By Yoginder Sikand

No sooner had the media-propelled Vande Mataram controversy died down than Indian newspapers and television channels were awash with news of yet another Muslim-related brouhaha. This relates to a 'sting operation' carried out by a television channel airing purported footage of muftis in Delhi, Deoband and Meerut allegedly receiving money as a payment for the issuing of fatwas. Predictably, the controversy has led to a storm of protest and anger.

Many of the muftis and the organizations they are associated with who have been dragged into this controversy have denied that they were involved in demanding or accepting bribes for the fatwas that they delivered. The actual facts of the story are thus being hotly contested. Unfortunately, but predictably enough, the arguments and protests of these muftis as well as important Muslim organizations have not received much attention in the 'mainstream' press. It is, by and large, only some Urdu newspapers, which almost only Muslims read, that have carried their version of the story. Given that the controversy has yet to be settled, it is premature to give any verdict on the actual facts of the matter. But, surely, the voices that the Urdu press is highlighting, and which the English and Hindi press, by and large, have ignored, also deserve to be heard.

The Delhi-based Urdu Rashtriya Sahara, the most widely-read Urdu newspaper in north India, has given extensive coverage to the controversy, seeking to stoutly deny the veracity of the claims allegedly made in the television broadcast. It highlights a press statement issued by the Islamic Fiqh Academy, New Delhi, a leading Muslim religious institution in New Delhi, that appears to summarise the argument of many Muslims in the light of the controversy. Signed by Mufti Zafiruddin Miftahi, head of the Academy, and Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, an influential Deobandi scholar, the statement denies the allegations of the muftis receiving bribes to issue fatwas. It contends, instead, that the individuals concerned who had asked for the fatwas had insisted that the muftis take the money as a gift ( hadiya) or as a donation for their madrasas after the fatwas were delivered. This part of their conversation between the muftis and the individuals who had requested for fatwas, the statement alleges, was removed from the television programme in order to present a wrong image of the maulvis receiving money for giving fatwas to suit the questioners.

A similar statement issued by the Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Dini Talimi Council and leader of the Milli Council, Maulana Riyaz Nadvi, has also appeared in the Urdu Rashtriya Sahara. Nadvi argues that, generally, muftis do not accept money for delivering fatwas because they consider it their religious duty to answer queries related to Islam and Islamic jurisprudence. Yet, he adds, if a mufti does accept some payment for a fatwa that he gives there is nothing wrong with that, provided his opinion is based on the Qur'an, the Prophetic Traditions and the rules of Islamic jurisprudence. However, he goes on, to deliver a fatwa which goes against what the sources of Islamic law lay down and in order to provide an opinion suitable to the questioner is a crime. In this context, he argues that the present controversy is a 'conspiracy' to defame Muslim religious institutions.

Protests and rebuttals by several other Muslim religious leaders have been highlighted in the Urdu Rashtriya Sahara . One such instance is the response of Mufti Riyasat Ali and Mufti Ayub of the Jamia Arabia Khadim ul-Islam, Hapur. Some of the muftis of this madrasa are said to have been involved in the present controversy. Muftis Ali and Ayub claim that media reports of the muftis taking money as a payment for the fatwas are false and are being deliberately highlighted in order to, as they put it, 'give Islam a bad name'. They allege that two men, Amir ul Haq and Muhammad Kaif, both from Delhi, had approached some muftis of their madrasa for fatwas relating to such controversial matters as Muslims working in the film industry, Sania Mirza's playing tennis and family planning. The muftis delivered their opinions, in accordance with their understanding of the shariah, in writing. After this, they claim, the two men tried to offer them money as a gift. The muftis declined to accept this money as a payment for the fatwas. However, the two men reportedly insisted that they should accept the money, which, the muftis say, they deposited with the madrasa and issued receipts.

Mufti Ayub insists that this cannot be called accepting money as a payment for a fatwa, as has apparently been alleged by the television channel that has stirred this present controversy. He is reportedly considering complaining to the Press Council to lodge his protest. Meanwhile, the Urdu Rashtriya Sahara adds, Mufti Riyasat Ali led a large demonstration outside the madrasa and presented a memorandum to the tehsildar, addressed to the President of India, denouncing the television story as a 'conspiracy' to defame the madrasas and the ulama, demanding an investigation and legal action against television channels, that, in his words, are 'spreading conflict'.

The actual facts of the present controversy are thus being hotly debated and it would be advisable to look at what both sides have to say before coming to any conclusion. This, unfortunately, is something that the 'mainstream' media has not really cared to do. Who is right�the maulvis or the media�can only be decided after an impartial investigation, which is what many Muslims are in fact demanding. It is no one's argument that all is well with every Muslim organization and that all of them are beyond reproach. Yet, there can be no denying that anti-Muslim bias infects large and influential sections of the media, which is quick to pounce on any and every instance of real or concocted Muslim 'sensationalism', often using this to generalize for all Muslims. To single out Muslim religious leaders and madrasas and present them as if they were an exception, as the media often does, is unfair. There can be no room for the theory of Muslim exceptionalism here, as elsewhere. Given the increasingly communally polarized environment in India today, surely the media must abide by a code of ethics that applies equally and fairly to all communities. Not to do so can only further vitiate inter-community relations, with all the costs that would have for the welfare of the country as a whole.