By M. Burhanuddin Qasmi
In a sting operation that hit the very foundation of an already aggrieved and at times persecuted Indian Muslim community, a secret footage of 10 muftis (Muslim jurists) mainly from Uttar Pradesh, was shown on the Rupert Murdoch-owned Star news channel on September 16, "allegedly" taking bribes to issue fatwas in accordance with people's wishes. This article attempts to come up with the complete version of the story to unmask the conspiracy against Indian madressahs and show the real face of the Indian media.
The impact of the media, especially electronic news channels, in forming public opinion is widely accepted. Muftis at reputed institutions or for that matter all human beings, are neither perfect nor completely prone to err. Likewise, all mediamen are not supermen. Half-trained or immature people from the media have often been proven to be a "˜part of the story' rather than honest narrator of incidents.
TV shows sometimes create stories for the sole reason of sensationalising certain issues. A few days ago a famous comedy show portrayed how a TV reporter becomes hungry for "˜exclusive breaking news', and to what extent he goes to cover a "˜live' story. In the show one reporter tries to convince a young man from Bihar into burning himself to shoot a suicide scene. The reporter assures the reluctant youth of protection against fire and of giving him Rs25,000 along with medical care after the action is recorded. The poor "˜hero' agrees, thinking Bollywood heroes die only on screen. In the show the victim is shown cheated by the reporter. He cries for help, runs for safety while the news channel gives exclusive live coverage to the incident with the tag "˜Exclusive on "¦ TV' and the poor hero's life comes to an end, creating headlines in the next day's papers.
One is not trying to say that it's a real story; but it also doesn't mean that this doesn't happen in the competitive world of media.
Story follow-up: Following the startling 'evelation', the print and electronic media, and the Internet were abuzz with "˜exclusive' headlines and analysis on the sensational "findings". The story was dubbed by Time Magazine website in partnership with CNN as the "Cash-for-Fatwas" scandal, an epithet perhaps coined after the "Cash-for-Questions" scandal that tarnished the image of the British Conservative Party over a decade ago. The Indian press "˜in the race to report first' made the story spicier which apparently was not different from that of former BJP president Bangaro Laxman's story, unveiled by Thelka.com or reports of the sex scandal of some Hindu priests and Bollywood actors, shown on Indian TV in the past.
The channel aired, for 90 minutes, how bribes, between rupees one thousand and five thousand, were offered to muftis by undercover reporters having hidden cameras over a period of six weeks. In return for the hadya (gift), the muftis were framed receiving cash to hand out fatwas written in Urdu on issues raised by the reporters. Interestingly, some of the accused muftis never watched TV in their lifetime and even stopped others from doing so on religious grounds, but the accusation ultimately forced them to watch their story on TV.
With the unsuccessful aim of highlighting "corruption" at reputed Islamic learning centres, the channel's team instead unmasked its own conspiracy against madressahs in India. The media launched a visibly successful anti-madressah campaign as part of achieving the aim of "˜enduring freedom' after the 9/11 incident. It is time for Indian madressahs to face the course because perhaps the mother of all Indian subcontinental madressahs "” Darul Uloom Deoband "” still stands tall. "The present media is under western or Zionist influence," an opinion that some Muslim circles hold seems no more negligible. The channel's investigative team was led by Jamshed Khan, a little known journalist, who might have been used as a tool because he has a Muslim name.
The other version: The Star Group, during its investigation, made a ridiculous discovery that the muftis who give religious rulings on day-to-day issues are corrupt. It tried to "˜faint' viewers with questions and doubts and make people angry at the ulema and madressahs. Arab News, the Middle East's leading English language daily, while commenting on the story dubbed it "investigative journalism at its worst" and raised substantial doubts on the authenticity of the operation.
On the second day after the so-called "˜sting operation' of Star was shown, Muslim intellectuals and the Urdu press in India voiced their opinion and the latter published the original story. All major Urdu dailies "” Inquilab, Rashtriya Sahara, Munsif and Siyasat "” extensively gave experts' views on the issue and questioned the authenticity of the Star TV's discoveries. It was so strange to notice that the English press printed the story without having the slightest doubt, seemingly treating Star's findings as 'evelation from the heavens'.
What the accused say: This writer contacted Shamshad Ahmad (Nadir) Qasmi, an accused seen on the tape from the Delhi-based Islamic Fiqh Academy on September 18, and asked him to give his opinion. He replied, "Yes I did receive rupees five thousand from one Faisal who insisted me to get the hadya (gift) on behalf of his lather merchant employer based in Kanpur after the questions he asked were replied". Nadir said he denied the offer at first saying, "I am an employee and I get salary for this service". This person along with his two colleagues laughed at him and urged, "Maulana sahib, this is the hadya and you know even the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) never rejected the hadya, please take it, and moreover this is nothing but a show of reverence for the ulema. On the insistence of the three men who had visited me three times till May 14, I agreed to receive the hadya," said Nadir. When they asked him how much they should pay, Nadir said, "I was bemused by their apparent innocence about the fact that the hadya is not demanded. I informed them about it and then suggested to offer whatever they wished."
Nadir apparently broke down while saying that all three meetings stretched to a few hours, which were reduced to less than four minutes only on the tape, and only his laughter, counting money and his words like "I will take"¦ money"¦ rupees five thousand"¦ yes give whatever you want" were shamelessly shown on TV. He highly objected when this writer called the Star TV reporters "˜journalists' and observed, "they were spies working for a sophisticated global network".
Mufti Habibur Rahman's version: When this writer asked Mufti Habibur Rahman, the prime accused in the so-called operation, to explain the episode, the 76-year-old reputed professor of the Darul Uloom Deoband replied in a tired voice, "Allah knows why these people are so deceitful." He said he never accepted any paisa from the people who visited him looking for fatwas throughout his 23-year-long carrier at the Darul Ifta (faculty of jurisprudence) of the Darul Uloom Deoband. He said, "No, not even the hadya (gift) except from my students or people whom I personally know." When asked about the money he was putting in his bag shown on TV he replied, "It was mine, I got it in lieu of my books from the bookseller at the time when these people were sitting before me. The amount was handed over to me by an employee from Hussainia Kutubkhana. I counted the money before them and put it in my bag."
Mufti Habibur Rahman further explained that the middleman shown on the tape "”Maulana Mohammad Imran "” asked him in the beginning "if the Darul Uloom receives any charge for fatwa?" to which he replied in the negative. While they were waiting for their reply sheet to be inscribed on the Darul Uloom's record book and handed over to them, Maulana Imran introduced his companions to Mufti Rahman as "rich people from Delhi" and requested "hazrat inki taraf se kuch to hadya qabool kar lijey" (sir accept from them some money as a gift, please) which he said "˜he rejected'.
Mufti Habibur Rahman, who never watched television in his life before the recording went on air, was extremely upset to notice that "˜this also happens in the name of sahafat' (journalism) on TV channels. He said that he was certain that those so-called journalists "˜were anti-Muslims' who distorted even original text of the fatwa he delivered to them "˜for their vested interest'.
The rational arguments: The programme levelled three allegations at the muftis: firstly, it claimed that it had made a "startling discovery that the fatwa ... cannot only be easily bought but made-to-order"; secondly, that "muftis accept bribes for delivering the fatwa as per questioners' choice"; and thirdly, the muftis "produced the wrong fatwa".
I will here try and focus on Mufti Habibur Rahman's part of the story as the channel had tried to dent the reputation of the Darul Uloom.
1. The most important aspect of the issue is that the fatwa under discussion was not only misinterpreted, showed out of context, but it was also literally changed "”'allowed' to "˜not allowed' "” by the channel to give the desired twist to the verdict. The original fatwa was, as the archives' record at the Darul Ifta shows, "fi nafsihi credit card ka istemal jaaiz hai magar ..." (In itself the use of credit card is allowed but if one defrauds with the card or carelessly avails usury then it would be not allowed). The so-called sting operation walked over all ethics of journalism and changed the very important phrase "jaiz hai" (allowed) to "na jaiz hai" (not allowed) in the first sentence.
2. The question asked by one Amir bin Javed Haq of Kalkaji, New Delhi on May 7, 2006, whom the channel claimed one of its undercover operatives, is recorded with reference No. 507 and was replied under reference No. 558 according to the archives book of the Darul Ifta, clearly invites an unconditional verdict against the use of credit cards. For, the question itself reasons the decision when it states, "What do the learned people say about this issue that in our country various banks provide credit cards facility, while in the beginning people are lured to avail the cards and later they have to pay a huge amount as usury. Is transaction of usury and use of credit card allowed in Islam according to the Sharia?" Any person with common understanding of Islamic teachings would certainly reply, no, it isn't allowed in Islam. But while replying this very question the muftis of the Darul Uloom Deoband happened to be smarter, they were not betrayed by the question and replied accurately.
3. Maulana Imran read out the alleged original fatwa from the Urdu text on TV and made deliberate changes in the text. He read, "fi nafsihi credit card ka istemal jaaiz nahi hai "¦" with the criminal addition of the word "nahi" (not) to the original text, which severely affected the verdict. Throughout the programme the TV channel repeatedly put on screen the Hindi version of the distorted text.
4. The channel claimed to offer Mufti Habibur Rahman rupees five thousand as bribe for the fatwa in five hundred rupee notes. It means there were only 10 notes and not a bundle of them, but interestingly Mufti Rahman was seen on camera putting a thicker bundle of notes in his bag which will be at least equal to rupees fifty thousand if the notes were of five hundred rupees.
5. The channel "˜circled' Mufti Habibur Rahman putting a folded bundle of money in his bag and it was one of the repeated focal points of the story. It failed, on the contrary, to show the actual transaction from both sides as it did with the other accused on the tape while it was not a difficult "˜shot' because the accused mufti and all three people from the Star team were sitting on the carpet, and there was no divider among them except a very small desk (tipayee).
6. The channel claimed to buy the "˜wrong' fatwa. After rechecking the text with various Sharia experts in India and abroad, the fact remains that the fatwa was cent per cent in accordance with Islamic teachings.
7. The natural sun-shining background seen on the tape indicates that when Star TV men visited the Darul Uloom, collected the fatwa and allegedly handed out money to Mufti Rahman, it was morning "” pre-noon time "” and they also stated on the tape that the timing of fatwa deliverance and money transaction was the same as their preset game plan. Moreover, Mufti Rahman himself and other staff members in the office confirmed that the team collected the fatwa before 10:30am (10:30am to 2pm is official break time). Notably, the Azaan during daytime begins at 1pm in all mosques at the Deoband and Faculty of Ifta (Darul Ifta), stationed at "˜Qadeem Masjid's first floor', and it does not get sunshine inside it when the sun changes direction in the afternoon. But the Azaan is heard on the tape in the morning, while those people were inside the Darul Ifta. According to Maulana Marghubur Rahman, the rector, as it seems valid, the original sound on the tape must have been tempered with, and the sound of the Azaan was added in place of Mufti Rahman's rejection.
8. The anchor on Star's "˜Benaqaab' show roars that the "˜fatwa about credit card was delivered by Mufti Habibur Rahman' and lauds Mufti Zafiruddin's name as a symbol of "˜honesty', but the fact is that the fatwa about credit card was delivered by all the three main muftis and it carries signatures of Mufti Habibur Rahman, Mufti Zafiruddin and Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan.
9. Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan sat hardly five feet away from Mufti Habibur Rahman in the office during the recording and witnessed the visitors offer Mufti Rahman cash as the hadya and on their repeated request. He was a bit angry and rejected the offer.
10. In the end, the real "˜hero' of the "˜Benaqaab' team, Mualana Mohamamd Imran of Meerut whom the channel claimed to have borrowed, stated to the Darul Uloom Deoband's investigative team and other prominent personalities that Mufti Habibur Rahman never accepted any money, whatsoever, and rejected the offer of the hadya as well.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag3.htm
|