The Islamic seminary at Deoband, located 150 kilometres north-east of Delhi, maintains that singing Vande Maataram violates Islam’s faith in monotheism.

A resolution adopted by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind at its 30th general session also said that Muslims were being “targeted over the issue,” adding that “we love our country and have proved it many times, but we cannot elevate it to the status of Allah, the only one worshipped by the Muslims.”

Asserting that the ‘fatwa’ issued by the Darul Uloom is “correct,” the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind said that referring to the nation as mother and singing an ode to motherland is “un-Islamic” and violates “our faith in monotheism that is Islam’s foundation.”

It may be noted that the Jamiat’s move comes at a time when a few states such as Madhya Pradesh, ruled by the BJP, has introduced singing Vande Maataram in state-run schools.

Jamiat’s endorsement of Darul Uloom’s stand on Vande Maataram came a on the same day the ‘general session’ of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind was addressed by Union Home Minister P Chidambaram.

In his speech, P Chidambaram had taken care to stay away from any controversy and praised Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind for the resolution it adopted against terrorism in Deoband in 2008.

Chidambaram said that the Jamiat’s call against terrorism was a call to all citizens of the country, and not just Muslims, to oppose terrorism and violence. While condemning the demolition of the Babri masjid, the Home Minister said “it is the duty of the majority to look after the minorities.”

The Union Home Minister has since clarified that he was not present when the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind adopted the resolution against the recital of Vande Maataram.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) reacted to the Jamiat’s stand by saying that the presence of the Union Home Minister had “legitimized” the attitude against Vande Maataram.

In a statement, Murli Manohar Joshi, BJP leader, said that the party opposes the resolution passed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind.

Mukhtar Naqvi, vice-president of the BJP, said that while the singing of Vande Maataram was not compulsory, the way in which the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind opposed the song – “immortalised in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s classic” – is unacceptable.

Naqvi also criticized P Chidambaram for having addressed a gathering where the singing of Vande Maataram was being opposed, arguing that the Minister’s speech would be construed as supporting the “retrograde” viewpoint of the Jamiat.

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, in other resolutions, disagreed with the proposed Central Madrasa Board, saying that such a body would be an “intrusion” in the running of madrasas.

The Jamiat demanded that that education of girls after the age of 10 should be “completely according to the norms of the Sharia.” Though the Jamiat did not specify what it meant by “Sharia norms,” it is generally believed that the radical Muslim outfit was referring to the use of the veil and the hijab as well as separate classrooms for boys and girls.

Darul Uloom has repetitively described co-education as “unlawful” and even opposed a ruling recently by a senior cleric at the much-respected Al Azhar, of Cairo, that face-veils were not needed in all-women classrooms.

Vande Mataram has always been a point of controversy ever since it was adopted by the freedom movement against the British Raj in India. Muslims had opposed it even then, and several leaders of the Congress were uncomfortable with some of the supposed ‘anti-Muslim’ tone of the novel in which the song had first appeared.

In the last twenty years, the RSS, BJP and its allies have attempted to use the Vande Mataram as a touchstone to Indian Muslims’ patriotism. This has predictably led to even more angry denunciations from Muslim organisations. After the endorsement of the Vande Mataram Fatwa, Shiv Sena leader Uddhav Thackeray said that those who do not sing the song were traitors and they should go to Pakistan or Bangladesh. That is definitely not a very helpful attitude in convincing Muslims to sing the Vande Mataram, we believe.

On the other hand, focusing on such symbolic issues other than on more substantive issues such as education and women’s rights have always been a tactic adopted by Islamic leaders – both religious and political – in India to keep the community under their thumb.

What is clear is that ‘Love Jihad’ refers to an allegedly well-organised campaign, being fanatically and fervently executed by young Muslim men, in which they intentionally lure women from different faiths, especially Hinduism and Christianity, into love and marriage and then forcibly convert them into Islam.

The “clandestine” campaign called ‘Love Jihad’ or ‘Romeo Jihad’ first came to light in September 2009,  when two young Muslim men from Pathanamthitta, a town south-eastern Kerala, reportedly beguiled two women, one a Hindu and the other a Christian, into marriage and later forced them to convert into Islam. 

Though at first the two women insisted that they embraced Islam of their own free will, later, after returning to their own homes, they said they had been abducted and been forced to convert to Islam.

The two young Muslim men in question reportedly belonged to Campus Front, the student wing of Popular Front of India (PFI), a radical Muslim outfit. 

The incident at Pathanamthitta triggered a plethora reports in the media on the so-called Love Jihad – covering it from various angles, and describing and defining it in different ways, so much so that the subject started weighing heavily on the minds of Malayalees in general within and outside Kerala.

At the same time, various organisations of Hindus and Christian came up with their own opinions and explanations.

The radical Hindu group called Sri Ram Sena says that thousands of non-Muslim girls, after getting married to Muslim men, have been converted to Islam by force in the last few years. Further, the Sri Ram Sena alleges that those women who have been thus converted are being trained to do “anti-national activities.”

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the country’s main Opposition party, maintains that the members of ‘Love Jihad’ are supported by funds from abroad, especially the Islamic countries in West Asia.

Christian organisations, too, are seized of the alleged threat from ‘Love Jihad.’

The powerful Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC) – an alliance of the bishops of the Catholic Church in Kerala – has come out with vivid data and description of the deeds of the radical Islamic outfit.

An article was published in the newsletter of the KCBC asserting that about 4,000 girls have been forcibly converted to Islam since 2005 after they fell in love with Muslim men.

The article, written by Father Johny Kochuparambil, secretary of the Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance – which is a wing of the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council – lists 2,868 non-Muslim girls who were “trapped” in the “Love Jihad net” from 2006 to 2009. The writer of the article did not specify where the data was obtained from, but insisted that it came from “highly reliable sources.” 

The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council has even issued guidelines on how to protect girls from the menace, by asking parents and authorities of school and colleges to keep a close watch on the activities of the children and to discourage them from over-use of mobile phones and internet.

It appears that the alleged Islamic campaign has spread from Kerala to the neighbouring state of Karnataka.

In October 2009, the father of a woman, who converted to Islam in order to marry a Muslim man, filed a habeas corpus petition in a court in Karnataka complaining that his daughter was the victim of Love Jihad. However, the woman informed the court that she converted to Islam on her own free will.

All the same, the court observed that it has “serious suspicions” about the woman’s statement that her conversion was voluntary and that the case has “ramifications for national security.” The court went on to state that the case of the converted woman raises questions of unlawful trafficking of girls and women in Karnataka and ordered that the case be investigated by the police. 

According to the Karnataka court’s order, police in both Karnataka and Kerala initiated an investigation into whether an outfit named Love Jihad, or Romeo Jihad, did exist or not. The police of both states reached the conclusion that such a group does not exist.

Jacob Punnoose, Director-General of Police, Kerala, informed the High Court of Kerala that no organisation named ‘Love Jihad’ existed in Kerala, but added that the police have reasons to suspect that there have been “concentrated efforts” by Muslim men to persuade non-Muslim women to convert to Islam after falling in love. 

The alleged threat of ‘Love Jihad’ has brought Christian and Hindu organisations to work together to combat the “menace” since women from both the communities reportedly have become victims.

The media in Kerala quoted an office-bearer of the Christian Association for Social Action (CASA), based in Kochi, as saying that girls from both the Christian and Hindu communities are “falling prey to the Love Jihad campaign” and so the CASA is cooperating with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on this issue.

BY A CORRESPONDENT

Ever heard of the mutawas? You may have heard something about the much-feared faith police of Saudi Arabia from your friends there. Or you may have read a bit here and there in the media or in books about the faith police spreading terror in the desert kingdom. There’s much, much more to know about them and their atrocities.

Who are they? What is their ‘holy mission”? How do they operate? “Mutawas: Saudi Arabia’s Dreaded Religious Police”, written by Joy C. Raphael (joycraphael@yahoo.com), who worked for 14 years in that country, provides answers to all these questions and tells a lot more.

Published by Turtle Books, an imprint of Zen Publications (zenpublications@gmail.com), “Mutawas: Saudi Arabia’s Dreaded Religious Police” is the first-ever book focusing solely on these ‘supreme guardians of public morality’ in the oil-soaked desert kingdom.

Offshoots of Islam’s Wahabi ideology, the mutawas — dressed in ankle-length white robes and chequered red and white head dress minus the circular black band on the head that all Saudis wear, are
everywhere in Saudi Arabia. Christians and Hindus are their primary targets. So are Islamic sects, like the Shiites, Sufis and Ahmediyas. Even liberal Sunni Muslims are in the mutawas’ crosshairs.

The great game of the mutawas is conversion. Those not converting voluntarily are coerced or blackmailed into converting by them or their agents. Mutawas also dangle financial baits to lure the
faithless to convert to Islam. The result: over the years, thousands of Hindus and Christians have gone over to Islam against their will.

Viswanath’s conversion is a case in point. The razing of the Babri Masjid, in the early 1990s, saw anti-Hindu sentiments rising to a crescendo in Saudi Arabia. Thousands of Hindus were summarily dismissed from jobs and expelled from the country. The sacking orders for Vishwanath, working for a prominent Riyadh computer firm, soon reached his table. In panic, he rushed to his boss.

“If you convert to Islam, you can save your job,” the boss coldly told him.

Seeing no other way out, since he had a huge housing loan to repay back in India, Vishwanath opted to convert.

There are thousands of Vishwanaths in Saudi Arabia today.

The mutawas are in every nook and cranny of Saudi Arabia. Do not pray if you are a Christian or Hindu. The mutawas are watching you. Do not watch porn films. The mutawas have their ears to your door. Do not talk to an unmarried member of the opposite sex. The mutawas’ eyes are alert. Do not drink. The mutawas are sniffing everywhere for the smell of liquor.

The mutawas, functioning under the Department for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, are not alone in zealously guarding virtue in Saudi Arabia – the civilian police assists them. And they have spies among the expatriates, working for financial gains.

The mutawas are a rock-solid institution in Saudi Arabia. Mutawas: Saudi Arabia’s Dreaded Religious Police is an eye-opener which can shock you.

Saudi Arabia is a country where women are not allowed to drive, in many cases, not allowed to work when they can come in contact with women, and not allowed out alone. And that country now gets its first ever female minister. She is Norah Al-Faiz, U.S educated former teacher and an expert in girl’s education.

Norah bint Abdullah al-Faiz was has been made the deputy education minister by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in a recent cabinet reshuffle which also saw some conservatives losing their positions.

“This is an honor not only for me but for all Saudi women. In the presence of a comprehensive operational team, I believe I’ll be able to face challenges and create positive change,” she told Arab News. Faiz said she would study the state of girls’ education in Saudi Arabia before commenting on the task before her.

Norah Al-Faiz received her Bachelor’s Degree in Arts from King Saud University in Riyadh in 1978 and her Master’s Degree in Education from Utah State University in 1982. Before her new appointment, she was the director general of the women’s section at the Institute of Public Administration. Before 1993, Norah Al Faiz was controller of education techniques at the Institute of Private Education under the Ministry of Education from 1989. Norah’s appointment is the highest rank ever attained by any woman in Soudi Arabia.

Optimism about Kig Abdullah’s appointment of Norah Al Faiz and other reformists is tempered, though, because the society and bureaucracy still remains very conservative. There is fear that the appointment of the first female minister may end up as just a symbolic gesture. More important in the larger schemes of things are how the reforms brought in by the King will be implemented by the bureaucracy, which is still very conservative.

After ascending the the throne of Saudi Arabia in 2005, this was King Abdullah’s first reshuffle and an opportunity to replace the anti reformists – the chief of the Saudi religious police, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Ghaith, and the country’s most senior judge, Sheikh Salih Ibn al-Luhaydan. Among his most well-known achievements is an edict which declared that television channel executives who promote immorality can be killed. Ghaith, who runs the commission for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice, known as the mutawa, which enforces bans on alcohol and drugs, has gained a reputation for brutality. Both have been removed.

King Abdullah is known to be impatient with the pace of reforms in this most conformist of all Islamic countries. It is often said that Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries were the leaders are held back from reforms by conservative popular opinion.

Norah Al-Faiz’s appointment can be considered as a first step for a better tomorrow for women in Saudi Arabia but serious changes are needed, said an outspoken advocate of women’s rights on Sunday. She said the “guardianship system” is the first thing that should be removed by the new Saudi government.

According to the guardian system, a woman is still not completely in control of her life and her decisions because it is not up to her but her male guardian.

She noted that Saudi women still do not have the right to drive and are still recognized under Saudi law as the property of men.

Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi school of Islam imposes a strict separation opposite sexes, burqa laws, and keeps them dependent on male guardians. It is unlikely Norah Al Faiz’s appointment to the minister post will change any of that. But it might be a small first step – one that would lead to more reforms, or to a major clash between reformists and conservatives.

The editor and publisher of The Statesman were arrested by West Bengal Police for allegedly hurting the religious feelings of Muslims.

The two were arrested from their residences after Muslim groups protested in the streets against an article The Statesman had reprinted from the Independent titled “Why Should I respect These Oppressive Religions” by Johann Hari, a veteran journalist.

The Independent writes about the controversy:

On two separate occasions Mr Kumar, The Statesman’s editor, issued statements standing by his decision to publish the article. But he also said he had not meant to cause offence to any religion. A note published on 8 February said The Statesman had reprinted Hari’s article because “it mourned the marginalisation of the middle, liberal path in modern society”. It added: “The Statesman has always upheld secular values and has a record of providing space to all viewpoints, even contentious ones. If we were unable to fulfil this role, we would rather cease publication with honour than compromise our basic values.

Bold and courageous words. Follow up and actually do it again, and probably you will spend a lot of time behind bars, my fellow Indian journalists.

There is no explicity guaranteed freedom of speech in India, and it has been very obvious to us. Considering that 90 % of the country would want freedom of speech to be curtailed so it does not offend the religious sensibilities of every community in India – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain – you are on a losing wicket.

Yes, you can try to push the envelope and try to tread that line where a lot of people are perennially pissed but never go ahead and file a case againat you. Tricky. We all make mis-steps and so will you.

There is a reason why this site – dancewithshadows – does not publish very many articles about religion. Any religion. Because if I do that, I am left with two options. Get thrashed by some group, or get thrown behind bars. And as this is a simple news and features site, and we do not make enough money to afford a lawyer to get me out, it is a losing battle which would just see me spending weeks or months taking a crap in a dirty crapper while my cell-mates watch.

In a way, it is hilarious that the protests by Muslim groups in Kolkata actually prove the point Johann Hari made – that you can’t criticise religions now, and freedom to do so have been eroded.

India has the infamous Section 295A (maliciously insulting the religions or the religious belief of any class) of the Indian Penal Code, under which anyone can file a case. Several such cases have been filed across India, and many have been put behind bars. Usually everyone tends to lose interest in the case as soon as the malicious insulter is behind bars, and soon, he manages to be out on bail.

It has not helped that every community in India has a small group of dedicated offendees.

There were protests in India when we heard about the Prophet Mohammed cartoons published in Denmark. There are continuing protests against MF Hussain’s paintings by Hindu groups, and they have a lot of support, at least online. Christians were offended about the Da Vinci Code and even the Catholic Church got involved.  An art exhibition in Vadodara, Gujarat, India was attacked, and the painter and the Dean got in trouble. Taslima Nasreen could not live peacefully in India after she had to leave Bangladesh for offending Muslims, and she had to leave India too (In this case, Gujarat suddenly became the beacon of freedom of expression). A joke book about Sikhs (sardar jokes have always been popular in India, and even Khuswant Singh got in trouble for publishing them in his columns) saw its publisher behind bars. Even Anil Ambani got into trouble, but he’s Anil Ambani, and he is safe. That’s what being an Ambani can do for you. Hell, wearing a certain kind of dress can offend some people.

If there is one thing most of India agrees on, it is that criticising a religion should get your ass kicked. It may be a physical ass-kicking, or a legal one – but it would get kicked with massive force for sure.

What is one to do if you want to criticise something in a religion, caste or community in India? Nothing. You can’t do it. There is no legal way to do it. It might be a very reasonable question about Lord Rama, or the actions of Prophet Mohammed, or about the birth of Jesus Christ. No chance. (Notice how polite and formal I have been there, with no describing anything? That’s what fear of jail can do to you.)

I wonder why no one tries to take it to its logical conclusion, though.

For example, Islam does not recognise Jesus as the son of God. So doesn’t every true believer of Islam continuously offend Christians? Christians do not recognise Prophet Mohammed as a prophet, so isn’t that absolutely offensive to all Muslims? And aren’t all monotheistic religions offensive to Hindus as they…. never mind, I am scared already.

The only community or class which cannot be offended, even if you really try, are the atheists. You can offend them all you want, and they would neither take you to jail, or would come beat you up. Courts would throw out any lawsuit they file against anyone offending their beliefs.

So let’s enjoy what little freedom of speech we have. Let us all gang up and offend the atheists. Or let us gang up and offend, ah, Zeus.

Everyone say it aloud, together.

Fuck you, Zeus!