Question: In the 'Open Page' section of The Hindu newspaper dated November 27, 2001, M. Riaz Hassan (based in England) wrote an article titled "Islam at the Crossroads." I need an explanation regarding a few points raised in that article.
Under a subheading titled "Slow Decline," he argues that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) predicted Muslims would split into 72 sects. He notes that, in reality, more than 100 sects have emerged, even though all of them have chosen the same Quran. What is your explanation for this?
Furthermore, under the heading "Indian Muslims," he states that those who migrated from India to Pakistan remain refugees there even after 53 years. Is this true? Why is it so?
A Hindu friend of mine asked a similar question: "If you identify as a Muslim and go to Pakistan, they won't accept you. Why, then, do Muslims claim to support Pakistan in the name of brotherhood? Why are Indian Muslims, in particular, not accepted?" I need an explanation regarding this.
Answer: These are arguments put forward by the ignorant.
A country has only one set of political and criminal laws.
Based on that law, a District Court might overturn a verdict delivered by a Magistrate Court.
The State High Court might rule that the District Court's verdict was incorrect. Benches within the High Court might overturn a verdict delivered by the High Court itself. The Supreme Court might overturn that as well. A Supreme Court bench might reject a verdict previously delivered by the Supreme Court.
We see such conflicting verdicts being delivered in countries all over the world.
Yet, everyone delivers these verdicts based on the very same law. Would that intellectual writer label this as confusion? Would he criticize it? He certainly would not. Even when the law is the same, errors in understanding it can occur; one might overlook crucial points.
Similarly, even though there is only one Quran, it is natural for differences in understanding to arise. Indeed, many people would interpret this very writer's article in various ways.
Nevertheless, although there are multiple sects within the Islamic community, there are no differences regarding fundamental matters among them—with the exception of just one or two groups.
Namely: Allah is One; there is no other god.
Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of God and the final Messenger.
- Angels exist.
- Satans (devils) exist.
- The world will be destroyed.
- The dead will be resurrected.
- A reckoning (judgment) will take place.
- Paradise and Hell exist.
- Alcohol, gambling, lotteries, adultery, fraud, adulteration, and theft are criminal acts.
There is no difference of opinion among Muslims regarding 95 percent of such matters. There are minor variations in one or two aspects of how acts of worship are performed. Similarly, there are slight differences in certain other laws.
Fundamental differences of opinion exist in other religions. Therefore, his criticism is a manifestation of ignorance—and of the jealousy arising from the rapid growth of Islam in his country.
Furthermore, what he says about Pakistan also exposes his ignorance.
The claim that Muslims here support Pakistan is a calculated slander. No Muslims here support Pakistan.
Muslims are rarely found on the list of those who have betrayed the country's secrets. Ninety percent of those arrested for acting in support of Pakistan were non-Muslims.
More than half of the Muslims arrested for acting in support of Pakistan were actually citizens of Pakistan, not Indian Muslims.
Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that in the various wars fought between India and Pakistan, Muslims have fought for the country with a zeal that surpassed that of others.
There is another important point that everyone should note: among Indian citizens, only Muslims have passed the test set for them and proven their patriotism. No other community has ever been subjected to such a test.
Indian Muslims are those who chose to remain here, even when a separate nation for Muslims was created and invitations—along with alluring promises—were extended for anyone to move there.
Any community would naturally seize the opportunity to have a nation of its own. Yet, it was the Muslims who stayed in India who rejected that opportunity, choosing instead to remain here and demonstrate their patriotism.
Therefore, there can be no greater injustice than blaming those who stayed and proved their steadfastness for the actions of those who chose to partition the country and leave.
Next, let us address the allegation that 'Muhajirs' were not treated with respect in Pakistan.
To understand who the Muhajirs are, one must first understand the geographical basis upon which Pakistan was created.
Pakistan was formed by splitting two Indian states.
The state of Punjab was divided in two; one half became West Pakistan, while the other half remains in India as the state of Punjab.
Similarly, the state of Bengal was divided in two; one half became East Pakistan, while the other half remains in India as the state of West Bengal.
The Bengal region that was once East Pakistan has now become the independent nation of Bangladesh.
Only the half of Punjab that was West Pakistan constitutes the current nation of Pakistan.
At the time of partition, the people of Punjab were separated along with their native land.
The people of Bengal were separated in the same manner.
Amidst this, an invitation was extended to Muslims across India to move to Pakistan. Ninety-nine percent of Muslims rejected this invitation. Only one percent moved to the newly forming Pakistan; these are the people known as Muhajirs.
Those who were separated along with their land from the states of Punjab and Bengal already possessed homes and assets there. Those who migrated from other states found nothing waiting for them there.
That is precisely why the Muhajirs exist as refugees, devoid of homes or property.
This situation did not arise based on religion; rather, it is a conflict between locals and migrants.
Furthermore, Pakistan was not partitioned for the sake of Islam. The people and leaders of that era did not possess even a quarter of the religious devotion found among the people and leaders of present-day Pakistan. Because the partition was not grounded in Islamic principles, migrants are treated in one way, while locals are treated differently.
The situation in Pakistan stems from the same underlying reasons that dictate how Tamils are treated in Karnataka.
Therefore, it is unacceptable to criticize Islam by citing the example of Pakistan.