A Question of Attitudes
Al-Risala (English), August 1989, p. 12
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is named as the default author of the periodical; a piece that carries another writer’s byline is credited to that writer.
A Question of Attitudes
1989 8 August 12-14 A Question of Attitudes (870) When I was in Moradabad in May, 1983, I made two speeches, one on religious obligations, and the other on the building up of the community. When the latter speech was over, a member of the audience seemingly an educated person – raised two issues, the first of which was that whatever I had said on the subject of community building was concerned exclusively with causes. But the experience of Moradabad had little in common with what might have seemed to be parallel situation. In the latter stages of the Moradabad riots in 1980, the Muslims were so tightly encircled that there was no possible escape route. At that point there was no remedy but prayer. All of the Muslims then joined in prayers, whereupon there ensued a miraculous change in the situation, and peace prevailed in the city. The questioner’s second point was that if the whole matter rested on causes, then, this being so, all Muslims and non-Muslims were equal. How then could Muslims lay claim to any distinction as a community?
In answer to the first question, I pointed out that what I had said concerned the common law (Quran 13:11) and that what the questioner had said concerned the law on situation of distress (iztirar), or emergency, (Quran 27:62). There is no doubt about it that when an individual, or a group, feels trapped in a situation from which there is apparently no escape, and calls upon God from the very heart, then God does come to the rescue (Joseph, 22-23). But, as is clear from the Quran, God’s help in times of distress is not confined only to Muslims but may be given to anyone who needs it. We cannot, therefore, derive laws of general application from particular situation of distress.
What I said applied to the situation before the riot had broken out. And what the questioner said related to what took place after the riot had spread. The post-riot situation – a situation of emergency – is an entirely separate issue. And then, what steps should be taken to keep the atmosphere from reaching the inflammable stage is again a wholly different question.
May I say that in modern times Muslims have lost their traditional fortitude: they allow themselves to be provoked by very minor considerations. It is this attitude of intolerance which is the real cause of all riots. So long as this attitude goes unrectified, no conceivable strategy can put an end to rioting. For example, Muslims wanted the Aligarh Muslim University to have a minority character and, to that end, fought a legal battle directed against the government, which went on for 25 years. Finally, an act was passed in 1982 conceding their point. But Muslims are still fighting. Whereas, originally, the target of their attack was New Delhi, now it is the Muslims’ own Vice-Chancellor of A.M.U.
Many years prior to this, the majority of the Indian Muslims had demanded that the country be partitioned, their greatest argument in support of this demand being that they suffered prejudicial treatment at the hands of the majority community. It is now a matter of history that their demands were acceded to and they were given a separate homeland – Pakistan. But their paranoid mentality found a new target at which to direct their grievances, with East Pakistanis complaining that West Pakistan was unfair and biased in its treatment of them. This resulted in a bloody civil war which was brought to an end only when East Pakistan was separated from West Pakistan. The events of 1983 show, however, that the actual problem still continues. Now it is the turn of the Sindhi Muslims to voice the same complaint against the Punjabi Muslims. This battle is an ongoing affair, and no one can foretell exactly when it is going to end.
If the truth were told, the actual problem afflicting Indian Muslims is their own intolerance on every conceivable issue. So long as they persist in this attitude, they can expect to be given a rough passage by their contemporaries, whether in this, or in any other country.
Replying to the second question, I said that in so far as their being the appointed messengers of God is concerned, Muslims are undoubtedly a ‘chosen’ community and, as such, are deserving of distinctive treatment by God, who has made a promise of special succour for Muslims – a promise which He has not made to others. But Muslims can prove themselves worthy of this divine blessing only if they actually carry out the responsibilities which devolve upon a ‘chosen’ community. It is not enough just to be born Muslims.
Their most important duty is that of dawah, and they should have it clear in their minds that dawah does not mean working for the reform of Muslims, but conveying the true religion of God to non-Muslims. Striving to reform Muslims is doubtless a worthy task, and it certainly must be performed, but in itself, this does not entitle the faithful to God’s promised divine succour to those engaged in true dawah work. This promise of God will be fulfilled only when the real imperatives of dawah work among non-Muslims have been dealt with in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.
