Page:
Pages 237
Blasphemy: (A Novel)
Price:
Rs.295
Author: Tehmina
Durrani
Publishers: Ferozesons (Pvt)
Ltd., Lahore (1998)
To me, my husband was my son’s
murderer. He was also my daughter’s molester. A parasite nibbling on the Holy
Book, he was Lucifer, holding me by the throat and driving me to sin every
night. He was Bhai’s destroyer, Amma Sain’s tormentor, Ma’s humbler and the
people’s exploiter. He was the rapist of orphans and the fiend that fed on the
weak. But over and above all this, he was known to be the man closest to
Allah, the one who could reach Him and save us.
While the tantalizing title of this
fiction inspired by the true story of a woman and about the debauchery of a
Pir gives the impression of
another attack on Islam by a ‘feminist’ on the lookout for easy fame,
surprisingly the gripping novel itself has not any trace of either ‘feminism’
or disdain for religion. In fact, in many ways, it extols Islam and decries
hypocrisy and declination from the Qur’ān, especially when the deviation is
justified in the name of this very religion. Indeed, not understanding the
Qur’ān, not allowing any attempt at understanding the Qur’ān, is presented as
an important reason for the dark ignorance of the people that gives the Pir
his power. The only ‘education’ permitted to women in Pir Sain’s household is
Arabic recitation of the Qur’ān, and the way the Pir’s daughter, Guppi is
conditioned when she asks her grandmother about the Qur’ān says it all.
Guppi argued with her, ‘But I don’t
understand Arabic. How can I commit myself to Allah without knowing what I
commit to? How can I make a promise without knowing what to keep?
Guppi’s mother, Heer, the main
character of the novel is reminded of her spirit when she would ask her Baba.
‘Did Allah reveal the Holy Book to
gain sawab for reading? Was his aim not to instruct us? To give us direction?
To tell us what to be?’
The grandmother’s answer to Guppi?
Very simple:
‘It is a shame you don’t listen. I
will have to tell your father about this.’
And that threat made Gupi
somersault. She promised to read only the Arabic version.
Heer chose to remain silent at this
change even though she wished to tell Guppi that the Holy Book was
‘dangerous’. ‘It exposed those who exploited it.’ And though Blasphemy gives
no indication of how aware its author is of her religion, this is exactly what
the novel does. It exposes those who exploit Islam. In that it does not give
any clue to who the real Heer or the real Pir Sain are, it is not an expose.
But it is very much an exposure. An exposure of our consciousness to reality,
to the many real Heers and the many real Pir Sains in our society, to our own
ignorance and indifference that, by affording the despots the ‘Divine’ right
to oppress, are a significant reason for the perpetual oppression of the weak.
It is our exposure to our failure. How miserably have we failed to understand
the true Islam and to disseminate it! Indeed, there are moments in the reading
of the novel where one feels like crying out ‘This is not what Islam is. The
fault is not in the religion but in those who misuse it.’
But then, it is not only Islam which
has been misused. Many noble ideals have been ‘used’ by oppressors for
justifying most ignoble of deeds. Peace has often been murdered in the name of
peace. Freedom has been used many a time to enslave. Law has so many times in
history been the instrument of injustice. The fault is not in the ideal. Not
in Peace or Freedom or the Rule of Law -- or in Islam.
The way this religion has been
misinterpreted is a story in itself. It is as Heer laments. All the oppression
the Prophet (sws) came to end is now carried in the name of the religion he
brought. Her wails accord with the Qur’ān when it says:
At the time [O People!] when the
sun shall cease to shine, and when the stars shall be dimmed, and when the
mountains shall be set moving, and when camel, ten-months pregnant, shall be
left untended, and when wild beasts shall be gathered together, and when the
seas shall burst forth, and when [in that world] souls shall be grouped
[according to their deeds], and when the buried alive child shall be asked for
what sin was she killed…., then [O People! each] shall know what it has
brought forward. (81:1-14)
This is the Qur’ān which is used as a
basis for the notion that in Islam the worth of a woman’s testimony is half
that of a man’s, whereas at no place in the Qur’ān except one even the
question of a man’s testimony as an ‘evidence’ in a court of law has been
mentioned, let alone that of a woman’s. That one exception pertains to the
case of slander. The testimony of people guilty of this crime is not to be
accepted in any court of law (see 24:5-4). As the context shows, verse 282 of
the second sūrah of the Qur’ān, which is usually quoted as a basis for the
belief that a woman’s testimony is half, is not a necessary condition for the
validity of a contract. It is a social directive to ensure that the chances of
any dispute later on become minimal. Furthermore, the verse is not even
related to cases as murder, rape and theft where the victim does not have the
choice of selecting his or her witnesses. It pertains to economic transactions
where legal documentation can be done. Moreover, the words ‘so that if the one
forgets the other should remind her’ clearly show that the objective is to
help a typical lady, who, while not finding the court surroundings congenial,
might forget facts in her state of mind. The words are not ‘when she forgets
the other should remind her’, rather ‘if she forgets….’. What if she doesn’t
forget? Should the other make her forget to remind her? Or should the court do
the honours? It is obvious from the words of the Qur’ān that if the first does
not forget and testifies convincingly, the testimony of the second is not
required. Clearly, the preference for male witnesses while one has the choice
to choose is merely in consideration of the fact that typically ladies are
less likely to prefer being involved in legal disputes and less likely to find
the court-room congenial. (For further details see Shehzad Saleem, ‘The Law of
Evidence’ and ‘The Testimony of Women’, Renaissance, January 1991 and November
1996).
Similarly, regarding Dīyah (which is
essentially a penalty rather than a compensation) verse 178 of the second
sūrah clearly says that it is to be paid in accordance with Ma‘rūf. Ma‘rūf
refers to the good conventions of society. For example, if by convention the
Dīyah for a man and a woman is the same in a society, then, in accordance with
this verse, it is this convention which is to be followed. And the amount
itself may change with a change in convention. Just as it may change in case
of Mahr (the bridal gift paid by the groom as a token of his financial
responsibility towards the bride), which again is to be paid in accordance
with the conventions and in consideration of the status of the bride and of
the bridegroom.
But these are only a few examples of
misinterpretations. There are so many others. Issues regarding punishments for
fornication and adultery, slavery
in Islam, marriages of the Prophet
(sws), polygamy in Islam,
the procedure for divorce, the
Islamic dress code for men and women and social etiquette,
Wali’s consent in marriage,
equality of man and woman, and
many others.
While there is no room in Islam for
the kind of imported, western liberalism and modernity which is devoid of
decency and modesty, the notion of a marginalised, confined, tormented animal
that a woman is supposed to be is absolutely alien to this religion. In a
truly Islamic society, ‘Paradise is under her feet’ when she is a mother, she
is a means to entering the Kingdom of Heaven when she is a daughter, she is a
companion, a sacred responsibility, an indispensable means to making the
future generations members of the Prophet’s Ummah
when she is a wife, and she is her brother’s honour and his pride. And after
fulfilling her responsibility in these roles, she is someone who contributes
to the society in battles and wars, in medicine and science, in education and
learning, in commerce and trade and in law and legislature.
The irony is that actually in
societies professing faith in the book which leaves no room for any further
Divine directive in religion after the Prophet
and which raised the cry of bi ayyi dhambin qutilat (for what sin was she
murdered), self-proclaimed intercessors as Blasphemy’s Pir Sain have the
‘Divine’ right to distort Islam in the name of Islam and to ‘murder’ all the
rights that this religion gave to the Daughter of Eve.
Although, occasionally, the recurrent
depiction of the Pir’s morbid evildoing becomes rather repulsive for the
reader, the skein of Heer’s difficulties and the author’s language, which at
times reaches the level of brilliance, maintain the grip of the novel on the
reader to the end. The impression that this book gives about the writer is of
a woman who has gained maturity and sagacity with life and who certainly
possesses a lot of talent.
It is hoped that Blasphemy will
neither be the last nor the best of this Minto of her times, who basically
neither disparages nor promotes religion in her novel. She, very powerfully
and very skilfully, presents a reality which, despite being so pervasive,
usually eludes our attention. She merely describes things as they are. But in
doing so, impels her reader to cry out: This is not how things should be.
|