Issues Pertaining to Hindu-Muslim Interfaith

Issues Pertaining to Hindu-Muslim Interfaith Marriage The relationship between Hindus and Muslims is an historically uneasy one, precipitated on violent clashes over territorial control, religious dominance and political determination. Often situated in similar global contexts, such as South and Southeast Asia, these faiths have persisted disquietly aside one another for centuries, engaging in frequent conflict even as they have struggled to overcome shared crises of poverty, corruption, social inequality and the exploitation of the western world. In many ways, it may be argued that there are distinct cultural differences between the two faiths which dictate a likelihood toward conflict, especially as such may be based on the dramatically different religious doctrines of the two. Thus, a discussion on interfaith marriage between individuals emergent from the two distinct religions necessarily promises a great many adversities to be overcome by both, as family, faith and society are all pressures that are likely to be forthcoming in both matrimony and life as a married interfaith couple. Overcoming the stigma of interfaith relations between Hindus and Muslims first requires the individuals and their respective support systems to overcome emotional dispositions which might descend from a history rife with "violence when members of one community (generally the majority community) have perpetrated acts of aggression upon members of the other (generally the minority community). Sometimes these acts of aggression have been brutal to the extent of being barbarous, and sometimes their magnitude is shocking, as was the case when-in the bitter aftermath of the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan in August, 1947-a bloodbath took place in which tens of thousands of human beings (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and others) were massacred." (Swidler, 262) It is with this outcome of their proximity to one another that we tend to perceive the two faiths as being inherently incompatible. With consideration to such principles as Islamic theocracy, strict social conservatism and historical propensity toward a warrior's disposition, the faith does in many ways inherently differ from the philosophical impulses of spiritual equanimity and individuality of faith that are suggested by Hinduism. This is a point which would be countered by the view of some more progressive interfaith philosophers. Such is the case with Rizwan, the Muslim author of the article here addressed and written in tribute to the teachings of Hindu scholar, Maulan Usmani. In his perspective, the compatability between the two religions should be seen as natural and necessary. Indeed, "this was Maulana Usmani's basic contention. He argued that the Sanskrit term sanatan dharm or 'Eternal Religion', if understood in this manner as submission to the one God, was the same as the deen al- qaim, which again means 'Eternal Religion', which is what Islam is. It was on the basis of this core similarity that Maulana Sahib wanted Hindus and Muslims to come together." (Rizwan, 1) However, the core conflict which faces those of these respective faiths in union is that of their mutual issues concerning the treatment of women. For both, there is almost a compatibility in the fact that, "in this era of women's freedom from age-old shackles, Hindu and Muslim women continue to be among the most oppressed 'minorities' in the world." (Swidler, 264) In fact, we find upon research that the dowries and formalities surrounding perception of women as property, which have been adopted by Muslim observants actually are culled from Hindu traditions. In either instance, the interfaith relationship between the two must overcome the pressures prevailing upon either to perpetuate the idea women as inherently owned by men. There are likely to exist social and familial pressures endorsing the opposite of this, and therefore, one of the greatest obstacles for interfaith couples will be to channel equality as a way of unifying against these pressures. Of course, in their respective traditions, there are inequalities which are not easily perished. This is especially true in the case of Islam, where theocratic dispositions govern many nations, societies and villages throughout the world. For those of observant Muslim identification, social standards, political discourse and many popular forms of religious expression are directly informed by the dominance of Islam in the public forum. A primary example is the perspective on sexuality in Muslim culture, which may sharply differ from that commonly accepted in the Hindu faith. The predominant influence of spirituality in the observant Muslim's daily living standards informs a strict approach to the prohibition of taboo expression or behavior in public. The display of affection between men and women in public, for example, even within the confines of a state-sanctioned marriage, is considered wholly unacceptable. Moreover, the notions of premarital or extramarital sex are strictly forbidden with the social consequences for such moral transgressions bearing the potential to be extremely severe within religious communities, especially in theocratic nations. In many of such cultures informed by Islamic ideology, women are essentially subjugated to the authority of men. This is demonstrable by such traditions as the practice of karo-kari, or honor-killing, which endows Islamic men with the liberty to execute women for bringing shame to their family. Though this practice has technically been outlawed by the many government, if the kin of the woman agree to consent to the man's claim of murder in the name of honor, it is considered to be an act outside the jurisdiction of the government in states where Sharia is the law of the land. With this in mind, "to the extent that Islam, defined and interpreted by traditionalist 'Muslim' men, is allowed to determine the context and contour of the debate on women's human rights, women will be on the losing side of the debate because the conclusion is already contained in the premise and reflected in the process. Arguably, this is the heart of the moral tragedy of Muslim societies in our time." (Afkhami, 2) As this impacts women who are marrying out of the Muslim faith, the danger can literally be to her life and the life of her husband, as there are religious doctrines which underscore the harsh rejection by many Muslim men of such union. In some contexts, it will be considered equally heretical for a women of Hindu disposition to attempt to enter into Muslim society without at least fully surrendering her faith and her independence. This is a hostility which is consistent to both sides however. In geographical contexts where Hinduism is the dominant tradition, grass-roots retaliation against those determining to engage interfaith marriage is illustrative of a mutual mistrust. In a news story from last spring, "radical Hindus stormed the headquarters of an Indian television network Monday and damaged equipment to protest the broadcast of reports on a controversial Hindu-Muslim marriage, witnesses said. Activists from a group calling itself the Hindu Rashtriya Sena (Hindu National Army) used hammers to smash windows, computers and cameras at the Star News office in Mumbai before police intervened." (Mirza, 1) The aggressive reaction would demonstrate the sentiment amongst some Hindus that marriage into Islam is precipitating the wholesale conversion of its women to a contrary faith. This is a view which highlights the pressures upon those attempting to bridge the interfaith gap, with such hostilities suggesting a long and bitter struggle between two oft-afflicted world faiths. In this instance, the protest and the willingness to extend disapproval to aggressive actions suggests that there is a perceived connection between marriage by a woman into an alternate faith and the social or political empowerment of that faith. It was to that point that "several Hindu groups have voiced strong disapproval of inter-racial marriages linking them to case of 'religious conversions'. Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin has expressed regret over the hue and cry regarding marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim youth and said that the alliance should receive encouragement instead of being abhorred" (Mirza, 1) Indeed, the social support of such interfaith unions should be much valued in a relationship otherwise contextualized by bloodshed. Though some nations have adopted laws prohibiting interfaith marriage, especially in contexts where theocracy rules, others yet are simple obstruction in unity by social and cultural barriers. Marriage is surely one way to undermine the perceived meaning of such barriers. To this extent, "the first problem to be confronted by anyone interested in bringing about a Hindu-Muslim theological dialogue would be to motivate both sides to enter into such dialogue with openness and seriousness. To have such a dialogue in a Western setting where dialogues are in fashion nowadays is one thing; to have it in India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh is quite another, and to bring it -about would require much talent and commitment." (Swidler, 270) Here though, is presented something of a remarkable challenge and simultaneous opportunity for those who have chosen an interfaith marriage. In such contexts, where sometimes dangerous hostility is likely to exist toward such a union, the interfaith couple may proudly demonstrate that which is possible in the opening of dialogue. For individuals of differing faiths to find happiness in this ultimate commitment to one another is to suggest that in many ways the offending differences which separate Hindus and Muslims are far smaller than this human connection. The implications to broader cultures, which today are indeed forced to stand as neighbors in so many global contexts, East and West, are quite positive. In fact, one might suggest that this type of unity is needed if we are to conquer the obstacles to peace between Hindus and Muslims.