The Muslim judge in the Ayodhya dispute reminds Muslims of Hudaybyah

Posted on October 1, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, religion |

The three judge panel of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, has finally delivered three separate sets of judgments on the disposal and questions of title and rights to a disputed land. The land in question being an ancient site, now reported by the Archaeological survey of India to have been occupied by humans  from at least 1300 BCE, and traditionally long held by faithful Hindus to be the birthplace of an avatar of Vishnu or the “supreme” in Hindu philosophy.

There have been traditional narratives of pre-Islamic religious structures and complexes on the site to have had undergone a series of iconoclastic attacks by Islamists and Islamic rulers who consolidated their military power on the northern plains of India from the late 13th century CE up to and including the mughal period. The latest incident of vandalism is attributed to a commander under Babar, the leader of a faction of the neo-convert Mongols in or around 1538, when he destroyed most of what Hindu structures had existed and built a mosque. This is attested to by Islamic chroniclers and foreign travelers. This is a different and larger issue discussed threadbare from both Islamophile and Hindu sides.

What I find most interesting is however the reported statements of one of the judges, a Muslim by faith, among the panel.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805067.ece

Justice Khan said:“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].

“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. “However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.

“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.”

Now taken together that is a dangerous piece of text! Is he a judge in an Indian Court of Law or he is here representing Alim or a Mufti? He has to interpret Indian law as it exists and not argue himself as a Muslim or Islamic scholar on behalf of Muslim litigants in the case? What is more dangerous is the “subtext” of which he seems to be very particular.

From the “Hindus” he wants “sacrifice” and tyag, but from the Muslims he clearly mentions the tactical retreat involved in Hudaybya from which ultimately Muslims emerged victorious. Maybe he thinks that under the careful management of the rashtryia educational apparatus most Hindus kept ignorant of the actual history of early Islam as narrated by accepted Islamic narrators, would be unaware of the real significance of mentioning “Hudaybyah” to Muslims and especially Islamic theological establishment.

This was a “treaty” meant to be and clearly intended to be “broken” as soon as the early muslim army around its leader gained enough strength and the treaty was simply to buy time. This is what he clearly indicates in the following lines to that reference. Mentioning this in the context of the Janambhumi case can only be interpreted in one way – it is a reminder or a “subtext” message that for “survival” of Islamism in the current world, where more and more non-Muslims were becoming aware of the underlying agenda of Islamism and taking political action to prevent the spread of Islam – it was necessary to make a show of compromise. This is only to buy time and “strike back” as and when “opportunity arises”.

Moreover the claim that no blood was dropped in entering Mecca is false. There were executions, including of women who had once composed sarcastic poems ridiculing the the founding father of Islam when he secretly preached his faith in Mecca for three years before negotiating a move to Yathrib outskirts with the Yathrib Jews. The entry into Mecca followed from victory in a battle against the last Qureysh army to resist him.

Hudaybya was about gaining time and pretending cooperation simply to mask the preparations for final annihilation. The treaties were typically faithfully maintained by the non-Muslim parties but were always broken on some pretext [dreams/message from Gabriel/suspicion] when opportune and the groups finished off /driven off/killed off/enslaved.

A unique position

“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”

That bolded part is curious! it is almost verbatim from some major Islamic works – and as a theme occurs in many Islamic core texts as a strategy of war and impose the system on non-Muslims.

Is the “subtext” also a message to the Indian Muslim to wait and remember the history of Islamic spread – pretending to compromise when militarily weaker, and make a show of cooperation so that the core group is not wiped off in a conflict for which they are not prepared. Wait and gain strength and annihilate the ex-treaty-group.

Some on the media have called for “moving on” and derided “revanchism”. Moving on is a collective business – we cannot move on if only one subgroup are asked to and tries to move on. All the reactions of the Sunni Waqaf board, and people like Irfan Habib  show that the Islamists are not prepared to move on. For them, the supposed past glories of the supposed military invincibility of Islamic regimes in parts of the country – the one-sided extraction of surplus from the majority non-Muslims and the abuse of the very basics of humanity through abduction of women and whole-sale enslavement as well as religious torture and conversion which was tuned to a fine art of state policy and finance [which Irfan Habib and his father both acknowledge in their early works] – is something that cannot be abandoned.

Every fruit of such repression is cherished as a symbol of Islamic identity in India. Why? Why don’t pro-mosque voices trying to be neutral on terms set by the Islamists or their tactical supporters among non-muslims – fail to also point out the fact, that the Owaisis and Habibs [representing the supposed extreme opposites in intellectual “liberalism” among the Indian Muslims] are solidly refusing to give up on their past?

It should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest training in logical analysis that the sole reason for such cherishing of Islamic structures of the past in India – is exactly because of what they are associated with in the Indian Muslim mythology. These are all symbols of imagined Islamist triumph over the culture and religion and society of the “Hindu”. Without these landmarks, the version of Islamism in India that hopes for the “Islamist revanchism” in some future time point when hopefully Indian Muslim alone or with external help can be mobilized to finish the unfinished business of Islamization – can be kept alive.

Islamists are very keen users of site or structural iconism. It is ironic that those systems which claim greater abstraction in their theology and abhor visualizations of the “supreme” are maddeningly obsessed with “houses” and “property” and “structures/building” of the “supreme”. This is because they realize that visualizations are almost a must for the majority of any community to consolidate identities.

What is particularly revealing about the virulence with which Islamists are running the campaign about the disputed site is the connection it has to historical atrocities on Hindus. In a way the struggle in their mind is on two levels – the outer symbolic one of triumph and the imagery of Ba(r)barism that is being diluted and hence will lose its iconic message for the future. The inner level is that one of the highest and most popular deity of the Hindus seem to be winning back against Islamism’s highest deity. It is a retreat of Islamism’s “God” before the “Hindu” “God”.

This is a crucial thing to understand as to why it is important to roll back every such presence and structure. It is the Islamist refusal to move on that is the key to dealing with them. Every structure cleaned of Islamist memory of “triumph” over the “Hindu” or the “buddhist” or the Sikh – both humans as well as their “supremes” or cherished deities, is a psychological crushing of the spirit of Jihad and delegitimizing its hidden currents that is constantly seeking to “strike when opportunities arrive” along the expression that justice Khan uses in his verdict.

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

2 Responses to “The Muslim judge in the Ayodhya dispute reminds Muslims of Hudaybyah”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

Sometime a picture is worth a thousand words. The illustration of Islamic stories – their violence in color:

http://www.prophetmuhammadillustrated.com/index.html

Perhaps a reason why people don’t want pictures in Islam because the brutality of Islam is so much clearer in pictures. Bush was wrong – Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Muslims are violent imperialists. It is not surprising that the Muslim judge speaks in militant terms of treaties until Muslims are stronger and can break the peace, basically imposing by force and taking what they please.

Good stuff! Keep the blogs coming!!


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: