Whether or Not a Hindu Temple Can Be Built in an 'Islamic State'
By
Yasser Latif Hamdani
July 6,
2020
A religious
debate is ensuing in the country as to whether or not a Hindu temple can be
built in an “Islamic state”. As I wrote in my previous article, this is
precisely the kind of debate that arises in a theocracy and which retards the
progress of a modern nation state. However the facts are that Pakistan is a
theocracy under the present constitutional dispensation and there is no
escaping this fact. The question then is whether or not new Non-Muslim places
of worship can be built in an Islamic land and whether or not the government
can fund it?
Last
week, the prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, approved a grant of 100
million Rupees to build the first Hindu temple in Islamabad
-----
We have
historical precedents in Islamic history in the subcontinent where Muslim
rulers not only allowed the building of Hindu places of worship but gave them
land grants for the purpose. There was no greater Islamic puritan in Mughal
History than Emperor Aurangzeb. Rutgers historian Audrey Truschke in her
classic “Aurangzeb, the man and the myth” lists in detail the instances of
Aurangzeb granting land to temples and ensuring their upkeep. In 1687 Aurangzeb
granted land to Brahmins and Hindu holy men in Benaras to build a complex of
residences and worship right next to a mosque. In 1691 he gave eight villages
and land for Balaji Temple of Chitrakoot, on the banks of River Mandakini
Ganga, which was built on official funds provided by the Mughal Empire. The
land so given was free of lagan requirements i.e. tax-free land for the temple.
There are numerous such examples from Emperor Aurangzeb where he bequeathed
land grants and funds to Hindu and Jain communities for temples and other
community welfare related projects.
Built-in
the 9th century, the Prambanan Temple, located between Sleman, Yogyakarta, and
Klaten, Central Java in Indonesia is the largest temple compound dedicated to
the Trimurti.
------
Same is
true of the other “iconoclast” – the destroyer of Somnath- Mahmud of Ghazni,
who had in his employ numerous Hindu soldiers, Pandits, holy men and Sanskrit
scholars. He is said to have made a temple in Ghazni for their worship. Tipu
Sultan, the Tiger of Mysore, contributed to the upkeep of no less than 150
Hindu temples in his kingdom. One could cite Akbar but Akbar is notoriously
considered Kafir by the pious amongst Muslims. However, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan
and Mahmud of Ghazni were all considered pious Muslim rulers who ruled under
the sanction of Islamic law. Their actions therefore are persuasive precedents.
Therefore, to argue that Islamic law does not permit building of Non-Muslim
places of worship especially where idolatry is practised flies in the face of
historical example. This is unless we are to argue that Aurangzeb, Mahmud of
Ghazni and Tipu Sultan were also bad Muslims.
Will
Saudi Crown Prince Also Allow First Hindu Temple In Riyadh After Abu Dhabi
Inaugurated
------
The real
question however is the debate itself, which is occasioned by Pakistan’s status
as a theocratic state. First of all let us be clear that in the Islamic
doctrine the only place where a Non-Muslim place of worship cannot be built is
the land of Hijaz. Outside of the land of Hijaz there is no such bar. Quite the
contrary the Islamic precedent shows autonomous religious communities not only
being tolerated by accepted in Muslim history. The part of the problem is the
rhetoric with respect to Medina that the current Prime Minister is fond of
using. Riyasat-e-Medina cannot be replicated because it was subject to
prophetic guidance. It is an aspiration that is cumbersome for a worldly nation
state devoid of any divine guidance. The best we can do as mere mortals is
create a just and fair nation state and that in turn means giving equal rights
to all citizens.
There are
two approaches that can be adopted in this regard. The first one is the US
approach under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the US
Federal funding for purposes of worship. This means that the US Federal
Government cannot build a Church, a Mosque or a Temple. The rule is consistent
and does not privilege any one community over another. Pakistan on the other
hand funds mosques and their upkeep. By the same token – reading Articles 4, 20
and 25 of the Pakistani Constitution together- Pakistan is bound to similarly
fund religious places of all communities listed in Article 260 of the
Constitution and not just Muslims. As things stand, it is heads I win, tails
you lose. No consistent rule exists in our Islamic Republic except that Muslims
are privileged over Non-Muslims in every possible way. At the very least we
should stop claiming that Pakistan treats its minorities well and that they are
equal citizens. Pakistan’s minorities are from equal. They are at best third
class citizens and that too only a piddling subsection. Sikhs are pampered for
other reasons, which one does not want to get into, which is why no hue and cry
was raised when Kartarpur was built on public funds. One does not begrudge
their special status in our Islamic Republic but one wishes that such status
was accorded to all minorities and better still we just had one rule for all
citizens of Pakistan, as was so eloquently promised by the now defunct 11
August speech.
Coming back
to the temple debate though, the reason why the present government wanted to
make a temple in Islamabad was not necessarily out of any love for the Hindu
citizens of Pakistan but to make a symbolic point vis a vis India. It was to be
Pakistan’s answer to the Babri Masjid demolition and judgment in India. Imran
Khan is obsessed with showing Modi that Pakistan is a more egalitarian and
tolerant society. The truth is that both Pakistan and India are priest ridden
religious societies, which are by design intolerant. There is however one
difference between the two countries. The priests who have the final say in
Pakistan through the theocratic constitution, which is what the 1973
Constitution is, always hold Imran Khan, no matter how tolerant he tries to
present himself, hostage. Meanwhile Hindu bigot Modi is kept in check by the
secular constitution of India.
Thus,
gimmickry such as building a temple in Islamabad means nothing at all. If you
really want to one-up Modi, implement Jinnah’s 11 August speech in letter and
spirit. Pakistan must cease to be a theocracy. Only then can Muslim majority
Pakistan claim moral superiority over Hindu majority India.
Original
Headline: The Temple Debate continued
Source: The Daily Times, Pakistan
URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/whether-hindu-temple-be-built/d/122299
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women
in Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab
Women, Women
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism