The Indian judiciary will do great disservice to a free nation by even remotely encouraging the blasphemous, unauthorised regime of Islam
Last Friday, a local court in Udaipur transferred the tailor-beheading case to the National Investigative Agency (NIA). Even the Rajasthan Government, otherwise accused of soft-pedalling Muslim fanaticism, is treating the case as an act of terror with foreign linkage. The same day, however, a vacation Bench of the Supreme Court held Nupur Sharma morally culpable for the Udaipur killing. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Padrewala, orally observed that she was “single-handedly responsible” for what was happening in the country like the “unfortunate incident” in Udaipur. One is sure that Riyaz Akhtari and Ghaus Mohammed, arrested on charges of Udaipur murder, will not fail to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s observations during their trial.
Way back in September 1934, one Abdul Qayum stabbed to death Nathuramal Sharma inside the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind. The latter was waiting for his turn to be heard under Section 195 of Indian Penal Code for publication of a pamphlet on the history of Islam. The case of Abdul Qayum was argued by Barkat Ali, a barrister from Lahore. “He went to the length of saying” — as BR Ambedkar informs — “that Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of Koran” (Pakistan or Partition of India, P147). It would be unsurprising if Riyaz & Ghaus also argue that they had done nothing wrong according to the laws of Islam by beheading Kanhaiya Lal Teli, the tailor.
Nupur Sharma has received a flurry of death threats, from India and abroad, most of which she possibly could not see as they clogged her email account. These death threats are not arbitrary, but there is a definite basis to them in Islamic law. This explains why a large number of Muslims thought the same way, despite the fact that intimidation is punishable under law of the land. The answer could be found in a fatwa of Darul Ifta of Darul Uloom, Deoband, accessed online. An inquirer sought to know about the punishment of blasphemy against Prophet Mohammed in India, and under Islamic law respectively (Question ID=2019). The answer ie fatwa (1386/1226=B) says that punishing a criminal guilty is the duty of the Government not individuals though one should try one’s level best to punish such a perpetrator according to Indian Constitution. Under an Islamic country, the culprit is to be killed.
The acts of the enthusiasts, it is evident, are not without sanction in Islam. Those issuing death threats, or carrying out executions, feel self-righteous in doing so in the light of Islamic laws. Accepting even that Nupur had been wrong, no Maulana or Mufti has yet come forward to correct her on facts. Would that not have been the most civilised way of dealing with the issue? Only a Salafi school cleric from Pakistan, Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza, was discerning enough to state that what Nupur said was evidently under provocation from the Muslim side. Her approach was that if Muslims wish to mock Hinduism on theological ground, they must not overlook their own Achilles’ heel.
It is speculative if Christians of India would come out with kitchen knives if Nupur had expressed grave doubts on Jesus Christ’s miracles of loaves and fishes raining from heaven. Or would the Indian ambassador to Israel Sanjeev Singla would have been hurriedly summoned to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs at 9, Yitzhak Rabin Boulevard at Kiryat HaLeom in Jerusalem, if Nupur had expressed a negative opinion on certain acts of Moses or Prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament? Neither Judaism nor Christianity at present enforces blasphemy, which explains why no Christian or Jew views defending the honour of their Prophets with the aid of swords or guns as part of their religion. This allows critical and historical examination of those religions possible without any fear of lethal reprisal. Any such exercise with regard to Islam is fraught with mortal risk although, at the same time, Islam is being hailed as ‘religion of peace’. This dichotomy begs for an answer.
On June 8, 1992, prominent Egyptian professor, writer and human rights activist Farag Foda was assassinated in Cairo by the members of Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiyya. Foga often dared advocates of Sharia rule in Egypt to show how possibly they would deal with modern problems like housing shortage in Cairo. Foda had been accused of blasphemy by Al-Azhar University, though that did not authorise his assassination by member of an Islamist organisation. His killer Abu El’Ela Abdrabu, released from prison in 2012, later said in a television interview that the punishment of an apostate (one who leaves Islam) is death, even if he repents.
In India, the emphasis has always been on tolerating Muslims. Going into fundamentals of Islam, therefore, appeared to be going for the jugular of the religion. Even the judiciary, the lighthouse of rationality, felt shaken by it.
In July 2009, Justices
RV Raveendran and Markandeya Katju had buckled under Islamist pressure to withdraw a Supreme Court order (March 30, 2009) that equated Muslims insistence on keeping beard with “Talibanisation” of India. May Peace be upon us!
(The writer is an author and independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.)
