book banning would not have acquired the status of the flavour-of-the-month, and we would not have to defend execrable literature like Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja in the name of freedom of expression.

Also, one could argue that without the ban, there would have been no fatwa, without that "extreme form of literary criticism" as VS Naipaul referred to it, the book would not have sold a million copies, and might have been shown up for what it was, a bloated bore. Midnight’s Children might not have won the "Booker of Bookers" in 1993.Rushdie may not have had to live an "unnatural life," though one does not doubt he would have found another group to aim cheap shots at, given his penchant for the borderline slanderous attention-seeking gimmicks.

He would most certainly have made outrageous remarks such as his claim that Indian literature in any language other than English was inferior, but the west would have paid less attention. Most certainly, his views on pornography would not have assumed the pornographically disproportionate coverage as they did recently. Though as an ex-fan, I wonder if he may not have still retained some credibility as an interlocutor of the west and the east, so evident in his collection of essays Imaginary Homelands. Who knows, he may not have accepted that unpaid job as defender of US imperialism that he now occupies through his op-ed pieces defending US aggressions on foreign soil.

In the movie Deewar, Amitabh Bachchan justifies his criminal ways to Shashi Kapoor by suggesting that before asking him any questions, he should interrogate those people who had tattooed his father’s shame on his arm. One can see the same defiance in the Hindutvavadis whenever they are demanding a ban on the movie Fire, M F Husain’s paintings, SAHMAT’s re-appropriation of the Ramayana, or whatever else seems to bother their notions of a Hindu culture: "Jao pahle us Satanic Verses se ban hatwaa ke lao, phir hum se sawaal karna …." Only after the markers of appeasement have been removed should one demand any tolerance from the majority. The ban on Rushdie's book has served the Hindu right well as a striking exemplar of minority appeasement, of the utter hollowness of the secularist claims.

One must regretfully concede the point, however defensively. The 1988 shameful capitulation by the Indian government and the subsequent fatwa and the resulting obscenity of violence and trauma remains a ghostly reminder of what then was perhaps just seen as a "smart political move", which in effect closed the circle of the anti-secularist logic that had begun to dominate the Indian polity since 1984, when Rajiv Gandhi played the dangerous game of double-appeasement with Shah Bano and Babri Masjid.

Like Gibreel Farishta, the protagonist of Satanic Verses, the Muslim community only experiences its freedom as it hurtles to the ground after a crash in mid-air. Can a crash-landing be avoided? Could it have been? Allah jaane.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mir Ali Raza helps edit Samar, the South Asian Magazine for Action and Reflection.