Muslims and the Mosque

Muslims and the Mosque

1993 4-5 April-May 3-11 Muslims and the Mosque (2728) Muslims today are faced with one easy and one difficult option: to leave the Babari Masjid issue to the conscience of the country, or to continue with their agitation. The situation being as it is, it would be exactly in accordance with the Prophet’s Sunnah if they were to take the former course.

In order to arrive at a correct interpretation and application of the Shariah’s commandments on the subject of the Babari Masjid, we must not lose sight of the change in priorities after December 6, 1992. Prior to that date, the question was, ‘How to save the Babari Masjid?’ Whereas now, the question is, ‘How to prevent any further Ayodhya-like incidents?’ Or, more pressingly, ‘How to save the Muslims?’

In this case, it is vital to grasp the difference in relative importance between the mosque and the Muslims. According to the Shariah, they are entirely separate entities. The Shariah’s respective commandments on the mosque, and the attitude required of Muslims towards it, are two quite separate questions. The former concerns the status of the mosque, while the latter concerns the responsibility of Muslims towards the mosque. These are clearly distinct and separate issues.

It is true that the Shariah’s commandments on mosques are clear and laid down for all time. But their application to Muslims’ obligations in respect of mosques, like many other commandments, will be subject to the prevailing circumstances; That is to say, it will be applicable in terms of the prevailing condition of the Muslims, and not according to the wordings of the command.

To understand this difference, let us take an example from Islam’s earliest period, just after the Prophet had received his prophethood. At that time the Kabah housed no fewer than 360 idols. It might have been expected that revelations would be made urging the Prophet to remove these idols in order to purify the Kabah. But this did not happen. All that was enjoined in revelations was ‘to cleanse your garment,’ that is, improve your character. And verses of this nature continued to be revealed throughout the entire Meccan period. These verses were thus concerned with the question of Muslim responsibilities in such situations as prevailed in Mecca.

Keeping this distinction in view, let us now consider the question of the Babari Masjid. So far as the location of the mosque is concerned, it is accepted that, according to the Shariah, wherever a mosque has been lawfully built, that will be the mosque’s permanent site. Muslims have no right to re-locate it.

The second question that arises is that if something happens to alter that state of affairs – as at Ayodhya – what will be the responsibility of the Muslims? Two options are open to them. They may either follow in the footsteps of Abdul Muttalib, the Prophet’s grandfather, who, finding himself in just such a situation, took no action, because he held that a mosque being a holy place, God would Himself defend it as He pleased; or, they may rise in its defence. If Muslims follow the latter path, there would be a limit to their action. After going beyond a certain limit they would have to withdraw. This limit has been indicated in the following verse of the Qur’an: ‘Allah does not charge a soul with more than it can bear’ (2:286). That is, a believer, or believer group should be held responsible only for what it is possible to do.

Granted that the Shariah holds the original site of a mosque to be its place for all time, the Muslims’ responsibility to maintain that status is nevertheless an entirely different matter. When the question arises as to the duty of Muslims to safeguard any given mosque, the answer must depend not on the position of the mosque in Islam, or as defined by the Shariah, but on the position of Muslims in the prevailing circumstances.

Keeping this Shariah principle in view, let us now consider the question of the Babari Masjid and the Muslims. Only then will it become clear that Muslims are no longer responsible in this matter in the light of the Shariah. At an early stage they held themselves responsible for the safeguarding of the Babari Masjid, and carried out what they understood to be their duty at the cost of great sacrifice but, tragically, were unsuccessful. Now they should accept the fact that the events of December 6 have set the final limits to their area of responsibility. Having done whatever it was possible to do, they are now totally justified, from the standpoint of the Shariah, in remaining aloof from this matter, arid bowing to future circumstances.

It has to be realized that after the tragic incident of December 6 the very nature of the problem has undergone quite basic changes. Now it is not so much a question of safeguarding the mosque, but of protecting Indian Muslims themselves.

If Muslims insist on continuing their agitational campaign, as of pre- December 6, far from being able to reconstruct the Babari Masjid on the same site, they will find themselves in the grip of riots all over the country. Besides, they will find themselves confronted by so many adverse factors that leading an honourable life in this country will become an impossibility.

The truth is that after December 6, it has been made abundantly clear that the choice for Muslims is not between building or not building the Babari Masjid, but between building the Babari Masjid and self-destruction. Continuance of such a campaign will achieve nothing for Muslims – certainly not the re-building of the Babari Masjid – but indescribable adversity if not ultimate ruination.

Another Shariah commandment relevant to this matter is known as iztirar or the law of necessity. This law permits a man to do something, which would normally be regarded as irregular or even unlawful. A man in this position would be called muztar. The eating of pork, for instance, is absolutely unlawful in Islam. Still the Shariah permits a man to eat pork, if otherwise he would starve to death. This clearly shows that deliberate self-destruction is not only not applauded by Islam, but is deemed unlawful.

The Muslim community in India is of the order of 125 million. Is it conceivable that when the very existence of so considerable a community is at stake, the Shariah, which clearly makes concessions to save individual lives, will be found rigid and unrelenting?.

Supposing that it was the Muslims’ national responsibility to save the Babari Masjid, even then, given the circumstance, no further responsibility for it devolves upon them. When self-destruction is deemed unlawful, the Shariah’s own dictates make it incumbent upon Muslims to remain aloof from the Babari Masjid issue in order to save themselves from further humiliation and loss. They should remember the tradition recorded in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, according to which the Prophet’s wife, Aishah, maintained that ‘whenever the Prophet had to make a choice between two courses of action, he would always choose the easier one.’

Muslims today are faced with one easy and one difficult option: to leave the Babari Masjid issue to the conscience of the country, or to continue with their agitation. The situation being as it is, it would be exactly in accordance with the Prophet’s Sunnah if they were to take the former course.

In adopting this path, they would not be doing anything new. They would be doing exactly as they had done for the last fifty years in this country. As we all know, in 1947, hundreds and thousands of mosques were variously desecrated and demolished in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. If Muslims never launched any agitation at that time in the name of these mosques, it was only because they felt that in this matter they were in the position of the muztar. If they were simply to add the Babari Masjid to the list of these mosques and refrain from any comment or action, they would only be doing what they had previously done in similar sets of circumstances.

There is nothing essentially new in my three-point formula (i.e. that Muslims should give up their plea for the Babari Masjid to be rebuilt, that they should be given guarantees that no such demolitions will take place in future, and that the Places of Worship Act should be made part of the constitution of India}. It simply spells out an honourable way of applying the same principle to the Ayodhya mosque as has been done in the case of thousands of other mosques in the country by the general consensus of the ulama. Acceptance of this formula would ensure that Muslims suffered no further loss of life or property, that Hindus would be bound not to repeat similar acts of demolition, and that Muslims would have constitutional protection for their places of worship.

As I have stated earlier, this formula is designed not to define the Shariah’s position of the mosque but rather to support the Shariah’s commandment regarding Muslims’ own responsibility towards such a mosque. If this formula could be adopted and implemented, not only the Muslims but the entire country would benefit from it. Hatred and violence would come to an end, and peace would finally be restored. Muslims, as well as all other groups, would pave the opportunity to construct their lives peacefully, and would be able to tread the path of progress and success without any obstacle to bar their way.

In conclusion, I pray to God to grant His mercy to all of us, and to grant true wisdom and understanding to the people of this country so that they may march unitedly towards a peaceful, happy, prosperous future.

Gauging one’s own strength before testing it on others

Abdullah ibn Umar relates how once, when he was listening to a sermon preached by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, he took objection to something Hajjaj had said, and was just about to air his own views on this, when he recalled what the Prophet had once said-that it did not befit a believer to disgrace himself. Abdullah ibn Umar had asked the Prophet what was meant by disgracing oneself, and the Prophet had replied “It means attempting to deal with a problem which is quite beyond one’s capacities.”

This analysis of Muslim situation in terms of outmoded thinking is perfectly correct. What worse example of it could there be than the movement recently launched in the name of the Babari Masjid? The post –1986 campaigning for its protection and subsequently for its re-construction was instigated by Muslim leaders who were so incompetent and so deluded as to imagine that they could set themselves on a collision course with the Hindu public, and that the government-still the ‘supreme arbiter’ to the Muslims – would give a verdict totally in their favour.

What actually happened on December 6, 1992, publicly made it quite clear what a misconception this had been – and still is. It totally belied what the Prime Minister had publicly declared on August 15, 1992, i.e. that he would never allow the demolition of Babari Masjid. Despite his having dispatched ten police force companies to the border of Ayodhya and having made a number of other official arrangements, what happened in reality was not what the Prime Minister had in all good faith declared, but simply what the public-all along had been clamouring for, namely, the razing to the ground of the Babari Masjid. This was done by kar sevaks who forced their way into the town. Having demolished the mosque, they removed all stones and debris and replaced them with a make shift mandir. They also contrived to obtain the court’s permission to place idols of Ram Lalla inside it, along with the right to visit it for darshan and puja.

This event is a clear proof of the public being superior in strength to the government in present-day India. It is a final demonstration of the public standing high above individuals who are voted to power for a limited period of time, even when the said individuals are accorded ministerial rank. One would have to be either very naive or bereft of all common sense to go on believing that this same central government which failed to prevent the demolition of the Babari Masjid, has the power to demolish the newly constructed mandir, either peaceably or by force, or to remove the idols placed therein for the purpose of re-building the Babari Masjid on its former site.

Yet, as reported in the press, a delegation of about twenty ‘prominent persons’ of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board came to Delhi in April 1993, where they prepared a memorandum by consensus, asking the government to remove the makeshift mandir and the idols from the site of the Babari Masjid, and to rebuild the Babari Masjid in exactly the same location. This they submitted to the Prime Minister at a meeting they had with him on April 5th. Obviously, the demolition of the Babari Masjid in broad daylight had done nothing to jolt our so-called Muslim leaders into a proper state of awareness.

To make such a political foray as representatives of the Muslim community is nothing sort of anachronism. The most poignant lesson the Muslims should have learnt from the December 6 happening was that from that point in time onwards they had best concentrate their energies on winning over the Hindu public. All their efforts should have been channelled into influencing the Hindu Janta rather than into making representations to the ‘rulers’ of New Delhi. The fact that our leaders are still circumambulating New Delhi is a clear indication of their utter incompetence. Given the present state of impasse it is incomprehensible that a delegation from the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board should even have approached the Prime Minister with such a request. The only possible reason is their total inability to come to grips with present-day realities. Mentally they are still living in the India of fifty years ago. They still do not grasp the fact that, today, India is governed, not by a sovereign, with all powers vested in his own person, but by the people.

It is high time that Muslims changed their way of thinking. They must look to the Hindu public and not to the government or the administration. Muslim leaders must meet Hindu leaders. Muslims must improve their relations with the Hindu majority. In fact, Hindus and Muslims must interact at all levels if ever tensions are to be eased between them and misunderstandings removed. Only in that way will improved relations and peaceful co-existence become distinct realities.

The solution to our problems lies not in Muslim-ruler meetings, but in Hindu-Muslim meetings. The need of the hour is for a Hindu-Muslim dialogue at an all-India level with the participation of serious and influential people from both communities. Its aim should be the promotion of peace in a purely non-political way.

In this dialogue people from both the communities should not only state quite openly what they want from the other community, but must strive also to put to an end to this confrontational state of affairs and to discover common grounds on the basis of which both the communities could live together like good neighbours.

The holding of such a dialogue is in complete consonance with the Islamic Shariah. The Peace Treaty of Hudaybiyya in the history of Islam was the result of a successful dialogue of this kind. After the Prophet of Islam’s migration (622 A D), there was a sharp deterioration in relations between Muslims and non-Muslim in Arabia resulting in a number of armed confrontations.

Finally, in 628, the Prophet of Islam came to stay for two weeks at a place called Hudaybiyya, near Mecca. He negotiated with the Meccan non-Muslims there, and then, after conceding to many of their demands, he signed a peace

At present, the rock on which India’s progress is foundering is the strained relations between Hindus and Muslims. If a dialogue of the above nature could be held in all seriousness, in a spirit of accommodation and with a strict sense of justice, Hindu-Muslim relations could very soon be normalized, and this in itself would immediately open up a whole new chapter in the history of modern India. Nothing would then stand in the way of our country’s future advancement.