Shami a target of religious dogmatism

The All India Muslim Jamaat president’s criticism of India’s pace bowler Mohammad Shami for not observing roza during the ongoing month of Ramzan arises from an archaic view of religion. Shami was seen sipping an energy drink on the cricket field in a Champions Trophy match against Australia in Dubai last week. MaulanaShahabuddin Razvi Bareilvi has taken this as a violation of the duty of a Muslim to fast during Ramzan. He said fasting during the Ramzan month is one of the compulsory duties of all Muslims and those who fail to observe it will be considered criminals. He has cautioned Shami to follow the tenets of Islam and Shariat. The Maulana’s public criticism of Shami in a video has been widely shared on social media and it has given rise to a debate.

Both sides—those who support the Maulana and those who oppose his view—have strongly expressed their opinions. Shami has received wide support from Muslims also. It has been pointed out that those who are travelling or are unwell can skip the roza. It is argued that Shami is travelling and so has a reason not to observe the fast. This may be a technical argument, and the other side has said, as the Maulana did, that Shami is a healthy person who can’t claim any exemption. The examples of some other players who fast when they play are cited. Even matters such as whether the country or religion comes first are raised in the debate. Shami is playing for the country and so some have framed it as a case of what comes first—duty to the country or duty to one’s religion. It also assumes political overtones in such a context. 

While there are arguments, interpretations, criticisms and justifications, the basic issue is the inability of the clerical establishment to move with the times, and take a liberal view of the tenets of the religion and the conduct of the followers. The Maulana has exposed himself as unable to see anything except through the perspective of unchanging and unbending dogma. When there is no scope for personal choice or adaptability in following religious prescriptions, the prescriptions become constraints.
When the Maulana makes it an issue in public, he is
positing the freedom of an individual against the diktat
of the religion. He comes out of the controversy the
poorer for that and would be criticised and even ridiculed for his position. The matter should only have been seen as the simple act of a player refreshing himself with a drink without scriptural or other questions complicating it.