- Who will answer these questions?
Show contempt or lack of reverence to God and you are a blasphemer. Speak anything sacrilegious in nature against a person or thing revered in a particular religion and you are a blasphemer. These two sentences define all the possible literal dimensions of blasphemy, or at least used to do so.
The dynamics have changed with time and so have the essentials of the definition. Now, question the different colours of turbans and you are a blasphemer. Get confused about being denied entry in a mosque of a particular sect and you are a blasphemer. Ask a mullah to explain a specific verse for the sake of understanding and you are a blasphemer. Ponder over the scheme of the Creator and you are a blasphemer. Try to snatch away the prerogative of mullahs to establish and run separate dukaans and you are a blasphemer.
The reality we have factually become oblivious to has two aspects: 1) blasphemy could be committed against any religious ideology and, therefore, its laws are applicable for all religions; 2) the term has been beleaguered in and made exclusively pertinent to the boundaries of ‘mazhab’ that the mullahs of Pakistan have demarcated. The repercussions of this metamorphosis have cost us a lot, in moral as well as fiscal sense.
Today, the mullahs have become the determinants of what is right and what is wrong. We are focusing more on level of devotion in lieu of the prescribed fundamentals. During this process, we have made these fundamentals a footnote and degree of our ‘religiousness’ and devotion the actual stages of spiritual success. A mullah who openly declares his sect and adds ‘tan tan tana tan’ to his naat is obviously followed more than the one who keeps it simple and relatively less musical. Tune of which Bollywood song has our remorseful ears not heard as coming from the loudspeakers of local mosques? From Chandni raatein to Milti hai zindagi main muhabbat kabhi kabhi, the melody of which song has been spared from transfiguration into that of a naat? But this will definitely not be counted among the horrendous acts of blasphemy. Why? Because it is from a mullah.
A mullah makes you believe that the Noble Qur’an is difficult to comprehend and that Arabic is a difficult language, hence the need for someone to interpret the text
Discouraging the masses from asking questions relevant to religious understanding and giving a lame justification such as “why question in the matter of deen when one does not question apropos of women?” is not a recent trend and that, too, only among the Muslim mullahs. Mullahism has existed since forever because it always takes the fabrication of a different story to sell in competitive market. Mullahism is not a particular religion or sect; it is a phenomenon, a mindset that has been infesting and corrupting human sanity since forever. Questioning the absolute authority of the Church earned Galileo Galilei nothing but opposition. The social caste system in Hinduism and the barriers that have been placed between these by several pundits is yet another example.
What the Muslim world is facing today has already been experienced by the West in the form of priestly hold of the Church. Denominations are what they have always encashed and sectarianism is what feeds them; mullahs of all religions have taken inspiration from this fact. What other justification could possibly be given to construct a mosque in the neighbourhood or right next to an already-built mosque? Worst comes to worst, two mehrabs within the same mosque has become a common observation in several mosques across the country. In what other way could the chanting of azaans from every nook and corner of a street be rationalised if not for the sake of protecting the righteousness of each sect? It is because of these azaans that the concept of ‘five times a day’ seems to have been blurred and deluded by that of ‘five time ranges in a day’. The result is as deplorable as this practice because an average Muslim at the minimum juncture of piety is unable to concentrate on his average prayer and instead keeps track of the number of azaans he hears. But distracting a mediocre believer is not blasphemy. Why? Because it is from a mullah.
A mullah makes you believe that the Noble Qur’an is difficult to comprehend and that Arabic is a difficult language, hence the need for someone to interpret the text. Consequently, despite the easily understandable and completely explicit injunction given in the Holy Book which holds the advocates of sectarianism as people with whom only God will deal (Surah Al-An’am, 6:159), the fire of sectarian divide is given oxygen in the name of presenting the ‘absolutely right’ interpretation to their clans of followers. But the fact is that the Qur’anic injunction is overlooked? Why? Because doing so has been taught by our respective mullahs.
Since when has the privilege of calling to prayer become a profession? Why have calling to and leading prayers been made a paid job instead of something that is done out of love for God? Why the clerics of one sect do not hesitate before charging others with offenses? Why would no mullah ever dare tell an average follower that sectarianism has no place in Islam? Why would they never tell you that it is perfectly acceptable to offer prayer in whatever manner you wish to as long as the intent is to worship Allah alone? Why do they iterate their opinions on an issue as the final verdict? Why does there always have to be a wrong? Why can there not be many rights? Why is none of this held blasphemous? The answer is quite simple but an unfortunate account of the abyss we have fallen in — because it is from a mullah.
It is the religious morbidity of two rulers of this land – Aurangzeb Alamgir and General Zia-ul-Haq – that has taught the denizens the language of extremism and hatred. And it indeed requires a revolutionary evolution of mindset and perceptions to bring an end to this business of mullahism. The change is always kindled from the inside and it is this very change we, the average followers of Islam, are awaiting. This reminds me of a quote I read in an issue of Reader’s Digest that sums up the whole deal: “I do not know what is in the heart of a rogue. But I do know what is in the heart of a gentleman, and it is horrible.”