OVERVIEW
In his article "Muslims and Hindutva: The scope for amity (December 9) Mr. Jethmalani begins his search for Hindu-Muslim unity with denunciation of Islam as being incompatible with peaceful coexistence between its followers and non-Muslims, and by postulating the superiority of Hinduism as a religion and as a way of life!
Shri Jethmalani then picks on the verses of the Holy Quran that he deems to be objectionable and calls for "reconciling the Quran with the paramount needs of the Republic'. This is nothing short of blasphemy because kingdoms and republics may flourish or decay, the Quran is the Word of God - universal and eternal.
If evolution means synthesis, as Mr. Jethmalani says, why should the Indian culture which has interacted with many alien influences, be equated with the Hindu culture? Why should national integration mean assimilation into the Hindu, sorry Hindutva, fold?
Mr. Jethmalani shows his ignorance when he speaks of "interpolations in the Quran which can be removed", There are no interpolations in the Quran. The Holy Prophet was not its author, as Mr. Jethmalani implies.
The Quran itself guarantees its authenticity and its protection against distortion or alteration. Not a syllable, not a comma or full stop has been changed in it throughout its existence. It has only one version, which is the first and the last edition. So, it cannot be re-edited to suit Mr. Jethmalani's whim. Otherwise, every generation, and every country and every population will have their own version of the Quran.
Ijtihad' means reinterpretation but it does not mean deletion or alteration or addition or subtraction.
Hindu-Muslim unity and amity do not lie in assimilation but in mutual respect for each other as followers of two distinct religions, and in working out constitutional, legal and ethical rules for peaceful co- existence and common pursuits. It lies in emphasizing equality and not superiority. It lies in tolerance and not in chauvinistic, obscurantist intolerance. Hindu-Muslim unity implies that Hindus should be Hindus and Muslims should be Muslims, yet they should unite for a common cause. Why should Mr. Jethmalani unlike Mahatma Gandhi, insists that Muslim become votaries of Hindutva or Mohammadi Hindus, as Murli Manohar Joshi demands, to be accepted as Indians?
The Quran envisages a common Creator but a world with multiple religions. Islam can co-exist in and with a multi-religious society. Unfortunately, though, Mr. Jethmalani identifies Islam as a political doctrine, a military code, not as a spiritual discipline.
Islam permits use of force by man but only in self- defense and when all other means have failed. One recalls the views of Azad and Gandhi on non-violence. Azad saw it as a contextual tactics, but Gandhi viewed it as an absolute strategy.
Mr. Jethmalani does not understand, much less appreciate, "the Muslims' allergy to Vande Mataram" Does he understand why, despite all pressures, our founding Fathers of the Constitution did not declare it to be the National Anthem? Does how that even the Congress, in pre-independence days, came to the conclusion that the Muslim objection to the song as a whole and to its context were valid? He should brush up his history and study theology a little more carefully.
I also reject Mr. Wahiduddin Khan's comparison of Muslim and Hindu communities in India with USA and Japan, as if the former favor one two 'sovereign states" in conflict with each other. The dynamics of an inter- community harmony within a state was totally different from those of an inter-state conflict, Mr. Jethmalani should know.
Every Muslim Indian longs for Hindu-Muslim amity and unity but none will oblige Mr. Jethmalani by 'editing' the Quran.
