Indian Ulema Need To Junk The Islamist Theology Behind Beheading For Blasphemy And Proclaim It Loudly And Repeatedly From All Mosques: Mere Condemnation Of Udaipur Killing Is Not Enough
Kanhaiya
Lal's's Killing In Udaipur May Be A Part Of A Greater Conspiracy To Cause
Strife In India. The Two Accused Seem To Be Influenced By Pakistani Ideology Of
Beheading For Blasphemy
Main
Points:
1. Md Riaz
Attari seems to be influenced by Majlis-e-Shura head of Dawat-e-Islami
Pakistan, Athar Ali Attari.
2. The killers
filmed the slaughter and posted it on social media.
3. The killers
made a statement threatening Prime Minister Modi too.
4. Riaz was not
in touch with his six brothers for a long time.
5. Riaz's
brothers did not talk to him much.
----
By
New Age Islam Staff Writer
30 June
2022
A Hindu shopkeeper (L) was killed in Udaipur by two
men (R) over a social media post in support of Nupur Sharma.
-----
The heinous
beheading of Kanhaiya Lal in broad daylight by two radicalised Muslim youth Md
Ghouse and Md Riaz Attari and then its circulation on social media along with a
statement threatening the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi raises some
questions. The circumstances leading to the murder and whatever knowledge about
the background of the accused that has come to light through media indicates
that the murder was not an spontaneous act. It was executed according to a
plan. The youth had a religious bent of mind and from their religious
appearance, it seems that they indeed were actively associated with some
religious organisation.
That the
video was filmed by one of the accused and both posted a video with knives in
hand threatening PM Modi was indeed a part of a game plan.
The son of
the victim has said to the media that the Facebook post that caused the killing
was made by mistake and he had asked his son to delete it which was done. His
Muslim neighbour Nazim had lodged a complaint against Kanhaiya and he was
arrested by the police and was out on bail. After that a panchayat comprising
the Hindus and Muslims was held where he and his son had apologised and the
dispute was resolved. This means that the case had gone to the legal recourse
and the accused had apologised to the Muslims of the locality. But according to
the reports, his neighbour Nazim and his companions started threatening him.
Some people did a recce of his shop. Two people went to his shop and threatened
him. Kanhaiya even lodged a complaint to the police informing them of threat to
his life. He did not open his shop for six days for fear of life. Even when he
started opening his shop, he would close his shop early in the evening. All
this happened during the last twelve days. The police did not take the matter
seriously though there was tension all around on the blasphemy issue.
Now
according to media reports quoting sources, the Ghouse had travelled to Karachi
in 2014 and the two were associated with an Islamic organisation based in
Pakistan. The Pakistan government, however, has denied these reports.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should
be kept in mind that any Islamic organisation that supports beheading of those
insulting the prophet of Islam may not necessarily be a terrorist or militant
organisation. The issue of blasphemy is such an issue where mainstream Islamic
organisation and terrorist organisations come on the same platform. Both claim
that those who directly or indirectly insult the holy prophet pbuh should be
killed even if they apologise.
When it is
argued that the holy prophet forgave those whi insulted and humiliated, even
attacked with stones and threw filth on him, they counter by saying that
forgiving was the right of the holy prophet pbuh
but since
he is not bodily present now, a Muslim does not have the right to forgive any
one on his behalf: the blasphemer must, therefore, be killed. This is the
position of one of prominent Islamic scholars and exegetes Dr Tahirul Qadri. It
may be recalled that Dr Tahirul Qadri had written a voluminous fatwa against
terrorism and suicide bombing ten years ago and is hailed for his research work
across the world. Therefore, the act of Riaz and Ghous will be an Islamic act
and not a terrorist act in the eyes of Dr Tahirul Qadri and his followers.
Another
practice that has become widespread particularly in Pakistan is that a
blasphemer should be beheaded outrightly. There is no need for any legal
proceedings. The slogan 'Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek saza, sar tan se Juda sar tan
se juda' (There is inly one punishment for the blasphemer, and that is his head
should be severed) is shouted very often in rallies in Pakistan.
This slogan
was made popular in India during the protests against Nupur Sharma's remarks.
This slogan very subtly convey's the message to the gullible Muslims that the
punishment for blasphemy is only beheading. It hides the fact that for every
crime there is a legal recourse.
But today
Islamic scholars in Pakistan have circulated the belief that a blasphemer must
be summarily executed so much that any Muslim who disputes this is declared a
blasphemer. Former Governor of Pakistani Punjab, Salman Taseer, killed by his
own bodyguard, is one such example.
The Islamic
organisations of India have condemned the murder of Kanhaiya lal in the strongest
possible terms terming it un-Islamic, illegal and immoral. The Jamiat Ulema
Hind, the Jama'at Islami Hind, the AIMIM, the AIMPLB and the chief of Ajmer
Sharif Dargah have come out openly condemning the act of Riaz and Ghous but the
Islamic organisations of Pakistan have not condemned it. Particularly Dr
Tahirul Qadri who had issued a fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombing but
supports beheading for blasphemy has not made any remarks condemning it. Will
he be considered a terrorist or booked for influencing Riaz and Ghous. He is
not the only Islamic scholar of Pakistan who has written a book on the issue
but there are others who have written on the same issue supporting beheading of
blasphemers.
The act is
condemnable because no civilised society can allow individual citizens to take
the law in their own hands and start dispensing justice. Neither our
Constitution nor Islam allows that. In any case, the victim had said that he
had not made the post and even if he did he had apologised before the Muslim
community. And the holy prophet pbuh pardoned many people when they apologised.
There were thousands of people in Makkah who would abuse the prophet pbuh day
in and day out and tortured him but on the day of victory of Makkah, when the
people of Makkah had shut themselves in for fear of retaliation and punishment,
he announced general amnesty. But today many Islamic scholars circulate the
belief that one should be killed for blasphemy even after he apologises. In any
case, what right does any individual have to become a judge and jury and
executioner, all by himself. We are a law-abiding country, and we should go to
courts if we have any grievance against someone.
The
confusion of the Islamic scholars comes out in the open whenever an important
issue comes up. They always say that Islam does not support terorism but some
of them supported the ISIS in 2014 and supported the Taliban in 2021. To them
the ISIS were reclaimants of the caliphate and the Taliban were freedom
fighters. The price of their confusion is being paid by the Muslim youth who
are made to believe that violence and bloodshed in the name of Islam is
justified and and it will earn them rewards in the Hereafter.