Express News Service
Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan on Saturday said the violent attack on Salman Rushdie goes against the teachings of Quran but added “one cannot deny that the laws which allow these acts are labelled as Muslim laws and they are also part of the syllabus in the higher courses of prominent Madrasas like Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema”.
Speaking to this paper, Arif Mohammad Khan said: “Anything done in the name of Islam must find sanction in the book. Whatever is happening may be in accordance with laws written during the time of Muslim Empire but goes totally against the teachings of the Quran which in more than 20 verses directs the believers “to turn away from those who say things which are vain and hurtful.”
“I feel that it is not fair to call these acts as Islamic but one cannot deny that the laws which allow these acts are labeled as Muslim laws and they are also part of the syllabus in the higher courses of prominent Madrasas like Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema”.
He said “the problem basically is that what is described as Muslim Law is not mostly based on Quran, rather it was laid down by individuals who were serving the governments of the day.”
Excerpts from the interview.
Three decades after the ban on ‘The Satanic Verses’, when even the Ayatollah who issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has died, the rage against free speech continues. How Islamic is it to resort to violence against free speech?
Anything done in the name of Islam must find sanction in the book. Whatever is happening may be in accordance with laws written during the time of Muslim Empire but goes totally against the teachings of Quran which in more than 20 verses directs the believers “to turn away from those who say things which are vain and hurtful. I feel that it is not fair to call these acts as Islamic but one cannot deny that the laws which allow these acts are labelled as Muslim laws and they are also part of the syllabus in the higher courses of prominent Madrasas like Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema.
Much has been said about Islamist terror, does this attack lend credence to this theory?
The problem basically is that what is described as Muslim Law is not mostly based on Quran, rather it was laid down by individuals who were serving the governments of the day which were considered by pious people like Imam Abu Hanifa as wayward and he preferred to die in jail rather than accept their offer of senior positions to him.
Now these laws provide for coercion and use of force. So as long as these laws are accepted as Muslim Law, it is very difficult to dismiss the criticism.
You had taken a principled stand against pandering to religious fundamentalism. How far has the nation travelled since your resignation from the Rajiv Gandhi ministry?
Exactly as expected. In 1986, the then PM Mr Rajiv Gandhi had announced the decision to overturn the Supreme Court’s Shah Bano judgment and the blowback was so severe that the government had to organize the unlocking of the gate in Ayodhya as a balancing act. The consequences were severe and the people suffered a great deal because the then government chose political expediency over national interests.
What do you think would be the best response by the Muslim community against those giving Fatwas against writers, poets and others exercising free speech?
First, stand up and say boldly that religion is about God-consciousness (Taqwa), it is about promoting moral and ethical behaviour, it is not an instrument to gain political power. Secondly, refuse to accept any law that conflicts with the Quran, notwithstanding the claims made by people for whom religion has become a profession and remember that Islam as a religion does not admit the need of any clergy or middlemen between the Creator and the creation as asserted by Allama Iqbal: Kyon Khaliq o Makhlooq mein Hayal Rahein Parde Peerane Kaleeesa ko Kaleesa se Hatado.
Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan on Saturday said the violent attack on Salman Rushdie goes against the teachings of Quran but added “one cannot deny that the laws which allow these acts are labelled as Muslim laws and they are also part of the syllabus in the higher courses of prominent Madrasas like Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema”.
Speaking to this paper, Arif Mohammad Khan said: “Anything done in the name of Islam must find sanction in the book. Whatever is happening may be in accordance with laws written during the time of Muslim Empire but goes totally against the teachings of the Quran which in more than 20 verses directs the believers “to turn away from those who say things which are vain and hurtful.”
“I feel that it is not fair to call these acts as Islamic but one cannot deny that the laws which allow these acts are labeled as Muslim laws and they are also part of the syllabus in the higher courses of prominent Madrasas like Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema”.
He said “the problem basically is that what is described as Muslim Law is not mostly based on Quran, rather it was laid down by individuals who were serving the governments of the day.”
Excerpts from the interview.
Three decades after the ban on ‘The Satanic Verses’, when even the Ayatollah who issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has died, the rage against free speech continues. How Islamic is it to resort to violence against free speech?
Anything done in the name of Islam must find sanction in the book. Whatever is happening may be in accordance with laws written during the time of Muslim Empire but goes totally against the teachings of Quran which in more than 20 verses directs the believers “to turn away from those who say things which are vain and hurtful. I feel that it is not fair to call these acts as Islamic but one cannot deny that the laws which allow these acts are labelled as Muslim laws and they are also part of the syllabus in the higher courses of prominent Madrasas like Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema.
Much has been said about Islamist terror, does this attack lend credence to this theory?
The problem basically is that what is described as Muslim Law is not mostly based on Quran, rather it was laid down by individuals who were serving the governments of the day which were considered by pious people like Imam Abu Hanifa as wayward and he preferred to die in jail rather than accept their offer of senior positions to him.
Now these laws provide for coercion and use of force. So as long as these laws are accepted as Muslim Law, it is very difficult to dismiss the criticism.
You had taken a principled stand against pandering to religious fundamentalism. How far has the nation travelled since your resignation from the Rajiv Gandhi ministry?
Exactly as expected. In 1986, the then PM Mr Rajiv Gandhi had announced the decision to overturn the Supreme Court’s Shah Bano judgment and the blowback was so severe that the government had to organize the unlocking of the gate in Ayodhya as a balancing act. The consequences were severe and the people suffered a great deal because the then government chose political expediency over national interests.
What do you think would be the best response by the Muslim community against those giving Fatwas against writers, poets and others exercising free speech?
First, stand up and say boldly that religion is about God-consciousness (Taqwa), it is about promoting moral and ethical behaviour, it is not an instrument to gain political power. Secondly, refuse to accept any law that conflicts with the Quran, notwithstanding the claims made by people for whom religion has become a profession and remember that Islam as a religion does not admit the need of any clergy or middlemen between the Creator and the creation as asserted by Allama Iqbal: Kyon Khaliq o Makhlooq mein Hayal Rahein Parde Peerane Kaleeesa ko Kaleesa se Hatado.
