The Irrfan Khan Controversy — An Ill-informed Muslim or a Seasoned Marketer?
Lately, much has been talked about Qurbani and other Islamic traditions, thanks to the sweeping statements made by Irrfan Khan here. During a recent interview while promoting his upcoming film - Madaari, Khan touched upon the subject of Islam and a few reforms that he believes Muslims should accept.
A lot of people are happy that someone like Irrfan Khan has questioned Islamic practices and have wished ‘may his tribe increase’, ‘kudos’ and ‘we need more Muslims like him’.
I am completely okay with Khan exercising his freedom of expression. It is just that the time he chooses to exercise his freedom seems selfish and opportunistic. Khan has pulled off the oldest trick in the movie marketing playbook — stirring up public sentiments just before his movie releases. Most film-makers and actors do this. And this, apparently, has worked extremely well garnering them free media worth millions of Rupees.
But, I will not speak more on how The Irrfan Khan controversy is, at best, a cheap publicity stunt. Instead, I will exercise my freedom of expression, dishing out a rebuttal to Khan’s claims.
On Qurbani
Khan says, “The meaning of Qurbani is to sacrifice something which is close to you instead of any goat or sheep which you just buy to sacrifice. Before sacrificing we should share a bond with that thing otherwise just killing of an animal will not serve the purpose. Nowadays we have lost the relevance behind such religious activities and perform these rituals without knowing the meaning behind them”
I agree with Khan when he says that we have lost the relevance behind such religious activities and action them without understanding the purpose. However, I strongly disagree with the first part.
Here’s a small background for non-Muslims: Muslims world over are supposed to rear an animal (usually a goat) for a good amount of time (thereby developing a special affection with the animal) before going ahead with a sacrificial slaughter. This action of Muslims honours the willingness of Prophet Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, as an act of submission to Almighty’s command, before which God intervened and informed him that his sacrifice has already been accepted.
The key here is to develop a bond, and then sacrificing it in the name, and for the sake, of God.
In order to develop a bond, after buying the goat, people usually take a lot of interest in feeding it and taking care of it in the best possible manner. This is still being done in most parts of India (I’m speaking, for the sake of argument, only for Indians). However, in today’s day and age when it comes to cities and towns where the real estate and the multicultural environment pose a hindrance, it becomes difficult for Muslims here to ‘possess and rear a goat’ in their places of residence. Rearing a goat in a cosmopolitan residential complex may mean discomfort for other non-Muslim residents— therefore usually avoided. Hence, the ‘affection/bond’ may clearly be missing.
So, does that mean we abolish the practice altogether?
No. Here’s why. Although it is difficult to find relevance in one aspect, the other aspects of Qurbani are equally, if not more, important. The meat of the sacrificed animal, according to Islam, should be divided into three equal parts,
- the first part is to be given away to the needy / poorer section of the society;
- second part is to be distributed amongst friends and relatives;
- and the third is to be kept for personal consumption.
Thus, the other two clear benefits of Qurbani are,
1. Poor people of the society, their kids have ample of food to eat for the next couple of days
2. The relationship with kinfolks is encouraged, thus strengthening the ties
So it still makes sense to do Qurbani (sacrificial slaughter) even though the bond may be missing. Also, for all those who have gone wild about the thought of sacrificing the life of an animal, let me remind you that at least 70% of India consumes non-vegetarian food. [Source: http://huff.to/29cdnu9]
I think I have made my point here.
On Ramzan
Khan laments, “Rather than fasting during Ramzan, people should self-introspect…”
Muslims who think Fasting is the be all and end all of Ramadan couldn’t be further from the truth. If all you’re doing is staying hungry between dawn and dusk, you are simply starving. The purpose of Ramadan goes beyond that. Ramadan is a month when Muslims try to transform themselves by adopting that which is good and abstaining from the evil. Fasting, however, does play an important role in exercising restraints and instilling self-discipline. This is the month when Muslims strive to renew their covenant and strengthen their connection with the Maker.
Sorry to break it to Khan, but Ramadan has always been about much more than introspection. Actually, it doesn’t stop at introspection but goes a step further to encourage implementation. By refraining from the natural human urges to satisfy one’s appetite, Muslims exercise their ability of self-restraint, so that they can then apply it to their everyday life to bring about self-improvement. Charity, kindness, and generosity are especially advised and encouraged during Ramadan. Muslims learn to give, and not to take. The deprivation of food makes them sympathize with the suffering of others, and desirous of alleviating it; and it makes them remember the blessings of life that they typically take for granted.
Khan may not, but most Muslims do agree that Fasting is a great tool for spiritual cleansing.
On Muharram
And then Khan says, “We Muslims have also made a mockery of Muharram. It is meant for mourning and what we do? Take out (tajiya) processions.”
In Islam, weeping for the dead, mourning for the dead is allowed, but typically for not more than three days. However, wailing is not permissible. There is no doubt the day is recorded as one of the darkest pages in the recorded history of Islam and Muslims — it should be observed.
I partially agree with him though. I've not known of any strong evidence of public procession in any of the widely accepted Islamic literature.
To be honest, I am myself not very familiar with the subject so choose to refrain from commenting any further.
On speaking against the issue of Terrorism
Khan believes, “Muslims are silent against the issue of terrorism”, and questions them.
But who is he talking about? Me, my friends, and practising Muslims worldwide have been campaigning against terrorism — both online and offline. Also, a lot of Islamic scholars have issued hundreds of pages of Fatwas denouncing any and all acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. A lot of Indian Muslim politicians, corporates, and leaders have gone on record condemning such disgraceful acts. Some of us may not have a big platform — but all of us are doing our bit speaking out against terrorism.
Khan, on the other hand, has one of the biggest platforms — Bollywood (and Hollywood, maybe) — to influence change and de-link mainstream Islam and Muslims from Terrorism. Does he then use the medium effectively? The only films of his on the subject are at best a lame attempt at reinforcing the public opinion, and all his efforts go unnoticed under the garb of religious stereotyping.
Let me ask you, Khan, how many times have you publicly spoken out against terrorism?
