Why ‘Progressive’ Muslims are wrong in Condemning Naseeruddin Shah’s Anti-Taliban Video
By Arshad Alam, New Age
Islam
7 September
2021
Instead Of
Pointing Out Faults, They Need To Stand With Shah At This Important Juncture.
Main
Points:
1. Naseeruddin
Shah’s video made its impact as it riled both the Hindu right wing and a
section of Muslims, including some who would like to see themselves as
progressive Muslims.
2. Muslim
organizations’ refusal to condemn the Taliban is downright worrying but what is
perhaps more worrisome is the refusal of the progressive Muslims to see it
clearly.
3. Naseeruddin
Shah might have linked Islam with medievalism but why are we so indignant about
it? Isn’t our theology and jurisprudence still medieval?
4. These Muslim
progressives should strengthen the likes of Shah rather than shielding Muslim
conservatism.
----
In the wake
of the return of Taliban and the celebratory posturing of a few Indian Muslims,
Naseeruddin Shah posted an indignant video in which he condemned those who were
happy to see the coming of the Islamists. Informed by what the Taliban had done
to the country when they first took power, Shah termed them as bestial and
barbaric. He questioned whether Muslims should be looking forward to modernity
or should pine for the return of this medieval mindset. The video was short,
sharp and crisp. The fact that it made its impact is clear from the fact that
it riled both the Hindu right wing and the Muslim sympathizers of the Taliban.
Shah made a
distinction between Indian and other varieties of Islam and argued that Indian
Islam was tolerant and appreciative of pluralism. He implied that those
celebrating the Taliban have no understanding of this difference. The Hindu
right wing seized upon this distinction to point out how Indian Islam was
implicated in the killing of ‘millions of Hindus’, ‘destruction of their
cultural heritage’ and a ‘veritable erasure of their identity’. However, while
pointing this out, they singularly fail to tell us how despite the long years
of such ‘barbaric rule’, the Hindus still constitute an overrwlming majority of
85 per cent in this country. The whole point of the Hindu right wing discourse
is to argue that Islam is essentially the same everywhere. That it is a
religion of violence and that at its core is the idea of Islamic supremacy.
This view is completely a-historical because Islam has always fused with local
cultures and flavours and therefore one cannot talk of Islam in the singular.
But then the Hindu right wing has an agenda to fulfil and painting Islam as an
unchanging unitarian barbaric cult helps them immensely.
Naseeruddin Shah
-----
What are
the Muslim objections to Shah’s message? And within this category are not just
those Muslims who celebrated the return of the Taliban but also those who
present themselves as modernist and progressive voices within the community.
There are two sets of related objections that they have raised.
They have
argued that Shah seems to be implying that all Muslims in India celebrated the
return of the Taliban which is factually incorrect. They point out that only a
few Indian Muslims welcomed their return and because of this to paint the entire
Muslim community with the same brush is patently wrong. There might be some
merit in this argument but then what is the barometer of gauging that the
celebrations came from a small section of Muslims? There is no way of knowing
it as there isn’t any survey conducted to the effect. The only way perhaps to
understand it is to see what position hegemonic Muslim organizations took on
the return of the Taliban. As I wrote earlier, not just that there is no
outright condemnation from the sundry bodies of Deobandis, Barelwis and the
Ahle Hadees, but that in the past (and some in the present) they have always
been close to the vision of what the Taliban is proclaiming. Who can deny that
an average Barelwi, despite his differences with the Deobandi, does not endorse
the vision of the Talibani Sharia or that of the Islamic state? These
organization have millions of followers. Their refusal to condemn the Taliban
is downright worrying but what is perhaps more worrisome is the refusal of the
progressive Muslims to see it clearly.
The second
objection to Shah’s videos is that he urged Indian Muslims to choose between
the mediaeval Islam of violence and a modern, forward-looking Islam. The
objection here is that Shah painted the entire mediaeval Islamic history as bestial.
It is argued that not only was he factually wrong but that in saying that
Indian Islam was different, he was only lending credence to the right-wing
claim that it became so because of the civilizing effect of Hinduism.
I do not
think that it was Shah’s intention to state that Muslim history in only about
‘barbarism’. We know that Islam made significant contribution to India’s
history, chief among them was its idea of equality. But then the problem which
some progressive Muslims (most of them upper caste Ashraf Muslims, who take
pride in having a foreign lineage) have is that they do not want to accept that
Hinduism also had some positive effect on Islam, may be in terms of a certain
moderation in thought and acceptance of pluralism. How can Islam, which calls
itself the perfect religion, accept anything from an inferior polytheistic
religion?
Shah might
have also linked Islam with mediaevalism because all our theology and
jurisprudence is still mediaeval with hardly any change in them at all. This
being the situation, shouldn’t one choose between mediaevalism and modernism?
Indian
Muslims are in a unique position because their country is still secular and
democratic, however truncated it might have become. It was this uniqueness that
Shah was trying to underline. Within this context, if Muslim organizations do
not condemn the Taliban, it can only mean that secularism, democracy and the
constitution are empty words for Muslims which only have value in relation to
protecting their sectarian interests.
I am sure
that some progressive Muslims can see through this charade and yet refuse to be
alarmed by this tendency.
Partly the
‘progressive’ Muslim is doing this because they want to ‘save’ Muslims from the
Hindu Right's relentless Islamophobia. After all the coming of the Taliban was
welcomed not just by a section of Muslims, but also by the right-wing Hindus
who used the opportunity to showcase what ‘true’ Islam was all about. But this
urge to save Muslims has only had one effect which is to close all
conservations around the issues of religious conservatism and possible reform.
In the name of fighting Islamophobia, why is the progressive Muslim aligning
with the orthodoxy? If one takes the position that this is not the right time
for Shah to voice his concerns; that it will be appropriated by right wing
Hindus, then perhaps the likes of Shah should never speak up.
These
Muslim progressives are adding nothing original to the debate. They are simply
aping the stale leftist rhetoric which because of their supreme ignorance of
Islam and Muslims never engaged in such questions. In a complex world, there is
never a right context and in any given context what one writes or says can be
used for some other purpose. The context of the ascendance of Hindu right wing
should not stop Muslims from condemning the Taliban. Neither should it stop
them from calling out those in India who support the Taliban. This is time when
we need to stand up for courageous voices like those of Shah. Any failure to do
so would only strengthen the religious orthodoxy within the Muslim
community.
-----
Arshad
Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/progressive-muslims-naseeruddin-anti-taliban/d/125323
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