India: The Tablighi Jamaat is by no means the only body culpable of gross neglect and irresponsible conduct in the current crisis

The Indian Express

Already rampant communal virus in India is gleefully piggy-back riding on coronavirus

The Tablighi Jamaat is by no means the only body culpable of gross neglect and irresponsible conduct in the current crisis. But it must account for its own idiotic role in the escalation of the pandemic.

Written by Javed Anand | Updated: April 4, 2020 8:56:19 am 

 

Parts of Nizamuddin West were cordoned off after six new cases were traced to the area. (Express Photo by Anil Sharma)
 
Until the other day, not many outside the Muslim community had heard of an organisation named the Tablighi Jamaat. Little did people know about this century-old India-born body which, today, is the largest apolitical, Islamic revivalist global movement. Notwithstanding this, a vast majority of Muslims ridicule and dismiss this “nutcase” movement as good-for-nothing. “Woh sirf zameen ke neeche aur aasman ke upar waali zindagi ki baat karte hain” (They only talk of life in the grave and in the Hereafter).
Today, the Jamaat has, virtually overnight, earned for itself the ill-repute of being the “largest known” COVID-19 source in South and South-East Asia. In India, many participants at an international gathering of around 4,000 Jamaatis at the Tabligh’s global headquarters — Nizamuddin Markaz — in Delhi held from March 13 to March 15 have carried back the coronavirus with them to distant corners of the country. An earlier international gathering of over 16,000 participants in Malaysia in February led to the transmission of the COVID-19 disease to several countries, including neighbouring Thailand and distant Brunei. In Pakistan, the Jamaat’s proposed assembly in March of 1,50,000 participants near Lahore was cancelled at the last minute. But by then, delegates from across the world had already landed at the venue, living in close proximity to one another. Following a screening of 35 members at their headquarters in Raiwind, 27 of the Tablighis tested positive for coronavirus.

On March 30, the Delhi government cordoned off the entire Nizamuddin locality once it became known that a startlingly high number of Covid cases detected across India until now were traceable to the meet in the national capital. Two days later, a total of 2,346 persons still residing at the Markaz were evacuated; 536 were admitted to hospital and 1,810 quarantined. An FIR has been filed against the Amir (chief) of the Jamaat, Maulana Muhammad Saad Kandhalawi, and several others for disregarding several directives of the Delhi government under the Epidemic Diseases Act prohibiting the gathering of more than 200 persons. Pleading not guilty, the Jamaat claims non-response from the authorities to its repeated pleas for help with transport to disperse those “stranded” at the Markaz (centre). Only an impartial probe can establish the role of the Jamaat as also the government authorities in the build-up of this hotspot within shouting distance of the Nizamuddin police station.
The Jamaat is by no means the only body culpable of gross neglect and irresponsible conduct in the current crisis. But it must account for its own idiotic role in the escalation of the pandemic. On January 30, a full six weeks before the mid-March meet in Delhi, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had declared a global health emergency. By mid-February, the coronavirus had surfaced in a number of south-east Asian countries. In the fast deteriorating scenario, why did the Jamaat leadership not cancel the event which included participants from COVID-19 affected countries?
 
No less disturbing is the audio-tape reportedly containing a message to his flock from Maulana Saad: “Don’t pay heed if they ask us to lock down mosques”; “There is no better place to die than a mosque”; “Allah is punishing us for abandoning mosques”; “Won’t pay heed if even doctors advise to not pray in mosques”. That this may not be a doctored audio tape is indicated by the fact that similar shocking sentiments have been expressed by the maulana’s counterparts from across the Wagah. Meanwhile, a second audio tape, also purportedly of the maulana, has surfaced, advising fellow Tablighis thus: “I am in self-quarantine in Delhi as advised by the doctors and appeal to all Jamaat members wherever they are in the country to follow the directives of the law”. The message warns that the coronavirus is an expression of Allah’s wrath because of the sins of us human beings.
Such may be the views of the Tablighi Jamaat, but by no means are they the consensus among Muslims. On March 20, Saudi Arabia suspended congregational prayers at Mecca and Medina. Taking their cue from a saying of the Prophet, similar restrictions have been placed on mosques and other holy places elsewhere in the Arab world as also in the self-proclaimed Islamic Republic of Iran. In India, the doors of mosques across India have remained shut since the national lockdown just as those of temples, churches and gurdwaras.

Yet, even as the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has warned that the world faces the most challenging crisis since World War II, the already rampant communal virus in India is gleefully piggy-riding on the novel coronavirus. The Tabligh’s highly irresponsible words and deeds are “fresh proof” to Hindutva that “Muslims are like that only”.
To their credit, the chief ministers of Kerala and West Bengal, Pinarayi Vijayan and Mamata Banerjee respectively, have been quick to caution against “sensationalising coronavirus” by giving it a communal complexion. Regretting that social media was being used for a “communal harvest” over COVID-19, Vijayan observed: “Coronavirus does not infect anyone looking at religion. What is important is that we stay together and remain vigilant. We should remember the exemplary action of all sections of society who have abandoned public gatherings at the behest of the government.”

In this moment of grave national and international crisis, such sagacious words should, above all, have come from the prime minister. But that, sadly, seems most unlikely. What we have, instead, are warnings from BJP leaders of “Islamic insurrection” and “corona jihad”. The Jamaat episode has also come in handy to the country’s lapdog media. It can now gleefully scapegoat Muslims, help divert public attention from the colossal mishandling of the crisis by the authorities. If the Jamaat leaders deserve an FIR what about the prime minister who with his thoughtless four-hour countdown for a national lockdown triggered a stampede across urban India (social distancing?) and a “reverse migration” that reminded some people of Partition times?
The need of the hour is national unity and international solidarity, not hate-driven divisive politics. Is that too much to expect from the BJP, the Sangh Parivar and its servile media?
This article first appeared in print edition on April 3 under the title “Tablighis, not Muslims”. The writer is convenor, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy, and co-editor, Sabrang India online

India: Why secular liberals are wrong about Nizamuddin - damage to public health caused by the Tablighi Jamaat meeting ...

Hindustan Times

Why secular liberals are wrong about Nizamuddin
The Jamaat was criminal in its behaviour. Don’t defend it just because Hindutva extremists are communalising the episode analysis Updated: Apr 02, 2020 13:51 IST

Vir Sanghvi

At a time when millions of Indians are making sacrifices to fight the coronavirus, this kind of behaviour is not just criminal, it amounts to attempted murder.(Biplov Bhuyan/HT PHOTO)

         

As the full scale of the damage to public health caused by the Tablighi Jamaat meeting — and its aftermath — in Delhi’s Nizamuddin area emerges, there are some things we can be clear about.
One of them is that attempts by Hindutva communalists to try and turn this into a Hindu-Muslim issue are despicable. It is shameful that TV channels allow terms like bio-jihad to be used or let guests suggest that those who visited the Markaz Nizamuddin were out to poison Hindus.
In fact, the vast majority of those who were infected were Muslim. So, far from being a jihad against Hindus, this an act that, so far at least, has risked more Muslim lives.
The second thing we can be certain of is that various authorities are not blameless. There appears to have been laxness in granting visas. The Delhi Police, who have a station located next to the Markaz, failed to clear the building. The police have released a video of an officer speaking the leaders of the Markaz and asking them to vacate the complex. So not only were the police aware of the situation but they did not act even after the Jamaat leaders ignored their warning.
The police video also contains clear references to Delhi Administration officials which suggests that even the state government failed to act.
This may not be the best time to fix the blame but there can be no doubt that there is lots of blame to go around.
Equally, it is as clear that the Jamaat leaders behaved with extreme irresponsibility, using religion to encourage people to stay inside the building and to ignore health warnings. The videos and audiotapes that have now been discovered show Jamaat clerics saying things like “Yes there is a virus. But 70,000 angels are with me and if they can’t save me, who will? This is the time for more such gatherings.” A voice, believed to be that of Maulana Saad, is heard saying, “This is a plan to end amity between Muslims, to alienate them from each other.”
These are not videos recorded in secret as part of some sting. The Jamaat actually put them up on its YouTube channel and advised people that social distancing was an elaborate conspiracy against Muslims.
At a time when millions of Indians are making sacrifices to fight the coronavirus, this kind of behaviour is not just criminal, it amounts to attempted murder.
All this seems clear cut enough. So, why is there a problem?
Well, because of what seems like a knee-jerk reaction from sections of the secular establishment.
I cannot believe that any sensible person — Hindu or Muslim, secular or communal — can approve of the primitive fundamentalism of the Jamaat, an orthodox group that would take Islam back several centuries to fulfil its objectives.
And yet, such is the nature of our political dialogue that many secular liberals believe they must respond vigorously to everything that Hindu communalists say. So, if Hindutva extremists and trolls are using terms like jihad and using the incident to attack all Muslims, then the answer must be to find some way to defend the Jamaat.
And so, we have had the sad and pathetic spectacle of various people who should know better trying every trick in the book to find excuses for the Jamaat.
All of Wednesday, we heard the excuses. There was, first of all, the constant blaming of the authorities. “Why didn’t the police break up the gathering?” “The IB was keeping a watch on the Markaz: why did it allow the foreigners who had attended to travel around India?” And so on.
There are valid questions but they, in no way, lessen the horror of what the Jammat did.
A murderer is no less responsible for his actions because an inept police force failed to capture him in time.
To point to the mistakes of others to suggest that the Jamaat is only one of many guilty parties is like saying that the Holocaust was only partly Adolf Hitler’s fault because the global community could have stopped him earlier but did not.
When their explanations fail to hold, some secularists then switch to a tactic that is often associated with their ideological opponents on the right — whataboutery.
Ok, they say, if this was wrong, then why was it okay for parliament to remain in session even when social distancing was the norm? What about Shivraj Singh Chauhan’s victory celebrations in Bhopal when legislators hugged each other despite the risk of coronavirus infection? Why was it okay for Yogi Adityanath to refuse to call off Ram Navmi celebrations till the very end? Or even, what about the migrant exodus after the lockdown where there was no physical distancing?
There are two answers to the whataboutery.
The first is that not only were all of these things wrong, they were widely criticized and condemned at the time — by many people, including those members of the secular establishment who are now using them to offer tactical cover to the Jamaat.
The second answer is that it does not matter what else happened. You cannot explain away the 2020 Delhi riots by saying that the 1984 riots were worse. All riots are bad and should be condemned. So what if legislators hugged each other at Shivraj Chauhan’s victory celebrations? How does it make the behaviour of the Jamaat any less criminal?
The problem with knee jerk secularism is that it can sometimes offer up excuses for the indefensible. We think we are defending the Muslim community from attacks by bigots.
In fact, we are damaging Indian secularism.
Each time secularists take a stand that runs totally counter to morality or even to common sense, we damage the liberal idea of India. Yes, communalists will play the Hindu-Muslim game. But we must never fall into the trap of doing the same thing.
We must condemn disgraceful and criminal behaviour wherever we see it. Once we start defending people only because they belong to a particular religion, we are no better than the religious bigots on the other side.
It makes no sense to say, as some are now claiming, that the incident had nothing to do with religion. This was a religious gathering. And the reasons for the behaviour of the congregation were explicitly religious — they were told that 70,000 angels would protect them.
Secularism does not mean that you rush to the defence to every Muslim, no matter what he or she has done. It means that you fight against all religious bigots and their primitive mindset that ignores science and promotes religious mumbo-jumbo.
The issue with the Jamaat gathering is not only that it endangered the lives of so many people. It is that it did so in the name of religion. In the process, it strengthened the communal Hindu propaganda that Muslims are fundamentalists who do not regard themselves as subject to Indian laws.
Of course, this is complete nonsense. The average Muslim is as sensible and as patriotic as the average Hindu. Many influential Muslims have condemned the Jamaat.
But when secularists feel obliged to find excuses for Muslim bigots, they obscure this reality. If India is to move forward, then all of us should unite to fight bigots, no matter whether they are Hindu or Muslim.
Find excuses for one or the other and the battle is already lost.
The views expressed are personal

India: March 2020 Congregation by Muslim Sect in Delhi in midst of COVID 19 health crisis - Statement issued by number of intellectuals in Delhi on the

Nadeem F. Paracha on spectacle of religiosity in the Pakistan cricket team

Smokers’ Corner: Faith in cricket
http://dawn.com/news/1028945/smokers-corner-faith-in-cricket/?commentPage=1&storyPage=1

Maharashtra: Communal Violence in Akot - A pre-planned conspiracy

A Fact-Finding Committee comprising a professor and some students of Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Wardha (MGAHV), social activists and journalists visited Akot (District Akola in Maharashtra) on 23rd November’ 2012. An incident of communal violence occurred on 23rd October in Akot in which four people were killed and several injured. 22 homes of Muslim community and about 25 shops belonging to both Hindu & Muslim communities were set ablaze. All the deceased were from lower-middle class background.

The Backdrop of Communal Violence

The pitch for communal violence was laid down on 19th October. There were 65 Durga Puja Mandals celebrating the nine day long Navratri festival in the whole of Akot town. Every Mandal is affiliated to a particular caste-based community e.g. Mali community, Kunbi community, Dhobi community etc. A Muslim boy inadvertently spitted while passing alongside a Mandal belonging to Dhobi and Bhoi community whose honchos belonged to Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena, and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). He was accompanied by his friend of same age. The spitting did not even reach closer to the idol but a few droplets of saliva certainly fell down on the curtain. The boy was caught by the Mandal workers, was beaten up and held hostage on the venue. A crowd gathered after the ensuing ruckus and a person named Shoaib reached there to understand the goings-on; he intervened to a certain extent and tried to placate the Mandal workers. He urged them to consider the age of the boy, who was just seven or eight years old. The Mandal workers even said that today these people are spitting on the idol, and tomorrow they would do so on our faces. Shoaib, however, managed to settle the matter and free the boy from their hostage. The news of the incident spread in the surrounding areas after half an hour or so. A person named Aijaz, who is a tailor by profession and whose shop is located close to where the incident occurred, came over to workers and sought to find out what was it all about; he, too, then returned to his shop.
[ . . . ]

FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article3427.html

India: The Bareilly factor

(The Indian Express, March 24, 2010)


by Imtiaz Ahmad

Bareilly’s history of communal harmony means the recent riots have been an anomaly. It shows, however, that while Muslims project themselves as a unity and are similarly perceived by others, this unity has never been real. In Bareilly, the fundamental cleavage has been between Barelwis and Deobandis.

This cleavage dates back to the 19th century, traceable to the theological line propagated by Ahmad Raza Khan who lived in Bareilly. He distinguished his theological line from Deoband, the theological seminary located further west, in Saharanpur — some whose followers he described as “Wahhabis”, after the reactionary religious movement which sought to rid Islam in India of local accretions. The Barelwis refer to themselves as “Sunnis”, implying thereby that the Deobandis and other groups are not. The Deobandis and other antagonists make similar claims about them.

The differences between the two groups are not merely theological. They relate as much to Islamic practice. The Barelwis are somewhat eclectic, insisting that many of the ritual practices found among Muslims as a result of local influences are perfectly tenable. For example, they allow the veneration of saints, as well as using saints as intercessors between God and man. They also endorse the ritual offering of obeisance to the dead. The Deobandis are strongly opposed to the persistence of such practices, regarding them as remnants of a Hindu past. They want to stamp out such ritual practices and purify Islam. The Tablighi Jamat, whose founder himself was a Deoband product, has been active in trying to dissuade Muslims from adhering to such accretions and emphasise the practice of Islam’s fundamentals.

These differences over theology and ritual practices have led to rioting and conflict not only in Bareilly, but also in other parts of the country where people of Barelwi persuasion are found in substantial numbers. Unlike Hindu-Muslim conflict, Bareilly has witnessed Barelwi-Deobandi riots on several occasions in the past. Over the years, the level of conflict has worsened. Each regards the other as non-believers or kaffirs. Mosques in Bareilly, and now in many other towns and cities, carry a signboard announcing that it is a Barelwi mosque and non-Barelwis cannot pray there. If missionaries of the Tablighi Jamat ever use the mosque to propagate their ideology, the mosque is washed and cleansed.

One incident eloquently brings out the mutual antagonism took place at a funeral prayer, at which people of both persuasions joined. The prayer leader was a Deobandi; Barelwi clerics subsequently pronounced that the nikah, or marriage contracts, of all the Barelwis who had joined the prayer were thereby annulled and they must go through the nikah ceremony with their spouses afresh. Such antagonism is more distinctly visible among society’s lower classes; upper classes, whether of Deobandis and Barelwis, recognise these differences but quite often ignore them for marriage and similar purposes.

What sustains such theological and ritual differences are each group’s madrasas, which claim to teach Islam to Muslims, but in practice they teach them Islam as propagated by their distinct theological line. The students in these madrasas come from poor families in backward areas. Soon enough, the relationship between these students and founders of madrasas build up into a strong patron-client relationship because of the material help they receive in the form of food and free education. Subsequently, these students go on to their own madrasas and end up becoming more loyal than the king, as it were, to the theological line in which they have been trained. Thus, the antagonism of faith is strengthened and spread far and wide.

The Barelwi cleric, Tauquir Raza Khan, tried some time ago to bring the two groups together. He started declaring that Muslims should take to martyrdom — meaning that irrespective of theological differences they should act as one. His position was soon contested by other Barelwis, who went on to exhort their theological brethren not to be misguided by Tauquir Raza Khan, not to join hands and interact with the Deobandis. Even a cataclysmic event like the riot could not succeed in bringing the two lines of persuasion together.

In the face of this glaring chasm, an explanation for the communal riot must be found in the changing dynamics of residential patterns in the city. Historically, Hindus and Muslims have lived interspersed in the city. With the emergence of large colonies on the outskirts, Hindus have been moving out to new colonies. Muslims are not averse to this development as it would reduce population pressure. The popularity of Varun Gandhi-style politics in the Bundelkhand region has added to the tussle. These appear to be more potent factors than any kind of Muslim communal solidarity.

The writer is a former professor of political sociology, JNU

Bhagat Singh writings on combating communalism, untouchability

http://www.sacw.net/article929.html

“Man does not live by politics alone”-Lenin

S Irfan Habib unveils the revolutionary Bhagat Singh’s literary side

Little is known about the revolutionary nationalists beyond their daring exploits leading to supreme sacrifice for the motherland. All of them were not merely bundles of emotion, ever ready to kill or die for the freedom of India. Quite a few of them were serious thinkers, besides being active revolutionaries. They read voraciously about the world politics and wrote extensively about Indian politics, economy, society and culture. Bhagat Singh, one of the most heroic amongst them, was one such extraordinarily gifted young thinker and writer.

His intellectual legacy needs to be remembered in these troubled times, both in India and Pakistan. He fought most of his battles, intellectual as well as otherwise, in Lahore, till he was hanged on the outskirts of the city. I strongly feel that Bhagat Singh’s revolutionary bequest is our collective memory and should not be divided by political borders.

The body of serious writings, philosophical, thought-provoking and critical, which Bhagat Singh has left behind, would place him in the ranks of Keats and Shelley who died as young. Unfortunately, romantic poetry puts you on a pedestal, whereas hard words, painfully true words, which questions society and systems are too uncomfortable to remember. Bhagat Singh not only set high standards as a great martyr, he also left behind a rich legacy as a journalist who worked for Kirti, Arjun and Pratap, well known papers of their times. Hardly anything is known about his vocation as a scribe and the issues he dealt with in his articles. These focused on the various aspects of the nationalist struggle, combating communalism, untouchability, students and politics, world brotherhood etc. This piece is an attempt to set up Bhagat Singh as a potential role model for the aspiring journos.

Bhagat Singh did not merely wish to free India from colonial bondage but dreamt of independent India, which would be egalitarian and secular. This was reflected in his revolutionary activities as well as in his commitment as a sensitive journalist. I have chosen some of his articles to illustrate his priorities and obligations as a young scribe.

In the June 1928 issue of the Kirti, published from Amritsar, Bhagat Singh wrote two articles titled Achoot ka Sawaal (On Untouchability) and Sampradayik Dange aur unka Ilaj (Communal riots and their solutions). What Bhagat Singh wrote in 1928 appears to be contemporaneous even in 2008, which unfortunately proves how precious little has been done to resolve these questions. In the first piece, Bhagat Singh starts by saying that “our country is unique where six crore citizens are called untouchables and their mere touch defiles the upper castes. Gods get enraged if they enter the temples. It is shameful that such things are being practised in the twentieth century. We claim to be a spiritual country but hesitate to accept equality of all human beings while materialist Europe is talking of revolution since centuries. They had proclaimed equality during the American and French revolutions. However, we are still debating whether the untouchable is entitled for the sacred thread or can he read the Vedas or not. We are chagrined about discrimination against Indians in foreign lands, and whine that the English do not give us equal rights in India. Given our conduct, Bhagat Singh wondered, do we really have any right to complain about such matters?”

He also seriously engaged with the possible solutions to this malaise. The first decision for all of us should be “that we start believing that we all are born equal and our vocation, as well, need not divide us. If someone is born in a sweeper’s family that does not mean that he/she has to continue in the family profession cleaning shit all his life, with no right to participate in any developmental work”.

For him, this discrimination was directly responsible for conversions, which was a burning issue even in the 1920s. Despite his anti-colonialist fervour, he neither spewed venom against the missionaries nor did he instigate Hindus to kill and burn all those who had accepted the new faith. He was rather self-critical when he wrote “If you treat them worst than animals then they will surely join other religions where they will get more rights and will be treated like human beings. In this situation it will be futile to accuse Christianity and Islam of harming Hinduism”. Bhagat Singh was convinced that “no one would be forced or tempted to change faith if the age old inequalities are removed and we sincerely start believing that we are all equal and none is different either due to birth or vocation”. All those who have organized pogroms against the hapless Christians in Orissa should pause to ponder about the views of the revolutionary they claim to revere.

As a young writer, just out of his teens, Bhagat Singh was profoundly stirred by the communal upsurge of the 1920s. Expressing his anguish in the second article, he held some of the political leaders and the press responsible for inciting communalism. He believed that “there were a few sincere leaders, but their voice is easily swept away by the rising wave of communalism. In terms of political leadership, India had gone totally bankrupt”.

Bhagat Singh felt that journalism used to be a noble profession, which had now fallen from grace. Now they give bold and sensational headlines to incite people to kill each other in the name of religion. There were riots at several places simply because the local press behaved irresponsibly and indulged in rabble-rousing through their articles. Not much seems to have changed since Bhagat Singh wrote these lines. He categorically spelt out the duties of journalists and then also accused them of dereliction of duty. He wrote that “the real duty of the newspapers is to educate, to cleanse the minds of people, to save them from narrow sectarian divisiveness, and to eradicate communal feelings to promote the idea of common nationalism.Instead, their main objective seems to be spreading ignorance, preaching and propagating sectarianism and chauvinism, communalising people’s minds leading to the destruction of our composite culture and shared heritage”.

Bhagat Singh’s disenchantment needs to be placed in the context of the developments during the 1920s, which included the birth of the RSS and the Tablighi jamaat. Both these communal platforms further polarised the political leadership as well as the press, particularly the Hindi and Urdu press of the times. Its ugly manifestation can be seen today in the emergence of Hindutva in India and the increasing Talibanisation of Pakistan, both of them threats to peace and harmony in their respective nations.

(S Irfan Habib holds Maulana Azad Chair at the National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi. His most recent book is To Make the Deaf Hear: Ideology and Programme of Bhagat Singh and His Comrades)

The Faith over the pitch. Tabhligi Jamaat and The Cricket Pakistan team

Outlook Magazine Mar 12, 2007

cricket: pakistan

A Catch In The Deep

THE FAITH OVER THE PITCH. THE PAKISTAN TEAM IS RIVEN OVER THE PLAYERS' SOULS.

by Amir Mir

Long before the Islamists discovered their frightening zeal, Pakistani cricketers were considered a paragon of modern Muslims: they played flamboyantly, partied hard and didn't flaunt their religion publicly. They were the playboys of their times˜suave, educated and dashing; they had their one-night stands, clubbed and tippled; as great exponents of reverse swing as they were ardent admirers of fine legs. They had the lifestyle only stars have˜in any country, of any sport, of any religious persuasion.

Those days of cricketing insouciance are now memory, as are so many other aspects of secular life in Pakistan. Every prize presentation ceremony has captain Inzamam-ul-Haq begin his soundbite with "Bismillah (In the name of Allah)"; players huddle to pray on the ground during pre-match preparations; 'Islamic beards' are sported as an advertisement of their faith; batsmen have been known to cramp up because they fast and play during Ramzan.

The responsibility for this fervent religiosity are a clutch of players˜Inzy, Mushtaq Ahmed (bowling coach), Mohammed Yousuf, Saqlain Mushtaq, Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Malik and Yasser Hameed˜who have become members of the Tableeghi Jamaat, or the 'party of preachers'. The TJ, an exact Arabic translation of which is the Proselytising Group, occupies itself participating in functions organised to propagate Islam and stressing on the virtues of an 'authentic Islamic lifestyle'. TJ has invaded the dressing room˜they can be seen praying with players and reciting the Quran for the team's success. As TJ membership makes it incumbent upon a person to preach, Inzy reportedly went to Gujranwala, Punjab, on a three-day preaching tour, before flying off to South Africa for the recently concluded series.

Inzy's proclivity to mix religion with cricket has sparked accusations that he favours TJ players over those who are either non-religious or prefer to confine religion to their private lives. The non-Tableeghi group is led by vice-captain Younis Khan and includes Shoaib Akhtar, Mohammed Asif, Danish Kaneria, Imran Nazir, Abdul Razzaq etc. This divide often shadows differences between players. Though Inzy is said to detest Shoaib for his indiscipline, some in the team feel the real reason is the fast bowler's liberal views, the occasional pegs and his breathlessly busy night life.

A disgruntled team member who requested anonymity detailed to Outlook aspects of Inzy's religious passion. On tours abroad, one of the rooms is declared a 'prayer' room, where TJ players offer prayers and discuss religious issues. Accompanying the team is a former TV personality and TJ member, Naeem Butt, who stays in the team hotel. Butt arranges interactions between the cricketers and officer-bearers of the TJ chapter of the host country.

This palpable Islamisation prompted even President Pervez Musharraf to tell Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Dr Naseem Ashraf that players should go easy on religion and strike a balance between it and cricket. Ashraf subsequently warned the Tableeghi cricketers at a recent press conference, asking them to "stop exhibiting their religious beliefs in public". To Outlook, Ashraf confessed, "I have discussed the matter in detail with Inzamam, making it clear to him that religion is purely a private affair and there should not be any pressure on those who don't pray regularly. He assured me there is no pressure at all on any of the players to do anything they don't want to do."

So how has the flamboyant cricket team of the past become a Tableeghi Jamaat redoubt? The Islamisation of the team, in a way, has been in tandem with the transformation of society here. The process began under president Zia-ul Haq, under whose rule the TJ was even provided access to soldiers in the barracks.Simultaneously, the democratisation of cricket brought in players from semi-urban centres where religion can be a more prominent part of life. As ex-Test opener Mohsin Khan points out, "The current team's make-up is different from the earlier Pakistani sides, which drew from the educated and social elite in Lahore and Karachi. Currently, half the squad hails from outside of Pakistan's two major cities."

In the early days, Pakistani players may have been believers but didn't flaunt it. It was the otherwise hip Imran Khan who made it cool for cricketers to talk religion. His 'awakening' following retirement and his public, even strident, endorsement of Islam provided Islamists the cue to recruit cricketers to their cause. Among them was Maulana Tariq Jameel who, like Inzy, is a Multani, and a close associate of Maulana Abdul Wahab, the ameer of Pakistan's TJ chapter. He began to concertedly target the team once he had converted Saeed Anwar to the TJ cause. The stylish opener, a computer engineer by training, became a born-again Muslim in 2001, after the tragic death of his infant daughter Bismah. The traumatic experience prompted Anwar to find solace in religion˜he joined the TJ. His primary task: working on present and former cricketers to join the TJ and spread the message of Islam.

About his TJ experience, Anwar told Outlook, "There's only one aim in my life...follow Allah Almighty's path and prepare for the Day of Judgement. I am a different Saeed Anwar today, the material world to me is meaningless now. I have turned to Allah for solace and am committed to spread the religion worldwide."

So now religion has become a badge the cricketers are willing to wear publicly, particularly Inzy, whose diffident personality acquired an assertive edge under Maulana Jameel's influence. Perhaps religion provided Inzy an anchor in the glamourous and corporate world that cricket has become˜and which he as a Multani must have found alienating. With the captain under its sway, the TJ now had an open field, winning over players in numbers that divided the team into TJ and non-TJ groups.

Inzy himself denies any rift in the team. He told Outlook, "The team is selected purely on the basis of merit. There is no pressure on any player to join the five-times-a-day collective namaaz. Those who say otherwise have never offered prayers, nor have any links to Islam... which does not force anyone on the issue of religion." He furnishes proof of his contention. "Look at the players yourself. Only four players who toured South Africa˜Mohammed Yousuf, Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Malik and myself˜have beards. Our religious activities have never stopped a match." Inzy says the preaching sessions with Islamic scholars help instil unity in the team, and that his own piety enables him to overcome distractions on tours abroad.

Inzy has long sported a beard. But others wear it, critics allege, only as a show of allegiance to the captain, to boost their chances of getting into the squad. Saqlain and Mushtaq are counted among the prime examples. There's also the unique case of Mohammed Yousuf, who converted from Christianity and seemingly never shaved thereafter. Despite repeated denials, there aren't many takers for Yousuf's view˜that he didn't convert to boost his chances of becoming captain in the future.

Yousuf says: "My conversion is because of a change of heart...it's not a calculated move. Danish Kaneria is Hindu and there is no problem. Before my conversion, I had played for Pakistan for 10 long years and there had been no problem. I didn't do this to be captain. Islam is the true religion because it says that life after death is the real life; the better you prepare for it, the better your present life will be".

His transformation was not only confined to his faith, but extended to a change in name, appearance, behaviour˜and even performance on the field. The string of tall scores he made became a prompt line for those who say Allah favours those who turn to Him. Residing in a posh Lahore locality, and having recently bought a Mercedes, Yousuf told Outlook that he credits the "benediction from above" for the change in fortunes. He plans to repay his debts to Allah. How? "After I retire, I plan to serve God by devoting myself to preaching Islam to all those out there who have not been exposed to the real face of the religion."

Meanwhile, Mohsin Khan pooh-poohs the notion of religiosity helping players perform better. He points to the irony˜Saeed Anwar, Mushtaq Ahmed and Saqlain Mushtaq lost their form once they took to sporting beards. "Shahid Afridi too is following in their footsteps," he points out. But English-speaking opening batsman Salman Butt pleads for the positive impact Islam has had on the team. As for performance, Butt explains, "A lot of people work hard, but only those get to their destination who are lucky and have the help of God. We believe if we pray five times a day and go in the way of God, we will get help. That is our firm belief. It puts all of us in very good spirits, and has made us disciplined˜a definite change for the team."

Even coach Bob Woolmer recently admitted that religiosity has helped foster unity among players. He however added, "But there is the odd problem. You have to train the players with less intensity during the Ramzan, or do it at a time of the day when they have more strength. In some respects, this can be frustrating as a coach." The non-TJ group have a litany of other complaints though: the stifling atmosphere, charges of bias, mutual suspicion etc.

Former cricketer-turned-TJ man Agha Zahid says his organisation recruits sporting stars because "if they change their lifestyles, then others who idolise them would follow their example". For a society riven by religious passions that often, consciously or otherwise, shrinks the secular space, cricketer-preachers could unwittingly undermine Musharraf's enlightened moderation.

This shrinking of the secular space is perhaps already happening in the cricket team. As editor Najam Sethi says, "The issue is not about being religious. That is an individual choice. It is about flaunting it in a manner that seems to threaten some and pressure others to follow suit. The Pakistani team must be talked to about the image the world has of men with unkempt beards. The team must build a good image for itself, if for nothing else than for the sake of gaining a neutral crowd watching the game." For Allah's cricketers, these are minor matters.