Skip to main content

Let’s Dump Secularism! Its Icons have already done so!

On 17th June 2007 Pratibha Devsing Patil made a remark on the Purdah system, while addressing a congregation of Rajputs in Udaipur: “Women have always been respected in the Indian culture. The purdah system was introduced to protect them from the Muslim invaders." However, times have changed, she said. “India is now independent and hence, the systems should also change. Now that women are progressing in every field, we should morally support and encourage them by leaving such practices behind”, she advised.

On 30th March 2009 Justice Markandeya Katju speaking for a bench headed by Justice Raveendran observed while rejecting the plea of a Muslim student that he should be permitted to sport a beard in his convent school, “Secularism cannot be overstretched and that ‘Talibanisation’ of the country cannot be permitted. We don't want to have Talibans in the country. Tomorrow a girl student may come and say that she wants to wear a burqa, can we allow it".

The former is presently the President of India while the latter is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. The former criticized the Purdah saying it was introduced to protect Rajput women from Muslim invaders, while the latter criticized the Purdah saying it would Talibanise India and he didn't want to have Talibans in the country.

Note: Both are icons of secular, democratic India. Both blame Muslims for purdah/burka. The difference being that Pratibha Devsing Patil does not call Rajput women as Talibans. She is content with saying that the hapless Hindu ladies used purdah to protect themselves from the debauched Muslim invaders (sorry to put words in the mouth of the President, but purdah can only prevent debauchery, not from swords and guns of the invaders). Markandey Katju opines that Muslims sporting a beard or wearing a burka is tantamount to Talibanisation of India. He like any ‘good Indian’ says he does not want Talibans in the country. So, in effect all Muslim men with a beard and all Muslim women with a burka in India are Talibans according to him.

Secularism means ‘Separation of religion from life’s affairs’ or differently put, that the State will not have any religion. Article 25 of the ‘Sovereign’ Constitution of ‘Secular’ India grants its citizens the Fundamental Right to practice and propagate their religion and that the State will not interfere in the religious beliefs of its citizens. Great as it sounds; one asks who is meant by ‘The State’. Is the executive head of a country i.e. the President or the highest office in the judiciary i.e. the judge of the apex court, the State? Pratibha Devsing Patil and Markandey Katju are both crucial elements of ‘The Indian State’. Both are Hindu by religion. Both have criticized Muslims in their own ways, inculcating disgust towards Muslims as demonstrated in the aforementioned paragraphs. ‘Muslim invaders’ and ‘Talibans of India’ are no praises. They will only foster disgust for Muslims in India.

As a Muslim may I ask (1) Are they both secular in their expressions? (2) Have Fundamental Rights of Muslims to practice and propagate their religion been trampled by utterances of the two persons? (3) As institutions in themselves (being in the position they are), has the State not transgressed the very basic ideals which India claims to espouse? If the answer to the above three questions is Yes, then the vital question is: Why should common Indian in general and Muslims in particular, keep secularism so dear to their hearts? If Muslims say they want Shariah to govern them and Islam to be the foundation of the State, or when RSS say they want a Hindu rashtra, at least they are honest to say what they believe in.

It is intellectual dishonesty to say that India is secular or that these institutional personalities as the two above are secular. It makes more sense that Hindutva forces and Muslim activists for their own reasons say they don’t want a secular India.

2/4/09

Abu Farhaan

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran