LEADER ARTICLE
Distorted Islam

actress shabana azmi's outburst against the shahi imam of jama masjid for his call for jehad in favour of osama bin laden is the first significant blow for liberal muslims. for too long liberal muslims have not spoken on behalf of their community for fear of being labelled communalists. for too long they have allowed the so-called secular parties to foist the likes of shahi imam on the muslims.for too long they have not raised their voices against pakistan-inspired insurgency in kashmir. the liberal muslims kept quiet when the storm raged over the shah bano case in 1986. they kept quiet when the congress opened a can of communal worms by allowing the shilanyas at ayodhya. they were mum when the advani rath rolled through the country and the babri masjid was demolished. they were mum when the dawood gang blasted mumbai's commercial centres and the shiv sena went on the rampage. the litany of their sins of quietitude is a long one. like the hindu middle class, liberal muslims (a tiny middle class) have left the political space to be filled by 'foisted' leaders. with their population thinly spread — except in kashmir, kerala and some districts of up, west bengal and bihar — no national muslim outfit arose. the indian union muslim league (kerala, karnataka, maharashtra), the ittehad ul-muslimeen (andhra pradesh), and the indian majlis (uttar pradesh), babri action committees and syed shahabuddin's insaf party have been little dots on india's political landscape, largely because of their antagonistic attitude. in this vacuum, mainstream parties adopted what the british did during the raj. just as the british built up sir syed ahmed khan and jinnah (both of whom once spoke of hindu-muslim unity and later preached separation) to cut the moderates like badruddin tyabji and maulana azad to size, the national parties have created puppets to woo the muslims. the result: the prominence of mullahs in politics. to garner muslim votes, indira gandhi created the shahi imam. the janata party used him in the 1977 elections. later v p singh propped him up. today, he believes he is the sole voice of the 150-million-strong muslim community. since the time of the prophet, the imams — called muftis and qazis — have been paid by the state to interpret the sharia to the common muslim. with the passage of time, these clerics developed worldly interests. in the indian context, they borrowed habits from the hindu priests like performing social ceremonies and accepting gifts. they declared themselves the keepers of quranic knowledge. outward symbols assumed more importance than the spirit of the quran. this one-sided projection of islam has stuck in the western mind since mediaeval times. and the saffron brigade is thriving on this image of islam. as montgomery watt says in his book, what is islam?: ''the difficulty is that we are the heirs of a deep-seated prejudice (against islam) which goes back to the war propaganda of mediaeval times. from about the eighth century, christian europe became conscious of islam as her great enemy, threatening in both the military and the spiritual sphere. in deadly fear christendom had to bolster confidence by placing the enemy in the most unfavourable light possible. the image created in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries continued to dominate european thinking about islam...(that)...it was a religion of violence, spread by the sword...it is a religion without asceticism, gaining adherents by pandering to their sexual appetites...'' in recent times, this image has been reinforced by the 1979 iranian revolution when the world saw the bearded ayatollahs take over iran and hold the american embassy staff hostage for 444 days. today islam has come to be identified with the mullahs with flowing beards and gowns, the taliban, burqa-clad women, madrassas and frenzied crowds. osama bin laden, with his deeds of september 11, has fuelled these primal prejudices against islam. stereotyping is back. the bombing against the taliban is being called a war between 'us' and 'them', a ''war for civilisation''. the terror strikes of september 11 have no islamic sanction. the quran says, ''fight those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. surely god does not love aggressors''. in fact, the 'greater jehad' refers to the individual's inward struggle for spiritual liberation. osama and his network are a band of fanatics who want to foist their brand of islam on the muslim world. the rabid saudi millionaire was in search of a country to implement this vision. and afghanistan was in search of a leader. he is using afghanistan as a springboard for his violent agenda. the liberals should take on the fundamentalists — the shahi imam and the sangh parivar — on their own turf: theology. the prophet preached reasoned debate. the first duty of a muslim, he stressed, is ikra (to learn). through his islamic injunctions, he brought order to a people steeped in gambling, drinking, idolatry and lust. as ghaffari says in his book shiaism, five-times-a-day namaz was made mandatory to foster discipline among the pagans. ramadan — the month-long month of fasting — was another step towards self-discipline. intoxicants, which were a major problem at the time, were banned because of their ill-effects, exacerbated by the hot climate of arabia. again, pork was forbidden for hygienic reasons as healthy pig-raising was not possible in the desert climate. the prophet advocated jehad only in self-defence, not for territorial gains. outward symbols — long beards, headgear and gowns — with which islam is associated today, have no quranic sanction. the initial conversions to islam in india (sind and kashmir) came about because of the sufi saints' message of peace. this message inspired the bhakti movement. because of their mixed following, many sufi saints were known by both hindu and muslim names. to give a few examples, the hindus revered lal shah qalandar as raja bhartari, pir patho as raja gopichand and pir haji mango as lal jasraj. liberal islam internalised many hindu customs. akbar the great, as historian martin mallard says, furthered these traditions by becoming the ''emperor of both hindus and muslims. he abolished jaziya on hindus and celebrated hindu festivals. he even wore a hindu mark between his eyes. he tried to find the path of nirvana under the direction of hindu holy men. he listened with great reverence to the gentle jains as they explained why it was wrong to take the life of even the lowliest creature''. liberal muslims have their job cut out.