Practice What You Preach

The paper accepted that this was not an appropriate way to demonstrate, but, in the very next sentence, it sought to justify this behaviour. Thus, it commented: […] the Muslims took out an angry procession on May 11, and a Muslim MLA, Mr. A.R. Khan, in his muddle-headedness, garlanded an effigy of Mr. Bal Thackeray with worn-out chappals. No level-headed Muslim approves of the Congress legislator’s indecent manner of protest. But one need not strain one’s common sense to conclude that the initial provocation had come from the Shiv Sena chief. The statements in the two above-quoted passages clearly contradict each other. In the first statement, the paper indicates that the Prophet and his Companions did not get agitated in the wake of grave provocations by their opponents. They ignored these provocations and acted in a positive manner. On the other hand, however, the second statement claims that, when faced with a provocation, people will definitely react to it. The Prophet’s sunnat or practice teaches us that if we are attacked with stones, we must not reply, even with mere words. But, according to this Muslim paper, if Muslims react to words with chappals (slippers), they would still supposedly be in the right, because, so this paper claims, they are simply reacting to a provocation! This twisted logic is not a unique feature of this paper alone. Rather, today, all Muslim papers and all Muslim leaders are victims of this contradiction. And it is this contradiction that has made all the efforts of Muslims to fail miserably. When it comes to writing and speaking about Islam, our leaders present glowing tributes to it. But when it comes to the practical application or expression of Islam, they do just the opposite—they begin to think and act in terms of communal interests and prejudices. This indicates that Islam is now no longer a religion to be followed for Muslims,