Fetwa on Indian anthem



11 July 2006

Indian mullahs issue fetwa against patriotic song

Indian mullahs headed by the All-India Sunni Ulema Board president Syed Shah Badruddin Qadri Aljeelani have issued a fetwa against schools where pupils begin the day singing the Indian national song which is second in importance in India to the Indian national anthem. The song is called Vande Mataram which means Motherland I bow to you.

Mullah Aljeelani reportedly said that the song "emphasises that Indians treat their land as God. Ours is a secular country. Asking Muslims to do something like this cannot be advocated.”

Since when did mullahs become so keen on secularism? Would they be prepared to let their followers observe other tenets of the secular society such as the right enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The article states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Perhaps the Indian fetwa was issued because Vande Mataram advocated Indians to bow to an “infidel” country. The Maldives, which is next door to India, is a 100% Islamic country, according to mullahs. The Maldive national anthem states that Maldivians bow respectfully to the Maldive national emblem and salute its flag. No one raises so much as an eyebrow at Maldivians bowing to a national emblem. The words of the Maldive anthem were written by Mohamed Jameel Didi, one time head of the Islamic establishment in the Maldives.

What will be the fate of anthems such as God Defend New Zealand and God Save the Queen? Both these songs have equal status as national anthems of New Zealand. God Save the Queen is also the national anthem of the United Kingdom. Will mullahs in New Zealand and the United Kingdom order local Muslims to remove their children from schools that have their pupils sing appeals to an "infidel" God asking Him to save the Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England? Without a doubt, the New Zealand and the British anthems refer to the Christian triune God as opposed to the Islamic Allah.

Fetwas such as these may have consequences on Islamic immigrants who are entering New Zealand and hoping to become naturalised. There is an increasing number of staunchly fanatical Muslims from the Maldives who are currently taking this step.

The Oath of Allegiance required to be taken by those seeking New Zealand passports is as follows:

"I (name) solemnly and sincerely swear by the Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen."

The phrase "according to the law" in the oath refers to the Act of Settlement 1700 which is still current in the New Zealand statute books. The Act defines Her Majesty the Queen as a Christian. Section 3 of the Act further qualifies this by stating that "whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by law established".

There is no doubt that Maldive and other Muslims obtaining New Zealand and UK passports swear allegiance to a Christian Queen who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. For the past several decades New Zealand has been holding citizenship ceremonies in which the Oath of Allegiance is taken. The United Kingdom introduced this requirement on immigrants only in February 2004 and the first ceremony took place at the Brent town hall when 19 people took the oath in the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

According to analysts, Great Britain took this step in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic attacks on the United States. Many Islamic immigrants regarded the previous practice of not having to take the oath publicly as a Shariah loophole which spared them from having to commit the sin of owing allegiance to an "infidel" Sovereign. Now the loophole has been closed.

If these statutory requirements become more widely known, it is possible that mullahs would issue other fetwas such as that issued in India. The only reason why mullahs may not issue a fetwa against singing the New Zealand national anthems and swearing allegiance to a Christian Sovereign is because they view Islamic immigration as the establishment of a demographic beachhead in the cause of jihad.

Related Links:

Fetwa against singing Vande Mataram (10 July)
Indian mullah is imprisoned for raping 7-year-old girl inside a mosque (11 July)

MUMBAI: A sessions court on Monday sentenced an Arabic teacher to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for raping his seven-year-old girl student in 2002.

The victim lived with her mother at Sai Baba Nagar in Sion and had started going to Zulfiqar Shaikh for Arabic classes only a few months prior to the incident. She was also studying in the third standard of a primary school.

The incident took place within the premises of a mosque in Sion, where she attended classes from nine to eleven in the morning before going to school. On July 24, 2002, the victim reached the mosque some time earlier than usual.Shaikh took advantage of this and took her to a room on the terrace and raped her.

The victim went back home crying and told her mother what had happened. But the latter was discouraged from registering a complaint with the police.

She, however, refused to give in to the pressure and lodged an FIR with Dharavi police station. Medical examination of the victim was conducted at Nagpada Police Hospital; it confirmed that she was sexually assaulted.

Shaikh fled the area but was arrested three days later and sent to custody.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses to build up its case in court. The victim's testimony-identifying Shaikh as the culprit-proved crucial as there were two Arabic teachers at the mosque and evidence was required to convince the court that it was Shaikh who had raped the girl.