Months after a Muslim leader Taslim Rehmani incited Nupur Sharma by provocative remarks against Shivling found at the Gyanvapi structure, Muslim panellists in a News 18 debate recently misquoted revered Hindu scripture Rigveda to make derogatory remarks against Goddess Sita and Lord Lakshmana.
Speaking in favour of the veil following the Supreme Court’s split verdict on hijab, Syeda Falak, a Muslim co-panellist in a debate hosted by journalist Amish Devgan, said that Hindus have corrupted their religion and that Hindu scriptures have long endorsed the concept of hijab or purdah.
“The concept of hijab is not exclusive to Islam. Hinduism had it too. Why is it that Lakshamana always saw Sita wearing a purdah?…but, Hindus have long forgotten their religion. They have allowed their faith to be corrupted. But we will not. Islam is immutable and we will resist all efforts to change it.”
It is worth noting that while Syeda Falak felt no qualms in making derogatory references against Goddess Sita and Lord Lakshamana, she had been at the forefront to spew venom against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who cited Islamic Hadiths to remark on Prophet Muhammad after Taslim Rehmani mocked Shivling discovered at the Gyanvapi site. She had also shared the picture of Nupur Sharma with shoe marks on her face, indirectly egging on the Islamists to hound her for her remarks on Prophet Muhammad.
National Spokesperson of BJP @NupurSharmaBJP has hurted sentiments of 200 Million Indian Muslims.
— Syeda Falak (@SyedaFalakk) May 28, 2022
She should be immediately arrested@DelhiPolice @MumbaiPolice #ArrestNupurSharmaBJP pic.twitter.com/CeUlITVJDH
Maulana Sajid Rashidi cites Rigveda to claim Goddess Sita wore purdah in front of Lord Lakshamana
The controversy spiralled further when another panellist, Maulana Sajid Rashidi, a Muslim cleric who has a history of making controversial remarks and who had in the past justified mocking Hindu Gods, threw his weight behind Falak’s baseless claims and cited Rigveda to contend that Goddess Sita always wore a purdah so that Lord Lakshamana cannot see her directly.
“Rigveda states that Sita wore purdah in the presence of Lakshamana. The mantras in Rigveda talk about the practice of purdah,” Maulana Sajid Rashidi said.
Rashidi’s remarks drew strident objections from Shubhrastha, an activist and an observant Hindu, who challenged the Maulana to quote the page number and the shloka number where Rigveda talked about Goddess Sita wearing a veil in the presence of Lord Lakshamana.
Finding himself between a big rock and a hard place, Rashidi tried to skirt the challenge, beating around the bushes and resorting to what a person without a response usually does: hurling recriminations.
Shubhrastha and Amish Devgan take Maulana to the cleaners, slam him for misquoting Rigveda
“Maulana shloka bata (Tell me the shloka, Maulana),” Shubhrastha thundered even as Rashidi kept blabbering senselessly but cunningly avoiding divulging the page number and the shloka that said Goddess Sita wore a veil in front of Lord Lakshamana.
Anchor Amish Devgan, moderating the debate, too, chimed in, schooling Rashidi on misquoting the Hindu scripture and taunting him that he is a Whatsapp Maulana who may have fallen for fake claims made on the popular social media app.
लगता है मोलाना साजिद रशीदी ने अलग ही ऋग्वेद पढ़ा है। क्योंकि हिंदू धर्म में तो पर्दा प्रथा नहीं है। #HijabChoiceOrNot pic.twitter.com/DCT9ReyAbq
— Amish Devgan (@AMISHDEVGAN) October 14, 2022
Citing Valmiki Ramayana, Shubhrastha stated that there is no reference to Goddess Sita wearing a purdah in front of Lord Lakshamana. On the contrary, as a mark of respect toward his sister-in-law, Shubhrastha added, Lord Lakshamana regarded Goddess Sita as his mother and always spoke to her with his eyes fixed on her feet.
After being incessantly probed about the shloka from Rigveda, Maulana Rashidi finally relented, stating that he read about Goddess Sita wearing a purdah on Page no. 833 and Shloka numbers 19-20.
Shubhrastha instantly flipped to the aforementioned page number and read the Shloka the Maulana was referring to. Shubhrastha said the Shloka was meant to invoke Agni Deva, the demigod of Fire, and had no reference to Goddess Sita, Lord Lakshmana, or the imaginary veil that Syeda and Maulana had bastardised in the Hindu scripture.
While citing nuggets of information from authentic and time-honoured Islamic hadiths can result in political banishment and a looming spectre of death with a murderous mob of Islamists chanting ‘Sar Tan Se Juda‘ against one, distorting holy scriptures of Hinduism do not attract the same fate, which is why such instances keep repeating on live television by usual suspects.
Maulana Rashidi’s anti-Hindu antics
Earlier this year, Rashidi stated in an interview in May that the Hindu religion is no religion in the first place and that people were unnecessarily being happy over the Shivling discovered in the disputed structure of Gyanvapi Masjid. He blatantly termed the Shivling as a ‘fountain’ and made several attempts to demean the Hindu culture and belief.
Maulana Sajid Rashidi is known for his ‘scholarly’ opinions that mostly are anti-Hindu and difficult for the civic society to acknowledge. On January 8, he had passed several warnings that Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir might be demolished by some Mohammad Bin Qasim in future. He had tried to articulate the mythical fantasy that leftists in India continue to peddle in order to whitewash the crimes of tyrannical Muslim rulers who invaded India.
Rashidi had said that Muslim kings who ruled India in the past were benevolent and secular rulers, who not only built mosques for their Muslim subjects but also built temples and generously donated for the upkeep of existing Hindu religious places. He had made similar controversial remarks during the Bhumi pujan of the Ram Temple in August 2020.
He had then said that a mosque will be rebuilt after demolishing the Ram Mandir. He also claimed that Prime Minister Modi had ‘violated the constitution’ by visiting the Ayodhya temple event. A complaint was later filed against the Islamic cleric for making provocative statements against Hindus and for issuing threats to demolish the under-construction Ram Mandir at Ayodhya.
Supreme Court’s split verdict on hijab ban in educational institutes
On October 13, the two-judge bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the Karnataka hijab case. While Justice Gupta upheld the ban on Hijab in education institutes and dismissed the appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court order, Justice Dhulia allowed it.
As a result of the split ruling, the case will now be sent to the Chief Justice of India for suitable directions.
The implication of the split verdict meant that the Karnataka High Court’s ban on hijab will hold until the CJI issues an order in the case.
The Karnataka High Court declared on March 15 that wearing a headscarf does not constitute an essential Islamic practice as the petitioners failed to provide evidence in that regard. The Karnataka High Court dismissed all petitions contesting the hijab ban in Karnataka schools and decided that the rules for the uniform dress were fair and that students can not object to respective dress codes mandated by educational institutions.
A Full Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit, and Justice JM Khazi pronounced the decision. The Bench ascertained that the petitioners’ basic rights were not violated by a uniform dress code at educational institutions.
