LOL!
I hadn't clicked on the links when i wrote my earlier response....
Great job...and thanx for making me aware of the fate of those.......things...
This is the only serious denunciation I have ever heard....Other moderates just hide behind words on paper. Where is the strength of convictions ?
For those who do not know, Imam Bukhari holds the highest religious seat of Islam in India. Shabana Azmi is the member of Parliament, representing the moderate Moslems....or so she says....
An imam must first be a good Muslim
tehelka.com.
Piety and etiquette are the true marks of a Muslim - Imam Bukhari, with his crass retort to Shabana Azmi, proved that he lacks both, says Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
New Delhi, October 23
Etiquette is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. It is not an outward adornment. The word husn-ul-akhlaq (the grace of righteous conduct) is associated with Prophet Mohammad because he was gentle and graceful in speech and gesture. Disgraceful behaviour and speech is then surely un-Islamic.
The shahi imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Shah Bukhari, broke the norm of accepted Islamic behaviour with his rude retort to actress and member of the Rajya Sabha, Shabana Azmi (see also: interview with Shabana Azmi), when he made a derogatory reference to the actress' profession, and even called her "tawaif" (nautch girl) in the course of a heated television debate on Sunday. He said, "Mein naachne gaane waale tawaif ko jawab nahin deta. (I do not respond to a singing, dancing nautch girl.)"
He was, of course, responding to a remark by Azmi that it would be better if he were dropped at Kandahar, so he can fight with fellow-mujahideen, and the country could be rid of a fanatical voice.
Agreed, there was provocation enough there. Azmi could have made her point in a manner more dignified than the one she chose to adopt. Her attitude towards Bukhari was one of utter contempt. The man no doubt deserves it - he has neither the piety, nor the learning, befitting his position as "imam" of Delhi's Jama Masjid. His response to Azmi only went to prove conclusively that he lacks the grace of an imam.
But that indeed is the test. While Azmi displayed the intolerance of the cocktail-circuit liberal intellectuals, who do not know how to spar with opponents not of the same social class as them with due respect, Bukhari showed that he was indeed uncouth. Most importantly, he was once again failing to be a Muslim.
For the "imam" to be un-Islamic is a more serious failing than Azmi's rude humour.
Azmi's battle with Bukhari was not just that of a liberal against a religious right-winger. She was also fighting a man whom the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has adopted as one of their own. Bukhari had gone to Pakistan some months ago as part of Track II diplomacy. There is nothing strange about that - right-wingers of all faiths secretly huddle together.
But Bukhari could have been nailed in a different manner. The drawing-room banter of the chattering classes of India cannot be carried into public fora, and Azmi did exactly that.
That does not, however, let Bukhari off the hook. He has to restrain himself because he is the leader of the community, deservedly or otherwise.
The fault with Bukhari is not his illiberalism. He has every right to be a conservative. But his responsibility lies in interpreting the religion in the best light, and do it in a dignified and gentle manner. There is no room for a rabblerouser "imam" in Islam. The "imam" has always to be a voice of reason and restraint.
And the "imams" in present-day Islam fail the test.
The title "shahi imam" is an incongruity in Islam. Even a great Islamic thinker like Al Ghazali is known as Imam Ghazali. There are no princely hierarchies in Islam. And one of the many things that Bukhari should be doing is to renounce the title. Now that would be a gesture in consonance with the spirit of Islam.
Bukhari would have been justified if he had supported the poor people of Afghanistan, who have been victims of the Soviet invasion, of the internecine battles of the warlords, and of the fanatical frenzy of the Taliban.
Instead, he voices support for Osama bin Laden, who is at best a gunman. He is far from being either a mujahideen or a potential martyr as understood in Islam. Bukhari was obviously playing to the gallery, not quite what one expects of an imam.
It is also to be noted that unlike other major religions, there is no place for an anointed clergy in Islam. It is ironical that the only religion that is not burdened with a professional priesthood should be plagued by semi-literate clerics, who pretend to represent the community.
Ahmed Shah Bukhari, unfortunately, fits the bill of an infuriated and ignorant cleric. And his remark against Azmi is proof that he lacks piety and etiquette, the two inextricable qualities of a true Muslim.
'Who among Muslims listens to Imam Bukhari?'
Eminent film actor and activist Shabana Azmi is one of the vocal liberal-moderate voices of Indian Muslims. During a recent television debate on Muslim identity, she asked a question of Imam Bukhari, who shocked everyone around with his retort - "Main nachne-gaane wali tawaif ko jawaab nahin deta." <Translated, it means : I do not need to respond to a protitute who earns her living by dancing and singing>. Shabana speaks to Arnab Pratim Dutta about the Imam and their likes, and the creation of a false stereotype of such boors as representative of the Muslim voice
New Delhi, October 23
You have been speaking on the Afghan-American crisis. How do you look at the September 11 strikes?
I unequivocally condemn the terrorist attack on the United States. You see, nothing can justify the killing of 7,000 innocent people. But let me point out to you that post September 11, there seems to be a concerted effort to polarise the world into two camps - the "civilised" Western world and the "barbaric" Islamic world. It is a matter of great concern and deep anguish for me.
I believe the pan-Islamic ummah is a myth. Islam is not a monolith. It is spread over so many countries - more than 50 countries - and takes on the colour and the culture of the country in which it resides. So, it speaks in the moderate voice, the liberal voice, the reformist voice, the conservative and the fundamentalist voice. To equate the entire Islamic world with terrorism is both untrue and unfair. It is strange that the Hiroshima bombings were never called Christian terrorism; the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's (LTTE) actions are never called Hindu terrorism. Or for that matter, would you describe Irish Republican Army (IRA) actions as Christian terrorism? Then why give September 11 attack the tag of "Islamic terrorism"?
How do you think this "two camps" theory crept in?
I feel that the Western media is responsible for this. The manner of its portrayal of September 11 is responsible for creating this sort of impression about Islam. I would even blame US President George W Bush for this. After all, he was the first to say: you are either with us, or with the terrorists. The irresponsible utterances of people like Imam Bukhari added further fuel to fire. Their call for jehad and support of the Taliban jeopardises Indian Muslims.
In a recent television debate, Imam Bukhari called you a "nachne-gaane wali tawaif" (a prostitute who sings and dances). What's your reaction?
Let me tell you, it does not bother me a wee bit. In fact, I feel sorry for the poor fellow. It shows him up for what he is and the kind of respect he has for women, for artistes and for those who dare to challenge him.
Do you think he will continue to speak in the same language?
This one statement will do him great damage, because he speaks in the name of Islam, and Islam accords the greatest respect to women. Muslims can now see through him.
But which section of Muslims listens to moderates such as you?
It is a myth, you know. May I ask you, who among Muslims listens to Bukhari? I will give you an example to convince you. You see, a couple of years ago, Imam Bukhari had issued a fatwa that all Muslims must vote for a particular candidate in his own Muslim-dominated Jama Masjid area. That candidate even lost his election deposit. So much for the following he has. The likes of the Imam are given legitimacy not by the people but by the political leadership. Over the years, every time a Muslim issue needs to be addressed, political leaders consult the rabid rabblerousers, never the moderates. For their own petty political ends, politicians build people like Imam Bukhari.
How far are Muslims responsible for such a situation?
Would you hold the entire Hindu community responsible for Ashok Singhal's act? The problem is that the Partition in 1947 left such deep scars on the Muslims who stayed behind, that they deliberately kept away from the affairs of their community for fear of being called "communal". The moderate Muslim did not speak up when a Muslim was butchered in Malliana, killed in Bhiwandi, annihilated in Moradabad. The Babri Masjid demolition was a watershed for the moderate Muslim. He realised that he had to respond to the needs of his community. Ever since, the moderate Muslim has always spoken up.
But Muslims have no moderate leadership. That perhaps is why men like Bukhari take on the mantle of the community's representatives. Who do you think represents Muslims - the moderate or the fundamentalist?
No, men like Bukhari are the self-appointed leaders, who speak on behalf of Muslims of their own accord. Look at it this way - the media reported that Bukhari called for jihad. Did the media report that not a single Muslim has taken up his call? Did anyone from Delhi go on jihad? You see, the self appointed fundamentalist leaders do not provide any solutions for this - they re-enforce only the "communal" aspects of Muslim identity, using rhetoric to whip up communal frenzy. The moderate, on the other hand, speaks about education, employment and health. Muslims have now learnt the pitfalls of falling into the fundamentalist trap. Therefore, they do not listen to the call of the fanatics.
Do you think that Indian Muslims are constantly suspected and asked to prove their loyalty?
Yes. We are constantly asked to prove our loyalty for no rhyme or reason. This disgusts a person like me. But you see, this time around, it is not only the 15 crore Indian Muslims who are being questioned. All Muslims around the globe are being asked to pay the price. Even American Muslims are living in terror. It is a dangerous situation.
But how does one go about correcting the prevailing misperception of Muslims in India?
I don't know. I can tell you, however, that there is too much opinion, and too little information, even about Indian Muslims. We need to stop knee-jerk reactions and work against prejudice. The media has an extremely important role to play in providing various shades of opinion, and focussing on the grey areas. Let us not think in black and white terms. And let us stop playing up fanatics. This will go some way in changing the stereotype image of Muslims.
tehelka.com.
Imam Bukhari vs Shabana Azmi:
who represents the Indian Muslim?
Zafar Agha writes about the average Indian Muslim - deprived of
a voice and typecast in a patently unfair manner by the media and
majority communalists, who pick up the rabblerousing Imam Bukhari
rhetoric more readily than the voices of sanity in the community
New Delhi, October 22
Who represents Muslims in this country: Shahi Imam Maulana Abdullah Bukhari or famous film personality Shabana Azmi? There is, of course, no parallel between the two. The Shahi Imam is the classic rabblerouser - a bearded Muslim cleric, who uses the pulpit to rouse Muslim passions along communal lines. Imam Bukhari is known for issuing fatwas at the drop of a hat. Be it the war in Afghanistan, or the issue of rights for women divorcees, the Shahi Imam calls to Muslims, asking them to stand up in defence of Islam.
Is Bukhari the classic Muslim, necessarily accepted as the representative of the Muslim community in India? Or should Shabana Azmi be the one counted as among the key voices of the Muslim community? Azmi is no stereotypical Muslim. She wears a bindi on her forehead and does not cover her head in the traditional Muslim fashion. Shabana is an out-and-out liberal, who hails from the Left-leaning family of poet Kaifi Azmi. She vocally supports reforms for Muslim women, and vehemently fights all shades of fundamentalism - be it the Hindutva variety or Muslim fanaticism. Does this background qualify or disqualify her as representative of the Muslim voice on a sensitive issue, like the Afghan war?
This question is at the centre of a huge media debate. Imam Bukhari refuses to count Shabana as a Muslim voice at all, and Shabana blames the media for building fanatics like Bukhari as the only Muslim voice. "It is a huge community, where you have moderates, you have fanatics, you have all shades of opinion. How can you take a voice of a person like Imam Bukhari, and paint it as the community voice?" an angry Shabana asked the other day. "How can an actress be representative of Muslims," retorted Imam Bukhari, to Shabana's objection. So who is the classical Indian Muslim voice: a traditional cleric, or a moderate balanced Muslim?
Neither of the two, I would say. Fanatics like Imam Bukhari are an opportunist lot that cash in on Muslim sentiments for their own ends. The liberal-moderate voices, like Shabana Azmi, are too engrossed in their own worlds, standing up only once in a while to differ with clerics like Bukhari. They are but an occasional event in the world of the common Indian Muslim.
The average Indian Muslim world is abnormal - one that does not fit into any stereotype. They live and struggle for daily survival, like every other community. Like every Indian, they work to earn their bread; they face life as anyone would face it. In the secular context of survival, they need no cleric or Shabana Azmi to speak on their behalf.
The world of the Indian Muslim also involves the secular process of choosing a representative to speak for him/her in legislatures. A look at the Muslim voting pattern until the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took centrestage, would show that the representative of the Muslim has largely been the same as that of the majority community, the Hindus. Both Indian Hindus, as well as Indian Muslims, were largely voting for the Congress until 1977.
The post-emergency 1977 general elections were a watershed in Indian parliamentary history, when both Hindus and Muslims of north India together threw the Congress out of power, and attempted to weave an alternative to the Congress. One can, therefore, assume that secular political parties represented the secular-political Muslim community, just as much as they represented any other community.
Even beyond 1977, both the Hindus and the Muslims had been choosing identical political representatives for their secular concerns. In 1980, for instance, the average Indian voter of north India, irrespective of the religious community, was disillusioned with the Janata Party, and went back to the Congress, reposing faith in Indira Gandhi. Once again, in 1989, when V P Singh rode to power with his Janata Dal platform, the average Muslim voted for V P Singh, just as the Hindus did. So much so that Muslim leader Shahabuddin, with his communal Insaf Party, failed to win even his own parliamentary seat in 1989.
Even in the midst of the Ram temple-Babri mosque controversy, Indian Muslims looked to V P Singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Kashi Ram and Laloo Prasad Yadav as their leaders, rather than voting for a Muslim League-type communal political party. Ironically, the educated Hindu middleclass shifted loyalty to the Hindutva brand of politics, while the average Indian Muslim stuck to secular parties, despite facing the worst communal onslaught in post-partition Indian history. In secular terms and concerns, therefore, Sonia Gandhi, Jyoti Basu, Mulayam Singh Yadav or Laloo Prasad Yadav are as much Muslim voices, as they are Hindu voices.
Differences arise only when the Indian Muslim is facing a crisis - like demolition of the Babri mosque, the issue of personal laws, the status of the Urdu language, or when s/he is discriminated against in jobs for being a Muslim. These moments of identity crisis bring us back to our original question - who represents Muslim concerns in these situations: an Imam Bukhari or a Shabana Azmi?
Ironically, Muslims have not had the luxury of choice in these situations. Being in minority, they suffer, not unnaturally, from siege psychosis. At the end of the day, it cannot be refuted that riots do take place in this country, and that it is largely Muslims who die in communal riots. So, in the moments of identity crisis, leaders like Imam Bukhari step in and cash in on the Muslim sense of insecurity, while moderates like Shabana Azmi are pushed to the margins.
The media, as is its wont, laps up hot copy. People like Bukhari, therefore, make it to the headlines, provoking others like them to react. This, of course, goes to generate more interesting copy. In the bargain, Muslims are stereotyped as a fanatic community that only listens to clerics like Bukhari, and loves terrorists like Osama bin Laden. We have a situation where a person like Shabana Azmi has to fight to say: I am no Bukhari, but I am a Muslim; why don't you listen to me!
Even in this debate, though, the voice of the average Muslim does not count. Nobody cares for the fact that nowhere in India have Indian Muslims taken to the streets in solidarity with Osama bin Laden. Hindu communalists pick up one statement by Imam Bukhari, asking Muslims to rise in jihad for Osama, to label the entire community as inherently terrorist.
Who could correct this perception? The media? No, the media has no time for corrections. It just reports. But it needs to be said that as Bajrang Dal leader Vinay Katiyar, with his fanatic statements, cannot be the voice of the Hindu community, so Imam Bukhari does not speak for the entire Indian Muslim community.
Indian Muslims are caught in a communal bind - the Bukharis speak on behalf of them, and the majority communalists lap it up. The Katiyars thrive on the Bukharis. Perhaps, the need of the hour is that more Shabanas among the Muslims speak up, breaking the stereotype of the fanatic Muslim, led by a ranting cleric.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
