SOROOR AHMED analyses the pre-election scenario, and taking guidance from the Holy Qur’an advises Muslim leaders to keep in mind the long term interest of the community, and not to allow the communal forces gain strength.
“Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious. Within 10 years – Allah’s is the command in the former case and in the latter – and in that day believers will rejoice, in Allah’s help to victory. He helps to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful. It is a promise of Allah.”
Like in many places the first six verses of Surah Al-Rum give political training to the followers of Islam. But unfortunately many of us are unable to make out anything from them.
It talks about the battle between the Romans and the Persians, in which the latter triumphed. This victory of the Persians was celebrated by the pagans of Makkah as, in their opinion, the Zoroastrian Persians were ideologically closer to them. By that equation the Muslims were sympathetic towards the Christian Romans, who were at least the followers of Jesus Christ, the last Prophet before Muhammad (peace be to them).
The above verses make two prophecies. They said that in the next few (less than 10) years the Romans “after their defeat will be victorious” and “in that day believers will rejoice.”
The Persians defeated the Romans in 613-15 C.E. The Romans lost Syria, Palestine, Egypt and a large part of modern Turkey. However, as per the Qur’anic prophecy, the equation changed and the Christian Romans took revenge in 624 C.E. And when the news of the victory came, the Muslims were really rejoicing after their own triumph in the Battle of Badr in 2 Hijri (2 A.H.).
It needs to be made very clear that apparently the Romans were no less dangerous to Islam. Their empire was not only confined just north to Arabia; but even across the Red Sea in the west where a Christian ruler was in power. Even in the South, that is Yemen, it was the Christians who were posing problems to the Muslims. Only 50 days before the birth of Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless and greet him) a Christian army from South led by General Abraha invaded Makkah with the view to attacking and destroying (God forbid) Ka’aba. However, their army was destroyed by pebbles dropped by a flock of birds (See Surah Al-Feel).
Character-wise too, the Roman Emperor Hercules was a corrupt person. Still the sympathy of the Muslims was tilted towards the Romans because in the larger context their victory was good for the nascent and growing Islamic society. However, when Islam really grew powerful, it had to take on both the Christian Romans and the Zoroastrian Persians as they both started seeing it as a challenge.
Here we have been asked to choose between the two evils. In today’s context we have to choose between the two political parties or alliances. The policy should not always be the same, but you will have to understand as to who is more dangerous for the larger cause of humanity. If between the erstwhile Communist Soviet Union and Capitalist United States Muslims opted for the latter; it was not out of love for it. Mind it the Americans always espoused the cause of the Zionist occupants of Al-Aqsa yet we for a moment were soft towards them.
Similarly, if Muslims voted for the UPA and not NDA, it is simply because of the political strategy. In fact all the right thinking groups or communities throw their weight behind the party which supports their cause.
If the Muslims of UP stood behind Mulayam Singh Yadav, it was only because he was among the few leaders who stood solidly against the Hindutva onslaught between 1989 and 1993, in which thousands of people lost their lives. If the Muslim voters of Bihar still root for Lalu Prasad, it is not because of any high moral character, but because he not only stopped the communal holocaust in Bihar, threw Lal Krishna Advani behind bars, but also provided maximum job opportunities for the Muslims. And if they are not fascinated by Nitish Kumar, it is not because of his own personality, but because he is the one who always helped the BJP in the time of crisis – the whole Godhra incident is one such example during which he was the railway minister and remained a mute spectator.
Similarly in other states, be it Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, etc. the Muslims never voted for the Congress because of its secularism. Everyone knows that Congress pursued soft-Hindutva in comparison to the rabid-Moditva by the BJP. After the Gujarat holocaust of 2002 only fools can claim that when the BJP will be in power it will become responsible, in fact it became recklessly criminal when in power.
Similar logic was given by some Muslims – true their number was very few – in UP before the 1992 demolition of Babri Masjid. They said that with the BJP then in power there was no likelihood of the destruction of the Babri Masjid. In fact it was demolished when it was in power in the state; and one of those killed in the rioting on the very first day was the BJP minority cell leader of Ayodhya.
What is happening in India is that unfortunately the political consciousness as taught by the Qur’an eludes those who claim that they know Islam most – that is the Ulema. They do not know what politics is, what should be the tactic of the pressure groups and what is the differences between the political executive and permanent executive. They neither guide about short-term alternative nor work for any long-term strategy.
Be it Lucknow, Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Kolkata, Guwahati or Patna these people, with little understanding of politics, have hijacked the politics of the Muslims. Recently one of the Ulema, while delivering a speech in Delhi, spoke some unprintable and foul language against Sonia Gandhi. Such words were never used against her by even her bitterest critic and opponent, Lal Krishna Advani. Similarly some years back Ahmad Bukhari publicly used another unprintable word against Shabana Azmi. The TV viewers were taken aback by vulgar use of language.
The tragedy is that these politically immature Ulema are getting more coverage in the media as they make a very good story. Just when the need of the hour is maturity, some community leaders are simply playing into the hands of the Moditva. They are vitiating and polarising the atmosphere for the long-term benefit of the Sangh Parivar.
It is not that the Muslims should unconditionally go on supporting the Congress forever. What is being argued is that this is not the way to play politics. These people do not know the role played by the Moditva and Hindutva forces in the entire state machinery. The permanent executives can wreak havoc in the system and land the political executive in trouble.
One will have to understand how a democratic system works. If we cannot do that, we should simply withdraw from politics. Otherwise instead of helping them in playing a constructive role and regaining the neglected rights of Muslims, we may harm them.