Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen

GT: I wont pose the question that way and I wasn`t even looking at how to actually ``implement`` it in practice in a thoroughly screwed up place like pakistan. My impression is Pakistan cannot be saved because it is not an independent entity. It`s workings are influenced by various power structures and their nefarious dealings within the state which are nonlinear.

American constitution works on the principle (if I am right) on defining the executive powers and the powers of State. State vs Individual.

Koran and Islamic democracy works on the principle of, for the lack of a good example, like Third Reich where State and Individual is one and the same and the whole structure is beholden to the whims of the sovereign (Fuerher/Allah/etc.).

Re: # 157 by dost-mittar:

D.M.:

As I mentioned earlier, your points may be very important for some people but may not be as important for most people. But even then there are ways to get over these:

1. If one were to believe that religion is a personal matter then why should one need to DECLARE his or her religion. I agree it is fun to flout one`s religion and therefore one should THEORETICALLY be able to do so. But can`t such things be postponed to a day where say the issue of land subsidy is democratically resolved.

2. As far as `blasphemy` is concerned the Koran leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

3. Again there are ways to deal with this indirectly. Your own post in UP is an example of how the court in Rajasthan dealt with it indirectly.

4. About interfaith marriages. First, see 1. Second, Israel (not a liberal democracy) does not accept interfaith marriages. But they do accept foreign marriages as legal. So lot of people get married in Cyprus. You see there are ways to get over issues without too much of a fuss.

Regards

anyone who thinkg islam is on the same planet as tolerance is frikking deluded..people like DM should actually try moving to the land of the pure...

Malaysia: Islam `rehabilitates` members of other faiths
A Malaysian Islamic court has extended the detention of a Muslim-born woman living as a Hindu in defiance of the law after she refused to be rehabilitated, an opposition leader said Wednesday.

Revathi Masoosai, an ethnic Indian, was detained by the Islamic Religious Department in southern Malacca state in January and sent for religious counseling in a rehabilitation center after they discovered she had been born to a Muslim family.

Revathi, 29, was born to Indian Muslim parents who gave her a Muslim name, Siti Fatimah. But she claimed she was raised as a Hindu by her grandmother and changed her name in 2001, opposition Democratic Action Party officials have said. Malaysian Islamic law regards people born to Muslims as being Muslims themselves.

Islamic officials seized her 15-month-old daughter from her Hindu husband, Suresh Veerappan, last month and handed the child to Revathi`s Muslim mother.

Revathi married Suresh in 2004 according to Hindu rites but the marriage has not been legally registered because Suresh would have had to convert to Islam first. Revathi`s official identification documents state she is Muslim because Malaysians who are born as Muslims cannot legally change their religion.

Parliamentary opposition chief Lim Kit Siang, who chairs the DAP, said the Malacca Shariah Court has extended Revathi`s initial detention term of 100 days, which expired Wednesday, for an additional 80 days.

Her husband was informed by court officials that ``she did not cooperate during the 100-day stay,`` Lim told The Associated Press.

Revathi was not brought to court and Veerappan`s demand for a copy of the court order on the extension was rejected, he said.

Islamic Department officials in Malacca could not immediately be reached for comment.

``It is sad and tragic that this heart-rending tale of the father, mother and baby girl being forcibly separated into three different locations by law and religion had not been resolved today,`` Lim said.

``When law and religion comes together to break the family, it gives a bad name to our country. Something is very wrong and it must be put right.``

Lim urged the government to intervene and ensure justice for Revathi`s family, warning that the case could promote ill-will among Malaysia`s different races.

#162 by GT on April 20, 2007 9:03am PT


2. As far as `blasphemy` is concerned the Koran leaves a lot of room for interpretation.


Really...let`s test that...go to saudi arabia and distribute leaflets with the mo cartoons..

fact is that it`s not what the koran says but what muslims do that matters....

Re #157, dost-mittar,

Aren`t there already muslims who, from within Islam, have differeing opinions on all these issues?

Re: # 159 by hamidm2

Hamid:

Actually, I do not care about Allah or his Devil. My point is that too much ``bad`` is being ascribed to Islam and too much ``good`` is put forth for democracy. The simple fact of the matter is that abdul will find it easier to get drinking water if he can sell his vote to the highest bidder. Of course, it would be better if he could take his gao mutra shower in public ... but that can wait, don`t you think?

I re-iterate: Democratic foundations are much stronger in Iran than in Pakistan. Iran supposedly is `more` Islamic .... go figure - or read arjuns post in UP.

Re: # 164 by arjun2,

Arjun,

You are not dumb, but why do you act as one? Does tahmed believe that the Saudi`s have their interpretations correct? Heck, sorry, ask masadi that question.

But you are free to do pamphleteering ...... reminds me of the commies back home. Same darned answer to all questions.

#167 by GT on April 20, 2007 9:18am PT

who gives a GT`s rear on what the right interpretation is...unless mo comes down and says otherwise, the saudis are going to follow their interpretation...and the rest of the muslim world, by virtue of it`s silence, agrees with the saudi interpretation...

like I said, It`s not what mo or al-lah intended but what muslims do that matters...

Re: # 168 by arjun2:

Arjun:

``who gives a GT`s rear on what the right interpretation is``

YOU DO. For you are tirelessly championing the Saudi interpretation.

Re: # 166

GT,

..... i agree, islam is not all bad - after all, mussolini made the trains run on time and the germans had a few good years under hitler .............

GT: ``society according to my interpretation...``
Khurram: ``People will interpret the will of Allah...``

GT, khurram, from outside, these seem to be major injustices to Islam. The first turns Islam into any other individual-level godly superstition, like much of Hinduism. The second completely empties out Islam of any real intrinsic meaning. While the first denies Islam its great public power, the second robs it of its clear moral compass.

Understandably, fighting the ``saudi interpretation`` has always been a legitimate concern, going back to Iqbal and before. And there is no harm at all in continuing that fine tradition. But my guesss (and it`s only that) is that Islam will not let anyone - Muslims or nonMuslims - turn it into something it was never meant to be.

One need not be a believer (shockingly few believers are found on Chowk now) to appreciate that. One just has to look at the faith`s basic structure, the tight interwovenness of all its little pieces. It looks like a system meant to be lived, not overly interpreted, reinterpreted, changed. It is, boldy and brashfully, a faith, not a philosophy.

---

Islam`s most impressive range of interpretability, even so, is indeed a great blessing. Yet nothing in that range of interpretability allows anyone - Muslim or nonMuslim - to change Islam as it exists. It`s not that there is complete inflexibility. The sheer width of interpretability of God`s Will allows Muslims to claim Islam itself as a democracy or anything else if they may so like at any time. It also leaves them free to put the label of Islam on anything good they see anywhere else. So there is no attaction outside of Islam. Hence freedom to play with appearances and faces abounds. But that freedom to change is designed specifically and only to buttress the basic stability and invariance.

Even so, such freedom can be risky to individuals and groups once political fortunes change. The reason is - any choice of one face over another itself is legitimated on nothing other than access to political power at a given point in time.

So is the anti-GT lobby of the impression that Islam cannot change at all to accomodate individual rights of Muslims/non-Muslims that may be divergent from one particular interpretation of the Koran?

Not even in a hundred years?

Wouldn`t that depend on the mindset of the people following it then?

What happens if Islam ceases to be the dominant player in the life of Muslims in the future, just as Christianity is not the dominating force amongst Christians as it once was?

#169 by GT on April 20, 2007 9:45am PT


``who gives a GT`s rear on what the right interpretation is``

YOU DO. For you are tirelessly championing the Saudi interpretation


Yes..the saudi interpretation is the right interpratation as far as muslims are concerned......glad you agree...

swarrier, imho, this comparison with Christianity is among the most inappropriate apporaches to understanding, fit only for complete nitwits like karen armstrong.

Despite its semitic origins, its powerful medievalism, and pat roberston rants, Christianity is a mess, sharing far too much with hindu nonsense. Islam on the other hand, in both spirit and structure, a much purer faith, truly a system of God for those who can believe in it.

Of course there are always people who instinctive believe in everything unnder the sun all being the same, if not today, then obviously it will be tomorrow. But that is one`s personal problem.

---

There is no anti GT lobby here. We are all his admirers and friends :)

Re: # 174

I am not comparing Islam with Christianity. -) I`m comparing people with people. -)

There is so much in what you say Kaal, I am still reading between the lines. -))

GT#162:

I am somewhat surprised at your response.

``If one were to believe that religion is a personal matter then why should one need to DECLARE his or her religion.``

For one thing, they would have to declare it in a census. But what you are suggesting is that a convert can survive if s/he is willing to stay in the closet. It is not a question of individual coping, Christians can cope even in Saudi Arabia by hiding their bibles -as long as they don`t get caught. I had already said that non-muslims can live in peace and ever prosper in an Islamic state. The question is whether the states can cross hadood.

And I am surprised that you are proving flexibility of hadood by examples from India and Israel. I think that the example arjun cited from Malaysia is more relevant as that country is generally given as an example of enlightened moderation of Islam.

khurram#165:

There are no two opinions that there is a wide variation of interpretation on these issues. But can those interpretations cross the hadood? For example, there can be a difference of interpretation on the punishment for apostasy but can it be declared a non-cognizable offense?