THERE WAS A BABRI MASJID

THERE WAS A BABRI MASJID

The historicity of temple at Ayodhya attributed to birth place of Rama is a contested issue. The right wing organizations claim that literary as well as archeological evidences show that a magnificent temple was destroyed and replaced by a Mosque. In 1989 a group of historians at the Jawahar Lal Nehru University published a pamphlet “The political Abuse of History”. The pamphlet drew attention to the fact that present day Ayodhya could not be identified with the mythological Ayodhya of Rama because of the historical fact that Saketa came to be called Ayodhya in the later period of Guptas, and thus present day Ayodhya has nothing to do with Ayodhya of Balmiki and other earlier texts. The claim of Ram temple was structured on the basis of so called archeological evidence in the form of pillars and sculptures and other fabricated inferences from excavations near the Mosque. These so called irrefutable archeological supports were refuted and shattered in The Anatomy of Confrontation (Penguin India, 1991). Hindu Rightists further claimed that rubble of the Babri Masjid after its demolition provides evidence in support of the theory of Rama Temple. The claim of arbitrary digging up of a few sculpted stones by a group of kar sewaksdid not constitute archeological support and it could not be given academic consideration and sincerity.

The objects of Archeological excavations are called artefacts are placed in the contexts of the site and merely enlisting of them is not enough. A detailed and careful documentation of the excavated articles called site notebook is necessarily maintained. Excavated artifacts, articles and objects are mute and require experts’ interpretation and because of the fact that more than one interpretation is possible, archeological data is widely discussed. It is a normal practice and procedures to publish the archeological findings and their interpretations in a professional journal to be judged by experts, academics and specialists like all disciplines which are (nearly) scientifically researched. It is very unfortunate that much publicity has been given to a (biased) interpretation of the data that is in resonance with Rightists’ view.

The study of extensive site of Ayodhya was carried by B.B.Lal in 1955-56, by V S Dubey in 1969-70. In 1969-70 an archeological team of Banaras Hindu University lead by A.K. Narain, T.N. Roy and P. Singh carried excavations by opening three small trenches in different areas; the Jain Ghat, Lakshman Tekri and Nai Tila, and also parts of Kuber Tila. The brief accounts of the results were published in annual of the ASI (1969-70)-Indian Archeology-A Review, and the history of the town (now known as Ayodhya) was dated back to Northern Black Polished Ware period (from sixth century BCE to first century BCE). In 1975 B B Lal (now retired DG of ASI), with K.V. Sundra Rajan began excavations at so called Ramayana Sites and now this time Mosque premise and adjoining area was also chosen for excavations and exploratory studies. On the basis of the finding, it was established that after post Gupta period the habitation in the town ceased till the eleventh century CE. In his monograph T.N. Roy, (published in 1986), listed the findings of the third (medieval) period and remarked the existence of abundant construction activities with bricks but on the other hand team of ASI were of no special interest in medieval period levels for unknown reasons. It is note worthy that after this; no exploratory, professional, systematic or academic studies were carried in the town but it was told that in June 1992 stone carvings were uncovered 12 feet under the ground ‘during the leveling of the ground after the demolition of the Babri Masjid’.

It would be beyond the scope of this note to analyze and scrutinize the findings of the various excavations and exploratory studies carried in the town (now known as Ayodhya). We should grasp that archaeology has umpteen limitations and interpretations of the data could hardly be ascertained. It is said that ‘yet archeology is only about people, not about the mineral content of pottery clay. It is amenable to bad and sound interpretations. Much depends on the entities that we have derived and how we classify our material’ (Ayodhya Archeology after Demolition by D.M Mandal –Orient Longman).

The contestable archaeological evidence in support of the theory of alleged destruction of a temple could not be considered definitive as eminent archeologists have doubted the claim so (de)constructed. It is a matter of concern that a very issue that started with emotions and faith is claiming the historicity on the basis of contestable theories and evidences and moreover it is also very unfortunate that a section of column responsible for delivering justice on the basis of reasoning and rationality is looking otherwise.

(Asghar Mehdi Dec 6, 2010)

Enlightenment in Europe

In 1784, German Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote an article for a popular audience explaining the meaning of the word “Enlightenment” as, “man’s emergence from nonage”. This nonage was caused not by lack of intelligence, but lack of determination and courage to use that intelligence without another’s guidance.

Dare to know! Have the courage to use your own intelligence.

It was in the 17^th century that science finally broke loose from the moorings traditions. The coalition of science and philosophy was of decisive importance to the Scientific Revolution, it lead to the best minds of the age into scientific inquiry and gave science the sanction of reasons of reason. It made the work of great scientists not a series of accidental discoveries but steps in a cumulative process and also provided the underlying principle for the whole Enlightenment.

The greatest 17^th century scientific philosophers were Descrates, Galileo Galilei and Francis Bacon. Descrates was French, a brilliant mathematician and imaginative theorizer about the nature of man and the universe. His most important contribution lies with his intellectual method known as Cartesian Thought. He developed certain revolutionary rules of reasoning which he claimed could be used for solving any complex problem. He began with the famous words: ‘I think, therefore I am’. His emphasis on the abstract character of science and because of his personal efforts it became customary to think of scientific inquiries as mathematical in nature, and of scientific laws as mathematical in form.

Galileo, Descrates’ Italian contemporary, emphasized observation: he preferred looking to abstract speculation. He advised professors of natural science to give up Aristotle’s method of propagating theories and urged them to look through his perfected telescope and see themselves; the Universe was not to be understood from theories; but from observing the thing itself. He wisely added that man should not trust sense impressions alone but should be directed by facts.

Compared to Galileo, Francis Bacon seems curiously one sided. Bacon as moralist and saint; his scientific writings are studded with aphorism and he was mainly concerned with guiding men in the right scientific procedures. He said that for centuries philosophers had acted like ‘ants’ diligently but stupidly gathering little useless bits of knowledge or like ‘spiders’ spinning out intricate, unsubstantial theories from their own insides. The true philosopher, he said, must be like a ‘bee’; he must go to nature for his raw material and absorbs nature’s lessons, and then through exacting labour, transform these lessons into sound theories.( we must read this in the background of Quaran’s continuous insistence on working of a bee)

Bacon considered that “the true and lawful goal of the science is none other than this; that human life be endowed with new discoveries and power”

In this way we see that European intelligentsia played a pivotal and crucial role in development of the process where reason held sway. Undenying fact is that interaction among classical philosophers, Muslims thinkers and European educated class created an atmosphere in Europe, where human thinking based on reason rather contaminated faith got dominance, ascendancy and control and Europe emerged from dark ages to a new light.

(It is abridged and edited version of the article that I wrote two years ago on the insistence of Late Jawed Murtaza and read in a meeting of our Organisation)

Evolution of the Authority of the Ulema

Initially during the Buyid control, it was considered by the Ulema that since the Imam had gone into Ghayabat (occultation) and there was no longer present his Naib-e-Khas (special representative), or four Babs, all the functions invested in the Imam had lapsed (became SAQIT).The principal functions of the Imam were considered to be:
1 Leadind the Holy War (jihad)

2 Divion of the Booty (qismat al –fay)

3 Leading the Friday Prayer (salaat al –juma)

4 Putting judicaial decisions into effect (tanfiz al-ahkaam)

5 Imposing legal penalities (iqmat al-hudud)

6 Receiving religious taxes Zakat and khums

This doctrine of lapse of the function of the occulted Imam was almost certainly very convenient politically at first as it served the interests of Buyids, since it established the Imami Shias as being non-revolutionary in sharp contrast with the Ismailis, who with their propaganda, were threatening to destabilize and overthrow the Buyids. On account of rapid change in political conditions in which Buyids were decimated, it soon became apparent that the situation caused by the concepts of SAQIT was extremely impractical and left the Imami community at a great disadvantage with no leadership, no organization and no financial structure. Sheikh ut Taifa (Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Hasan at Tusi 955CE -1067CE) was the first to reinterpret the doctrine so as to allow delegation of the Imam’s judicial authority to those who had studied fiqh. He considered the ulema as the best people to act as agents of the donor in distributing the religious taxes since they knew to whom it should be distributed. He allowed the fuqaha to organize the Friday prayers in the absence of the Imam or his Naib e-Khas, (ref.: an-Nihaya on fiqh), on this point Alamal Huda, Ibn Idris and Allama al –Hilli remained disagreed. Muhaqqiq al Hilli (Najud din Abul Qasim Jafar ibn Hasan, 1205CE-1277CE) extended the judicial role of the ulema to iqmat al-hudud . He was first to evolve the theory according to which fuqha from being deputies of the donor for the distribution of Khums and Zakat assumed the role of being the deputies of the Hidden Imam for the collection and distribution of the khums and Zakat, (Shara’i-al Islam). Muhaqqiq al Karaki (Nuruddin Ali ibn Abdul Ali al Amali 1465CE-1533CE) was first to suggested on the basis of hadis of Umar ibn Hanzala, that the ulema were the NAIB al- AMM-general representative of the Hidden Imam, with restriction to the duty of only leading Friday prayers,(ref: Jami al-Maqasid). It was the Shahid us Sani (Sheikh Zaynud-Din ibn Ali al-Amli al-Julabi 1506CE-1558CE), who took the concept of NAIB al- AMM to its logical conclusion and applied it to all of the religious functions and prerogatives of the Hidden Imam. Thus the judicial authority of the ulema now became a direct reflection of the authority of the Imam himself. It was now obligatory to pay the religious taxes directly to the ulema as the trustees of the Imam for distribution. In the field of defensive Jihad, he identified a role for the ulema. This gradual evolution of authority of ulema was controlled to be practiced due to strong position of Safavis (1500CE-1722CE.) It was left to the Qajar (1792-1945) period to bring most of these theoretical functions into practice. During the first Russio-Irania War (1804-13), Fatah Ali Shah’s son Abbass Mirza, obtained from Sheikh Jafar Kashiful Ghita (1743CE-1812CE) and other ulema of Najaf and Isfahan, a declaration of Jihad against the Russians and the state acknowledged ulema’s right to collect the religious tax of Khums. (ref: Kitab al-Jihadiya by Tabriz, 1818). Another eminent mujtahid Syed Muhammad Baqir Shafti (d. 1844CE) asserted iqamat al-hudud. He is said to have executed some seventy persons. (ref Tunukabuni’s Qisas al-ulama).

It is evident that by a process, comprising a period of about thousand years, exegesis and innovative interpretation, the ulema were able to effect theoretical consolidation of their authority but in such small stages as to make scarcely discernable and thus we have the impression of as having occurred no change at all. In this way Shii doctrines and principles had gone under tremendous modification by different hands.

A critical assessment of the process of this metamorphism is required and it would cover historical events, movements and other external and internal compulsions. There are umpteen issues associated with this process and the major concern is the violation and reversion of basic principle and doctrines. Now the castle appears erected on wrong foundation and we are forced to accept that basic beliefs are compromised. We are left with no other choice to believe that ulema were responding to social and economic realities around them.

KARABALA IS A SUN, WHICH SHINES WITH MANY LIGHTS,

IT IS A BOOK OF WISDOM WITH MANY COMMENTARIES.