Editorial

Notwithstanding apology, the highly disparaging statement about Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) and Islam by Pope Benedict XVI is bound to be seen as an irritant in a meaningful dialogue with the Vatican in months ahead. The comments were outrageous enough to be imagined to be emanating from the high office of Papacy, let alone Pope himself. In a time when the Muslim world has been at the receiving end of the aggression by imperialist America and its stooge Israel in the Middle East, such words from the Pope carry a ring of suspicion of active nexus between the Vatican and the jingoistic Bush-Blair duo. Pope’s unqualified use of the quote from the 14th century emperor Manuel II in an address at the Regensburg University had all the elements of approval by the Pope. Few therefore could be accused of tearing them out of context, a usual alibi that is resorted for rescue from embarrassment in such situations. Apology therefore does not mitigate the shock, horror and dismay that pervades the Muslim world.


Pope Joseph Ratzinger’s predecessor John Paul II had taken significant steps to reach out to Muslims to take the inter-civilisational dialogue forward. In this soothing campaign, he had even stepped inside the Damascus’ famed Ummayyad Mosque-first ever by a Pope to do-to put a balm on the historic scars of the Crusades waged by Christian Europe and end hostility between the two great faiths. But the current Pope had hinted a toughening of the posture early enough by removing Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, an expert of Arab-Islamic affairs looking after the department of inter-faith dialogue in the Vatican. He was virtually demoted by his dispatch as the papal envoy to Egypt, a move whose sagacity was questioned even within the Vatican.


With outrage over Danish newspaper’s cartoons having hardly died, the Pope has stoked the embers afresh. This only leads to suspicion that the Christendom is interested in keeping the pot boiling.


Even if the illegal wars being waged by the West in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon are removed from the context of hostility, the West should be reminded about its excesses in the past. The Crusaders raised their war cry from Christian Europe. The two World Wars, Chernobyl, Holocaust, Apartheid, the Stalinist terror, all happened in the Christian West. The Star wars, the atomic, biological and chemical weapons have all been developed in the West. In fact, no one can claim the patent on violence better than the West itself, with almost all ethnic Europeans being Christians. Indeed, the two Muslims states in the belly of Europe, namely Kosovo and Albania, prohibited the construction of mosques, yet were targets of ethnic cleansing by Serbs. Bosnian conflict would have not taken such a turn if Europe had not been suffering from Islamophobia. In fact, Islam as a culture has been more beleaguered than belligerent. Pope’s expunged remarks therefore are completely out of sync with both the historic reality and current depredations.

The day-long expose of the clerics issuing fatwas as desired by ‘mediapersons’ deputed on sting operation in lieu of money should have a chastening effect for all those who have attached considerable sanctity to mushrooming madrasas and darul iftas. The shameful images of moulvis pocketing wads of notes and agreeing to issue fatwas that suit their seekers have had an immensely disconcerting effect on those who have all along been pleading for change in curriculum, management and funding system of these centres of Islamic learning. That the credibility of the entire educational system has been impaired beyond reform is just one aspect. Damage is much more grievous. It has brought disgrace to a system in which Muslims reposed immense faith and had looked at them as nurseries of incorruptible community leaders, if not competent and efficient managers of their affairs.


It was apparent that several of these darul iftas were self-styled even to a moderately educated person. In a world where institutions build credibility due to their consistent policies, representative character, transparent funding, established principles, accountability of the people at the helms, much of these bodies had survived merely on the outward manifestation of their religiosity, the austere life of their custodians and simple ways of its keepers. Given their limited understanding of the humanities and the natural sciences, their incompetence in making rulings on modern affairs like media, banking insurance, new financial instruments, modern gizmos, or even Constitutional and international law was well known. Yet the bumbling and blundering clerics were pardonable, given the meagre resources they depended upon for their livelihood as well as to gain insight into the nitty gritty of the complex socio-moral and medico-ethical issues. Fears about their competence to rule on matters modern were not entirely misplaced in the light of the fatwas on three talaq, Imrana et al. But the seamy underside of the clerics has now been thoroughly laid bare before all eyes. It is plain that they are equally vulnerable to pecuniary lures and juristic opinion could be game for people doling out favours.


Clearly the situation calls for curtailing of unabated growth of these bodies, infusing discipline among those affiliated to a centralised authority, thorough training of clerics in ethical mores, restraining the immature minds from ruling over sensitive matters. With media able to access every recesses of human activity, such measures will be indispensable.