Brahmin and Mullah

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dinar as currency

Dr Muhammad Karim Beebani

In the early period of Islam the currency names used were dinar and dirham. Dinar was the name used for gold coin whereas the silver coin was called dirham. Both these currencies were in use for many centuries but as the Muslim empire started disintegrating various countries started adopting names other than these.

Dinar is the only currency name that has appeared in the Holy Qur`aan in chapter No 3 (Aal-e-Imran). This name along with dirham has also been found in many sayings of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Muslims therefore have great attachment with these names rather than with rupee, taka or other currencies being used in Islamic countries at present. I shall therefore suggest that Islamic countries should adopt the currency name of dinar to show the continuation of the Islamic legacy and scriptural heritage.

On the other hand the currency names being used in Islamic countries have no such historical significance. For example in Pakistan rupee is being used which is derived from Sanskrit language and has a relationship with Hinduism. It is worth mentioning that there are at least five Islamic countries, which are already using dinar as their currency names. These are Kuwait, Jordan, Tunisia, Iraq and Bahrain. I shall therefore request government of Pakistan to consider adopting the currency name of dinar instead of a non-Islamic name of rupee.

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2001-daily/24-11-2001/oped/newspost.htm

Zafar #497
Thanks again! No the length doesnot bother me, check out some of mine :).

Well, apparently in Israel there is a similar debate. Some say about about the Israeli Constitution(which is apparently not written yet) ``why do you need to import something alien from Europe when you have the Bible right here``

The same groups who say this say also say ``Just include a sentence which say ``religious laws are supreme to laws of the people````, that will suffice``. And these groups are the (maybe `ultra`) Orthodox groups.

There are others who say ``Israel was formed for Jews by Jews, it must retain a Jewish character``(which is rather ambiguous about points of view like the above).

There are yet others who say ``All citizens should be equal, including Israeli Arabs, only a secular constitution will suffice``(meaning laws made by the people)

This is partly the reason for my question, sorry if it offended.

Reply Sadna #496

Sadna

From a Muslim point of view (MoR/MoI, please step in, we a relying on you):

Islam provides guidance for all aspects of life. This would include guidance on politics and Government.

If you accept that the ‘ulema is the only group that is qualified to properly understand Islam, then the ‘ulema is logically best equipped to rule.

If you contend, however, that each individual has the right and the duty to try and understand Islam, and to act (let’s say vote) according to their interpretation, then voting by the general populace is the best way to get a Government which achieves Islam’s underlying principles.

EXACTLY this issue goes back to the very early days of Islam – the conflict between the supporters of Umar and the supporters of Ali as to who would lead the community after the death of the Prophet. The former were in the majority – called Sunnis - and their intellectual legacy to Islam is that all Muslims have the right to determine polity and select their leader (read Government) - essentially a democratic approach.

[This might be what people mean when they go on about Islam being a religion of equality. Umar was a relatively early convert, but unrelated to the Prophet. Yet the majority of the community wanted him as leader, not the Prophet’s son-in-law. It may also be of interest to note that women were prominently involved in the struggle on BOTH sides.]

It IS a question of who has the ultimate responsibility/authority to understand what God wants from each individual – the “clergy” or the individual. If I were you I would not phrase it as a choice between people and scripture (too many buttons, or a Lakshman Rekha if you will, to get a measured response). IMO reactionary regimes definitely prefer the “clergy” answer – they’re easier to control than the general population. No prizes for guessing what certain outfits would prefer for the subcontinent. (And it`s consistent with the vote-bank approach to Indian Muslims! Chheechheechhee...) Even Iran’s revolution which started off pretty radical has become reactionary, and I believe that this is the reason.

[I must point out that these tendencies are NOT reflected as a dichotomy between what are today’s Sunni and Shia religious traditions. In fact Shia mysticism can be seen as giving individuals a “bypass” over the ‘ulema and directly to God.]

Hope this is useful. If one is not too literal it should shed some light on Islam, democracy and Mullahism. Please keep in mind that I’ve gone over the historical (and I suppose intellectual) issues as I see them - the role of women and minorities is not concretely discussed, but I think you can follow the drift here?

Best wishes,

Zafar

PS Why is it that I keep feeling the urge to write a small book in response to quite reasonably sized postings from you? I blame my background – after all, the world’s longest English language novel WAS written (predictably) by an Indian. Or perhaps this doesn’t hold up, as you’re Indian too, but manage to be concise? Anyway – apologies, and I will do my best to be brief in future.

Zafar Al-Talib #494
A very good post, thanks. I too find Iran very interesting. Am I right in thinking it boils down to settling the question of who should have supervening authority or sovereignty, the people(meaning their representatives) or the scriptures(meaning interpretors of scriptures).

ylh #490
Is your imagined physical description a compliment or an insult?
Either way it doesnot work.

Allah! Meri haalath dekho! Khuda hafiz kehne ke baad bhi haan men haan milane daura daura aa gaya vaapis…

Sadna

:)

The issue in Turkey is: can a political party which is self describedly Islamic in character take part in the democratic process? Does this participation by definition undermine democracy in the long run? (The Turkish army’s position.) Does the exclusion of such parties undermine democracy in the long run?

In my opinion Turkey’s democracy is harmed by the exclusion of parties with a religious component – if only because this means that the Army has taken upon itself the onus of defining what is acceptable. If an elected parliament did this it would have the right – after all it demonstrably represents the will of the Turkish people. IMO the Army should not have this right. The fact that a significant portion of the Turkish people keep voting for such parties says something.

I do not think that the participation of Islamic parties in Turkey’s Govt. undermines democracy there. Does it undermine secularism? I don’t think it does that in any significant sense either – after all, Istanbul (arguably Turkey’s most secular city) voted in an “Islamist” local Government which was broadly popular. Similarly there are religion allied parties in Europe (the Christian Democrats in Germany, for example) who participate in the democratic process, and whose coming to power has never threatened democracy there.

In India the BJP’s coming to power was a good thing for democracy – and I say this despite disliking the BJP and most of its works. Hindutvawadis who may have felt that their views were not taken into account in Indian polity, and who might have then consistently gone outside the democratic process (as they did with BM demolition, etc.) were brought into the system. Participation in Govt. – especially the need to form a coalition – has mellowed them and made them more responsible. (The BJP even goes through the motions of trying to get Muslim votes.) I strongly feel that democracies get the Governments they deserve. For all their faults, I do not believe that the BJP would resort to widespread violence to remain in power if they were voted out. (They didn’t last time.)

Can Muslim identified political parties in Pakistan work in the same way today? I am not as familiar with the country as with India but I suspect that they could not. (As usual I welcome any civil corrections and arguments on this point from any Pakistanis who have the stamina to go through my posts.) First of all – if they are confident of popular support, are they contending (and winning) elections? Are they respectful enough of the democratic process to give up power when (as always happens to all parties) they are voted out? With the temptation of having the kind of power the Taleban do in Afghanistan before their eyes, and being short sighted about the consequences of that kind of situation, I suspect not.

I do not think that Islam is not compatible with democracy (I’m sure somebody will be delighted to go over facts on early Islam with you that you doubtless already know!), but you have to keep in mind that for centuries Islam was closely associated with political power in a theocratic oligarchy (the Caliphate). This colours how Islam and political power are viewed by many Muslims – especially by those from cultures and countries which are still “midieval” in their outlook (no insult meant, just accurate description - I say that parts of India are also midieval in their outlook). Ataturk’s reforms were brutally undemocratic, but they were necessary at that time because of the weight of this tradition. (Also sometimes petty and I think beside the point. Banning a kind of HAT?) They only succeeded because the military and political collapse of the Caliphate made that kind of mental change possible (and necessary) in its heartland, Turkey. And this kind of collapse is dangerous, because its outcomes are not assured – they could go either way. I don’t indulge in triumphalist “Pakistan is a Failed State” rhetoric, but the lack of clear success by many of Pakistan’s civil institutions is what makes makes a space for theocratic ideology in that country.

I guess it boils down to: religious parties are a sign of health in democracies where a significant portion of the population supports religious influence on national polity, but they only strengthen democracy in countries where the democratic process is very strong and where the public will not support its disruption. An important proviso.

I hope you got this far. ??

Zafar

PS Iran is another extremely interesting example of an Islamic democracy. (The only Islamic Republic in the world today.) Let me say that I do not support or like many, if not most, aspects of current Iranian polity (especially the treatment of religious minorities which is appalling). It is undeniable, however, that Iran is more democratic today than it has ever been before (definitely more than during the rule of the secular Shah) in that all Iranians have a vote, and that vote has more influence on the running of the country than ever before (though still not to level that one would like). One of the hopeful things in Iran is that representatives of different political viewpoints now struggle to get votes – they don’t just struggle in the street (though they unfortunately do that too).

YLH

You have things to say, but every time you`re rude to a woman in this way you undermine yourself and your arguments. If you don`t like someone you don`t have to be pleasant - be unpleasant! But what`s the point of vulgar abuse? It degrades you and leaves their arguments unanswered.

Zafar

BTW

Islam was not the state religion of Pakistan until 1973.

tahmed,

We have Malaysia as a possible example too. Basically in Pakistan we need to secure the joint electorates, and we will have practical parity between Muslims and Non Muslims.

-YLH

`The Turkish military is fiercely secular, no?`

The picture becomes clearer... a chubby, dark skinned fanatical middle aged woman trying to prove a point ...

Pakistan has Islamic injunctions ... NO?

Pakistan had Zia ul Haq .... NO?

Pakistan was made for Islam ... NO?

Prophet Muhammad married 13 times NO?

Islam hates women ... NO?

Turkey is secular but undemocratic ... NO?

Islam thinks Non Muslims are inhuman .. NO?

tahmed no point in trying to make sense to this woman. She raises some good points but that is to fool us, ... she switches very fast from her sensible comments to her rhetoric of hate.

Long Live PAKISTAN

Aha! I edited out my comment ``if anyone mentions Turkey...``.
The Turkish military is fiercely secular, no? and very powerful and has undemocratically intervened to `safeguard` the Turkish brand of secularism.

Quite unlike the Pakistani Army which had Zia in its past and has no plans of ending its 20+ years-long cohabitation with religious parties over the Afghan war.
Check out `Islamic` amendments in the Pakistani Constitution during this period even by `democratic governments` and see if these were related to any quid-pro-quo to religious parties for jihad in Afghanistan.
Hence the Turkish NSC equivalent has had a very different connotation than a Pakistani one will have.
And sure lets give this board a rest, its been nice interacting.

sadna #486 ``In which Muslim country is the church kept separate from the state and how``

In a practical sense, I think one may point to Indonesia (I have visited that country a number of times over the past 20 years and can therefore speak with some confidence) and Turkey (ylh could tell you things about Ataturk that will make you proud to be on the same planet as Turkey). Having travelled a full circle, I think we can let his tired board get some rest.

Reply Sadna #486

The state and religion are kept separate in Turkey - this was a part of a broader ``revolution`` in which Ataturk defined nationality based on Turkishness as opposed to based on religion (with each religious community being a ``millet``) as had been the case under the Ottomans. Turkish law (I believe) was based on the Swiss code (or is it their constitution?). Though not an unmixed success this has largely been a good thing. (What lack of success it has had is due, IMO, to the undemocratic aspects of Ataturk`s reforms.

Sadna, Tahmed - yeh Chowk raha ya Hippie Festival? Anyway - over and out on this board - hope to see both the EC and MoI/MoR elsewhere.

Zafar

aka PM (actually PM is somebody on Chowk already - too confusing!)

PS Coalition with whom? You DARE suggest BM...

And we are almost back to where we started:
``In which Muslim country is the church kept separate from the state and how?``

Sadna #483 Abolishment of the MoR would be my last act on that job, after having ``privatized`` the religious functions of the state.

On how does one go about separating religion and state if one does not have political power to do so. Your guess is as good as mine.

Sadna #483 Abolishment of the MoR would be my last act on that job, after having ``privatized`` the religious functions of the state.

On how does one go about separating religion and state if one does not have political power to do so. Your guess is as good as mine.

tahmed321 #482
Good, that makes it a good chance you can never be MoR. And if you were, you wouldnot be working to abolish your own ministry, now would you?

Anyway, what is the mechanism for such a thing to be practically done namely ``unmix church and state in Pakistan``?

sadna #260 you write ``Having to pay lip service to Islam in all public affairs has only strengthened the position of religious power centres and reinforce the strong position of those who solicit their support including the military and corrupt leaders of more moderate parties, all at the cost of power of the normal citizen.

The real values of Islam are not promoted by these power centres but their lip service puts them even more beyond the reach of corrective action by the normal citizen who is more concerned with roti-kapda and more able to express himself on these subjects than challenge his leaders on religion.``

Very well put, and worth repeating above. You are talking to the converted here on the issue of mixing state and religion. As soon as Zafar appoints me Minister for Religion I shall proceed to abolish Shariah Courts and unmix church and state. Indeed, Islam does not even have the concept of church (or organized priesthood) but that has not prevented people from creating it, so what we have is two, not one, step in the wrong direction - first we create a priesthood, and then we mix it up with the state. The Quran refers to only a couple of states (ancient Egyptian, ancient Roman and Queen Sheba`s state), with most of it`s messages being directed to people`s hearts and to the individual. The state is merely incidental. It talks approvingly of Queen Sheba`s state despite the fact that it was a non-Muslim state. Interestingly, the Shias in Iran for hundreds of years (until around the 17th century I think) deliberately shunned anything to do with the state. This was true for the Jews as well until the successful creation of Israel got nearly all of them to change their minds. Christians of course have gone the other way and explicitly separated church from the state (although we see a small rear-guard action in the US).

Zafar Al-Talib #477 #479
Thanks.
And the EC post, well let me nominate you as hon. PM but warn you that its a very very fragile coalition you have here :).

tahmed321 #478
Being `less armed` is only one of many points I made and apparently an acknowledgement of these or acknowledgement of the HRW report and its relevance to religious chauvinism in Pakistan was too much to expect, but whats new?

I donot see any activity in India equivalent to open recruitment of underage boys through mosques and madarassahs by political/religious organisations for fighting a religious war to the extent that reportedly ``30%`` of the fighting force of the most repressive government in the world [namely the Taliban] is made up of Pakistanis.

The Shah Bano issue makes clear that its not a phenomenon unique to Pakistan that some in power use the spurious excuses of religion or protection of religious identity to protect their power bases and get away with doing nothing for either religion nor for the religious community. The provision in the Indian Constitution for Muslims to have their own civil/personal law has reinforced the power of some to act as gatekeepers for the rest.

The extremist part of the Hindutva focus which is on `Hindu` identity and not issues of welfare to `Hindus` is another example. However, there is no special recognition granted to Hindu leaders of community in the Indian Constitution, so Hindutva-vadis have to peddle their politics in competition with others, at peril of rejection.

Your points seem to be that education and constitutional checks and balances will reign in religious chauvinism in Pakistan.

My point is that it was the educated who brought in Islamic provisions as sops to other educated who chose to indulge in religious chauvinism as the language of politics.

For eg:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/pakistan/pakistan/constitution/part1.html

2. Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan [2A]and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy making by the Government.

[Notes : 2A The words ``and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy making by the Government`` were added by the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1985.]


The Islamic provisions in the Pakistani Constitution have increasingly brought lip service to Islam as a valid and ``morally superior to all other arguments`` argument into the Pakistani polity.

Having to pay lip service to Islam in all public affairs has only strengthened the position of religious power centres and reinforce the strong position of those who solicit their support including the military and corrupt leaders of more moderate parties, all at the cost of power of the normal citizen.

The real values of Islam are not promoted by these power centres but their lip service puts them even more beyond the reach of corrective action by the normal citizen who is more concerned with roti-kapda and more able to express himself on these subjects than challenge his leaders on religion.

Absence of elections has only reinforced this distance between the depradations of these power centers and corrective action by citizens.

Hence having to pay lip service to Islam in all public affairs has made religious chauvinism a profitable stand in society and politics.

This is also not unique to Pakistan. A look at other Islamic countries will underline this.

Bringing religion into public affairs is not a `directive` or basic principle of the Indian Constitution.

Reply Tahmed321

Minister saheb, many thanks. I take this to mean that the general intention of the Koranic injunction on maher is to economically protect divorced women, and therefore it would support the payment of alimony in this day and age. [All credit for information given to MoI, all mistakes in interpretation are mine.]

Sadna - your posts have shown a really admirable commitment to democratic franchise. Perhaps you will consent to be (mujhe aisi himmath kahan se aa rahi hai?) the EC? :-)

sadna #472

``I didnot understand this statement `` dont see the close link between constitutional checks and balances and religious chauvinism````

What I mean is: Religious chauvinism has to do with attitudes of people. Constitutional checks have to do with political control. The latter do not impact on the former.

``May I wonder why Pakistan has had so many dictators?``

My theory is that it is a legacy of the cold war. Pakistan was clearly in the western camp when it joined CENTO, SEATO pacts. The publicly known policy of the US was to support ``strongmen`` as long as they were on the right side. Once the military found how easy it is to take over (under Ayub), it became a bad habit, repeated by Zia and now PM. Trouble with PM is that the cold war is over and he is not finding support in the west. No wonder he is not as confident as Ayub or Zia were.

``did each dictator take it on himself/herself to introduce Islamic provisions into the Constitution?``

Only Zia did. Partly because he believed in it, but mainly as a way to cling to power.

You may disagree that religious chauvinists in India are less vicious than Pakistan - I think you mean less dangerous (in your view) since they are not armed so heavily. Anyway, far be it from me to start worrying about which of the two thugs is a bigger thug.

Zafar Al-Talib: Since you have appointed me Minister of Information, I shall do my utmost to live up to the great responsibility that has been placed on my shoulders. ;-)

Here is my understanding: On maher, there is indeed mention of the dower in Surah Al-Nisa, where men are enjoined not to try and get back the dower through unfair means. This statement can clearly apply only in those societies where brides were bought and men tried to get back their ``bride price``. That was true in 7th century Saudi Arabia, but is hardly the case in most parts of the subcontinent (where dowery is given by the bride`s family with maher being agreed but generally not given by the man unless a divorce takes place). So, I dont think there is any religious basis for this and agree 100% with you that it is in fact unIslamic (since Islam is first and foremost about justice and consideration for the weak - the bride in this case).

You will notice something else quite interesting here: while most of the Quran is for universal application (e.g. attributes of God like Justice and Mercy), others can logically be considered applicable to a specific situation only: e.g. there are surah`s on how to behave in front of the Holy Prophet (not to speak louder than him, for example) and logically those passages can be relevant only for during the life of the Holy Prophet. The question of dower as discussed above is another such example of something that can logically be applied only to a particular situation. If one keeps in mind the spirit of Islam (which is repeated over and over again with great clarity in the Quran), one would never take the position these people took in claiming that the 40 rupee or something dowery was OK. The spirit of Islam would perhaps call for something closer to what is true in the US where women are treated far better than in Pakistan (I dont know about India) in divorce courts.

Reply Sadna #473

You wrote:``I am curious to understand whether Muslim women`s organisations are more free to advocate and win `progressive`(according to ones pov :)) changes in Muslim law as a minority religious community in India or as part of a 97% Muslim community in Pakistan and overwhelming majority in Bangladesh.``

Hard to tell. I have NO data to back this up, but my feeling is that Bangladesh might come out ahead - a better combination of the ease which comes from being a majority and a nationalism that is less dependant on religious identity?

Then, of course, you could point the finger at the Lajja incident! (Of course since Lajja was actually written by a Muslim woman, this might also support my point.)

I think that there are other cultural factors at work as well. IN PRACTICE the rights Muslim women enjoy vary widely from place to place in each country - they might be greater in Karachi than in Quetta (I`m just guessing). They are probably greater along the West Coast of India and the South than in our Cow belt. I don`t believe that it`s a random factor that Shah Bano was from Indore, not UP. In Bangladesh the Bengali tradition is likely to be a positive factor.

If you look outside the subcontinent, women`s rights in Muslim majority countries also vary widely. (eg Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, to give three very different situations.) Yup - I think it`s a matter of culture and history, and how they shaped people`s idea of (religous) justice.

sb #466
``Ours is a manda gaja gamanam(slow elephant`s walk``
Thats a nice expression. I wish it would speed up :). Have you heard of Asha for Education :www.ashanet.org? Just reading a description of its projects makes one realise how much needs to be done.

PM #470
Thanks. Its nice to see you, have you been away?

Zafar #

Chowk is a ruinous habit, let me advise you :).

Thanks for elaborating, I agree with what you say re Shah Bano and vote bank politics. I think the protection of identity/seige question you mentioned was a very valid one and is still up in the air due to the complications of these idiot Hindutva-vadis. The upcoming UP elections are going to be a tough ride for communal relations, I am really afraid.

But I fault the Congress and Rajiv Gandhi anyway. Inciting riots has been a known technique of the Congress to protect its minority turf, perversely Muslims suffered most in riots. So Rajiv Gandhi was a prisoner of his own party`s covert policies when he made the excuse of riots.

What you rightly term vote-bank politics has allowed the Congress to get away with only token gestures toward the Muslim communities and not do anything really concrete and focussed on improving the human development indices of the Muslim community, something which is absolutely indispensible to protect their identity.

btw, three cheers for your resp. mother :).
btw, the Muslim maintenance law is likely to be the subject of a Supreme Court ruling soon and three cheers for these activists too:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20010521&fname=Hasina+Khan+%28F%29&sid=1&pn=1

I am curious to understand whether Muslim women`s organisations are more free to advocate and win `progressive`(according to ones pov :)) changes in Muslim law as a minority religious community in India or as part of a 97% Muslim community in Pakistan and overwhelming majority in Bangladesh.

tahmed321 #469

tahmed321 #469
I didnot understand this statement `` dont see the close link between constitutional checks and balances and religious chauvinism``

May I wonder why Pakistan has had so many dictators? Why did each dictator take it on himself/herself to introduce Islamic provisions into the Constitution?

`` And I think you will agree that religious chauvinists in India are no less vicious than in Pakistan.``

I wouldnot agree at all. For one thing, no religious chauvinist in India, however vicious can declare any Hindu `nonHindu` nor pronounce a `qabil-e-whatever` namely a death sentence, there is no such religious tradition.

Secondly, the means of empowerment of chauvinists:

There is no provision in the Indian Constitution that every law has to be scrutinized for adherence to `Hindusim` or Islam or Christianity, etc. There is no Hindu body equivalent to Council for Islamic ideology recognised by the government which pronouces its opinion on how Hindu a law is or is not and there is no equivalent of Federal Shariat Appellate Court. This has made chauvinism a less profitable tradition.


Moreover, the Constitution is strictly secular so inciting hatred against other religious communities is a punishable offence. This is used and misused, but the most famous example is Bal Thackeray was barred from voting for 6 years for making a hateful speech against Muslims during a political campaign.

There is no law against blashemy against any religion, for example, the absence of such a law puts lynch-style hatred-inciting mobs in their place and shows them for what they really are in the eyes of the law and society:not pious defenders of the faith or national ideology (as can be and has been the case in Pakistan everytime a blasphemy case is filed or prosecuted) but lynch mobs finding profit in violence and cornering the market on religion, plain and simple.

Yes, there are lynch mobs, as vicious as anywhere in the world, but no they cannot claim to protect religion, nor can any BJP politician, because there is not such thing as protecting religion. Hence you will see them talk of `protecting culture`, thats it.

Neither are there religion-based laws for Hindus, amendments to which are attacked as a insult to Hindus. Even in civic affairs, there have been laws introduced AGAINST specific Hindu practices like dowry.

Bottomline, there is a very solid legal leg to stand on and no room for pussyfooting in the name of religion, if one decides to go after chauvinists.

Coming to other means of empowerment of religious chavinists :

The equivalent of loads of money from Arab countries to keep religious leaders in paint and powder has not happened in India on the `Hindu` side. I am sure there are foreign contributions to Hindutva organizations, but they cannot carry out their activities from a temple or with any implicit religious sanction, temples are administered as public property in India.

Moreover, Hindutva organisations are not religious bodies, but political/social ones. So their chauvinism is more a politico-social matter, with very little religious steam. Moreover these organisations have no standing in the eyes of the state different from say Christian or Muslim organisations, infact Christian and Muslim organisations are granted more power over their affairs by the state than Hindu organisations, leading to a number of Hindu organsiations trying to get a legal status of nonHindu, perversely.

Lastly, I donot see the `inter-sect` fraticidal conflict dimension of religious chauvinism among Hindu extremists.

Secondly, another means of empowerment of chauvinists : people donot carry hand weapons or assault weapons in public in India, except in the depths of UP and Bihar, or for government-sponsored protection of people at risk. (I cannot answer for the Mumbai underworld). I myself have seen an assault weapon only once, carried by government security agents protecting a top bureacrat.

Do you know how the most famous vicious chavinist Dara Singh(who reportedly burned the Australian missionary and his sons to death) was caught. An Orissa police sting offered to sell him a gun and went to meet him in the forest. When Dara Singh was then arrested, the weapons he had on him were knife and arrows or something, he owned no guns.

Are not religious-chavinists in Pakistan much better equipped to menace the population?

Indian press has lately reported `arms training` of Bajrang Dalis in parts of UP. In Pakistan many jihadi organisations have been training for many years in Pakistan, and their members cross borders into other countries to fight. I cannot name a single Indian-based organisation with this sort of battle-hardened mercenery corp.

When the guy Masood Azhar was released after the IA hijacking, he addressed a gathering of a few lakhs of supporters to his jihad cause in cities like Karachi. Recruitment and fund collection for armed conflict is openly done in Pakistani cities or not? We donot have openly operating (Hindu or Muslim)equivalents of Binori Town madarassah and Markaz-Ul-Dawa universities with resources invested in arms training, in India.

And about foreign policy providing gainful employment to fundamentalists :
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm#P350_92934


This is the most perplexing statement of all:
``However, I think you seriously underestimate the quality of people we have in Pakistan.``

I think I have much more faith in the `quality of people in Pakistan` that you do, thats why I keep saying they should be allowed to enter public life in full force and not be nose-led any further by those who think they know better.

I am the one who believes in holding elections and not interrupting the electoral process with these dictatorships and interventions in national interest. IMO, the Pakistani people have suffered enough from decades of military rule or military-sponsored rule.

Sorry for a long post.

Sadna and Tahmed

I freely admit it. I am addicted to Chowk. This is why I log on repeatedly and reread things, and why I am compelled to add ``just one more thing``.

If you will bear with me.

Sadna - this is how the Shah Bano case looked from where I sit.

Shah Bano asked for maintenance. Islam has (at least in theory) addressed maintenance for divorced women with the concept of ``meher``.

Meher is the amount of capital the groom pledges to his bride at their wedding, and which reverts to her on divorce. At the time of the Prophet it was forty peices of gold - enough for a woman to start her own business in the case of divorce. In other words, enough money to live on (or earn a living with) for the rest of her life. Not dragged out payments for the rest of her life.

In India today, the forty pieces of whatever have been taken at face value (rather self servingly) and when a poor woman is divorced, she frequently receives FORTY RUPEES. (That`s right, not even the price of a vegetarian thali.)

Is that fair? No.

Is it Islamic? Arguably not.

Could it be argued that paying maintenance to Shah Bano more accurately fulfils the intention of the Islamic rule? Definitely.

Tahmed - am I right with the facts so far?

Anyway - then why was the whole maintenance thing labelled an assault on Muslim values and culture by, as Sadna says, influential Indian Muslims?

The reasons are not religious. One could even say that they were profoundly unIslamic.

Why didn`t many Indian Muslims speak in favour of maintenance?

My feeling is that there are many vested interests in the Muslim community (as well as others) which benefit from disempowered people - and disempowered women is key to this. These same interests did their best (and they succeded) to stifle a debate on this in the Muslim community - also in part the better to bolster their claim to speak for the community as a whole. (I believe that we`re known as a vote bank.)

How did they stifle debate? The usual methods. A combination of thuggery and threats and an appeal to Muslim ``loyalty``.

I`ve addressed this posting to both of you (1) because I want Sadna to know where I stand on this, and perhaps to get a ``inside view`` of what the struggle was about and (2) Tahmed, you have by default been appointed the Ministry of Information and I hope that you will point out any inaccuracies in my diatribe.

Zafar

PS The Shahi Imam of Delhi`s Jama Masjid is archetypically one of these reactionary Indian Muslim elements - indulges in hystrionics such as threatening to ask for an Arab boycott of India if BM not rebuilt, etc. etc. But how important would he be if these issues were not seen as vital, and Indian Muslims were seen by the media as being more concerned with things like education, employment, law and order (which I think in reality we are)?

re Sadna #various

Thank you once again for the many probing questions posed and penetrating insights offered-- whether or not TAhmed is right about your `underestimating the people of Pakistan` (which, incidentally, I think he misses the mark, and your point, on)

rgds,

PM



Zafar, your moderating voice has been a welcome addition to the chowk. Please stick around.



TAhmed,

Contrary to what certain other stratospheric chowkies might contend, I think you do a valuable job in educating us every now and then on the Quran position on certain matters-- or at least an alternative POV. Good on ya!

sadna #465 I guess we can all pray to God to save us from His followers.

PS I dont see the close link between constitutional checks and balances and religious chauvinism: the two are largely unrelated. Dictatorships can be secular (military like PM or civil like would-be dictator NS) or religious ( military like Zia or civil like would-be dictators, the Jamaats). Trust me, I am Pakistani and therefore an expert on dictatorships :-)

And I think you will agree that religious chauvinists in India are no less vicious than in Pakistan. We all need to fight religious chauvinism in whatever way we can, and rest assured in Pakistan people are not sitting on their hands. When Zia introduced the chopping of hands as punishment (in his never ending evil quest to intimidate people in Pakistan), NOT ONE doctor in Pakistan could be found to carry out this punishment. He ultimately had to give up the idea. People have written books explaining the Islam of the Holy Prophet (the one I explained to you) and these have been widely praised in newspapers and no mullah has dared challenge them (no mullah will dare to challenge the word of the Quran, but it is easy to ignore it as they do). You may wish to think of this when you start worrying about the Pakistani people caving in to chauvinists. I am not saying all is blue skies in Pakistan - indeed we have serious problems to worry about. However, I think you seriously underestimate the quality of people we have in Pakistan.

Reply Tahmed321 #454

Once I find out I`m worng, the only decent thing to do is to admit it. I`m not to proud to learn! Thank you again.

Reply Sadna #456

During the Shah Bano thing my mother was one of a group of Indian Muslim women who went to Rajiv Gandhi and pressed him to support divorced muslim women`s right to maintenance. He came across as a decent, likeable man, but his response basically boiled down to:

``I cannot have more riots.``

IMHO the only reason there is support for an outdated (and often corrupt) understanding of Islamic law among Indian Muslims is indeed that they (we) have felt under siege (for a variety of reasons) since 1947. As you pointed out (I think), this feeling is waning and that support changing.

sadna #351: ``but for certain types of changes 50 years can even be too much time. ``

Agreed.

jntuece99 #353: Thanks for Srinivas` link! I am attached to the rural Andhra too.

sadna #459: ``And I definately differ from the author of this article and any other Pakistanis who make the case again and again that the inequities of Hindu culture are primarily to be held responsible.``

Ok, so who is losing - the Hindu majority India or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

I say, we watch as a separate country as Pakistan takes its course! I for one learnt to enjoy the Pakistani piss and vinegar and the amusement at such articles on Chowk, after hanging out with some in real life. Nostalgia of our own writers should dry out soon. (i owe you a reply from Patwardhan`s board sometime ago - later!)

Ours is a manda gaja gamanam (slow elephant`s walk)! [remotely related to your #351 - govt officials are literally spotting the children wokring in people`s fields and homes without going to schools and putting them in the schools. As the kids run away not being used to the academics, they get picked up again - news from a friend`s mother from the Telangana countryside.]

tahmed321 #462
I am not as optimistic as you. If the already-educated choose to sit on their hands while their compatriots pursue ruinous policies, then what is to be expected from educating the rest?

Fundamentalism is only filling a vacuum which ought ot have been filled by ideas and solutions out there in the public discourse. If assemblies, ministers and political campaigns are out in the open discussing price rises, inflation, unemployment, civic amenities and law and order, it would put the fundamentalists out of business.

In India the situation is also different in that we have the Constitution to throw at any extremists.

Friend #460

``Ahmed,

What is there in a name? If you wish I will call you Prof Ahmed or sir. You may still call me a roach. But talking is better (than not talking).

Let us call it a draw``

Thanks, tahmed or ahmed or tahmed321 is fine. I never called you a roach incidentally, although I did refer to the roach on the subject of the brain transplant. I am sorry if that offended you or sadna, and I realize that the use of the term must have sounded more offensive than was intended since people associate the it with a disgusting creature. I was thinking only of it as a small insect with a tiny brain. In any case, I was wrong to belittle Sadna and you the way I did.

You can call it a draw. I will be perfectly happy to let you be the winner if you like, since this kind of a ``race to the bottom`` is not something I care to spend time on. I think you will agree that this is not a race that is worth your while either.

No hard feelings, and best wishes in your real life. :-)

sadna #461 It is true that Indo-Pakistan relations, or India per se, cannot be blamed for the rise of Islamists in Pakistan. Absolutely not. What I was trying to say was this: if there are good relations between the two countries, then the chances of the Islamists coming to power in Pakistan (and the Hindutvas in India - while you do not mention them in your post - they are not that much farther away from power in India, if at all, than Islamists are in Pakistan) are reduced. And religious chauvinism is by no means the major problem in either country, although it is a problem. The real problem is poverty. Fix that and religious fundamentalists in South Asia become as much of a joke as the religious fundeamentalists (the christian variety) in the US.

And tahmed321
Speaking of polite behaviour on discussion boards, the examples of `polite behaviour` set on other boards including the Farzana Versey board hasnot quite escaped my attention.

tahmed321 #459

Peace (or lack thereof) between India and Pakistan is not the reason why though as you say ``Islamists failed over and over again in winning elections and by now have given up that path`` , Bhutto did what he did, why Zia did what he did regarding Islamisation of society, why the Federal Shariat Apellate court even came into existence, or the Council of Islamic Ideology.

Tensions between India and Pakistan is not the reason why Musharraf`s Religious Affair minister reportedly sent him a draft ordinance named Hisbah ordinance. Have you heard of it?

Constitutional checks and balances : you are very right. But `they` realised first and `they` were there first, starting many years ago. Take a look at the `Islamic` provisions in the Pakistani Constitution.

Regarding bringing about changes in these Islamic provisions(if thats what Pakistani moderates want, thats not clear either).

Well, for eg Musharraf didnot have demonstrable public support enough to face down the Islamists(who never won many seats in an eletion) in the matter of amending the procedure for filing cases under the blasphemy law, he had to backtrack for such a minor change. Then how on earth will he(or any other leader) ever have the power to undo the Constitutional changes made by Zia if he has to do it as his personal responsibility instead of a vociferous demand from the `moderate` majority?

Nawaz Sharif who did have enough support in the National Assembly, went ahead with pursuing his total Sharia amendments. Where was Indo-Pak tension a factor in the public apathy toward what he did?

btw, Bin Laden and his popularity among Islamists in Pakistan has very little to do with India and Pakistan, it has more to do with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

According to reports, many thousands of Pakistanis are fighting in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban. These fighters are recruited openly in Pakistani cities and religious schools. Is that of less significance to the clout Islamists have, than Indo-Pak differences?


Coming to inter-ethnic/sectarian conflict, the religious hardline dimensions of this are not related to Indo-Pak tension, either. There is no reason why the Kashmir issue which unites all Pakistanis should cause Pakistani sectarian organisations to gain in membership and influence and then think it profitable to indulge in violence within Pakistan. Here,too, IMO, only the moral force of a peaceloving united majority asserting itself can prevail, just a competent police force or army guns or harsh legal measure/ procedures willnot suffice.

In the face of all these challenges (including possible apathy of majority Pakistanis, which is what is being discussed), to all that is `good` in Pakistan, I differ with you on the relative importance of `being polite` on chowk.

And I definately differ from the author of this article and any other Pakistanis who make the case again and again that the inequities of Hindu culture are primarily to be held responsible.

tahmed321 #458

``friend #457 If you wish to discuss anything further with me, you will first need to address me properly.``

Ahmed,

What is there in a name? If you wish I will call you Prof Ahmed or sir. You may still call me a roach. But talking is better (than not talking).

Let us call it a draw

Sadna #456 ``Neither Bhutto lacked education...``

Bhutto did it not due to his religious beliefs (Bhutto was hardly a religious man), but for political reasons (to satisfy the Jamaat i Islami). The Ahmedis were indeed shamefully treated. The reasons for the lack of strong public outcry against this treatment are I think not simple - they are a mix of public apathy, lack of empathy for a highly successful minority community.

``To keep these educated people doing bad things in check, we need other educated people to participate and speak up. ``

Agreed. Ultimately of course it is constitutional checks and balances that keep ``educated people from doing bad things``. While individuals can can and do speak out, we need institutional checks. In Pakistan we have a problem because state institutions are weakened by parallel ``islamic`` institutions (shariah courts) thanks to Zia. But the war goes on: the postponement of implementation of an interest-free banking system by one year is one such victory, and not the only one. Islamists failed over and over again in winning elections and by now have given up that path (they did not participate in the last national elections). They tried to gain power in the army, but have failed. However, there is no guarantee that they will not force their way to the top. Peace between India and Pakistan, will I think go a long way towards ensuring that neither the Islamists in Pakistan nor the Hindutvas in India ever gain power. And this peace does require building bridges among ordinary people. And on Chowk provides us one such place to build bridges (rather than burn them, as too many people try to do when they engage in idle India-Pakistan mud-fests).

friend #457 If you wish to discuss anything further with me, you will first need to address me properly.

tahmed321 #437

``You, my friend, have post after post addressed to women posters where you berate them in ways you can only berate a woman (for example, by using words like ``ugly`` that are designed to put down a woman in ways you could never put down a man). There is a basic difference here, and you obviously never learnt that in the gutter.``

Dear Ahmek,

You raised the bar of rudeness and insulting behavior. I am a roach and live in gutter. I took training from you and jumped higher. Why do you have any issue there?

``And I have apologized twice on this board for what I wrote about her IQ. ``

If didn`t see any apology except this post. If you are sincere, I can call it a draw.

anNy #439

``friend sweetie: -- id be bitchy but the weathers lovely...wind and rain...dont feel like dissing...im going to go dance in the rain``

That will be good my lump of sugar!! Dance and enjoy

Zafar #452
``I think the Government would fall in case of disenfranchisement because people would recognise that it?s a slippery slope - not just due to the immediately affected party?s objections. Perhaps I overestimate us?``

Zafar you donot. IMO, Indians are fortunate to have a tradition from pre-Independence times of recognising the importance of truly universal franchise.

You will agree though, mechanisms to act as checks and balances to ensure universal franchise are also as important as acceptance of the basic principle.

Free functioning of political organisations is an important mechanism, the CE of Pakistan and government servants cannot be the sole trustees of this principle of universal franchise, organized citizenry has to buy in, participate in implementing and protecting it too.

The exercise of individual opinions and organized opinions, both are as indispensable as eyes and ears, as much as a free press.

tahmed321 #453
Sorry tahmed, I have no personal differences with you, but I donot think that laws in Pakistan(and other Muslim countries) and even bad laws in India are brought into force by those who lack education.

Neither Bhutto lacked education, nor the distinguished members of the Senate who refused to pass resolutions on honor killings lacked education, the riba judgement is backed by scholarly and comprehensive review of Islamic jurisprudence and neither someone like Rafiq Tarar nor members of the Army who have intervened in elections and supported/encouraged religious/ethnic parties at various times, qualify as people without proper education.


Rajiv Gandhi negated the Indian Supreme Court`s Shah Bano judgement with full consent of his party`s parliamentarians(the Shah Bano judgement was a progressive one, making it incumbent on a divorcing Muslim husband to pay maintanence to his ex-wife).

Rajiv Gandhi passed the Muslim maintanance law nullifying a progressive judgement which would have benefitted Muslim women not because he lacked a good education, the Cambridge-fail that he was :), nor did his MPs who passed the law lack adequate education. The law was passed to placate vocal and influential Muslims who were well educated themselves but considered the judgement a threat to their Muslim identity.

To keep these educated people doing bad things in check, we need other educated people to participate and speak up.

Just like to keep the Hindutva reactionary virus from eating into our institutions and society, we need educated people to speak up.

But I am sure you are as fatigued as myself so let us cease and desist.

Zahra: I too noticed I was spending too much time on chowk (on this board for example). I shall take your good advice, and get down to some work now.

PS But I shall be back sure as God made little green apples. :-)

Zafar Al Talib #449: My hat off to you, sir, on being big enough to not get stuck on one position. You were the calming influence that lowered the temperature on this discussion, and from my post below and Sadna`s earlier post, I think you will agree that we have now reached a satisfactory conclusion.

sadna #444 I think we are basically in agreement then. You mention one issue that remains, i.e.: ``one can still see trends in Islamic societies around the world, which donot bode well for their future as societies where true pluralism(or equality for all religious faiths) is a primary upheld value.`` The concern is there. My view is that religious chauvinism (which is really all that it is, and not much different from ethnic chauvinism) stems from a lack of education. With proper education, people think more logically, and the irrationality of religious and ethnic hatreds becomes clear to them.

So, I believe we have resolved our differences. Cheers.

Reply: Sadna #: 450

Sadna

I am not trying to establish equivalence between political systems here – just making the point that wording can make it easy for people to hive off into discussing the theoretical when you (I assume, correct?) are asking about the concrete, and this is especially true when talking about religion, since then individual understanding and opinions of what is right come into it. (And ok, sati/widows was a bad example.)

I do not defend all the points of view you’ve crossed wordprocessors with on Chowk, far from it. It’s just that when the Hindu/Muslim thing gets going I really think sometimes people talk past each other because buzz words may keep them from picking up on what the question actually is. (And in some cases help them avoid it.)

But that is my op. I agree to disagree.

Zafar

PS I think the Government would fall in case of disenfranchisement because people would recognise that it’s a slippery slope – not just due to the immediately affected party’s objections. Perhaps I overestimate us?

www.thefridaytimes.com
News
Municipal polls in NWFP, etc

``...Meanwhile, female voters in Totalai, Dagai, Ghurghashti and Chingal union councils of Buner district were not allowed by religious and political parties to vote. It was the same in the Dir district. TFT had reported the situation in these union councils before the elections but the government refused to take any action to ensure that the women could cast their votes... ``

Zafar #448
Its tough to argue with you because I mostly agree with you :).

But I have to disagree on this
`` Turning it around, imagine someone writing to you and asking why sati and the mistreatment of widows was allowed in Ram Rajya. You’d probably write to them and explain that they weren’t. If they equate Indian polity with Ram Rajya, however, they’d be convinced that is WAS and that you weren’t being truthful. So you’d be talking past each other, rather than communicating. ``

Zafar, sati is outlawed in India. The death for blasphemy, zina/huddood laws and others laws derived from older traditions of Islamic jurisprudence are very much laws in Pakistan. Didnot Rafiq Tarar write a judgement on cutting off of hands, it was mentioned in a Dawn column. There is an outstanding judgement on riba. There are separate electorates for nonMuslims. The Senate couldnot pass a resolution condemning honor killings.

I donot think sati or mistreatment of widows is a good analogy.

What you said about government falling in India is true. Do you know why? Because a political party/parties which expected to get those hundred thousand votes would have protested vociferously.

But political parties are not being allowed to function in Pakistan, the public is now paying a high price for the parties` past misdeeds in the form of decreased vigilance and activism.

Yet you find many on chowk still arguing against functioning of political parties.

As you said you are free to disagree :).
Anyway, thanks for your replies, it is a pleasure interacting! Have a good weekend.

Reply Tahmed321 #432, #440

Tahmed,

Thank you for increasing my knowledge. You are right about this, and I was wrong. (I am looking forward to being right again, however, because I have learned and have now changed my opinion.)

I agree with Friend’s post #442 – we are all responsible for the injustices which take place in our societies, because we allow them to take place. Morally unarguable, but extremely hard to act on. I haven’t been able to.

Zafar

Reply Sadna #430, 435

Sadna

As per earlier post about ijtihad (sorry to be self referential) I think Tahmed321 (reply # 440) has proved his knowledge of the Koran Sharif and understanding of Islam to be better than mine. It seems I was wrong. Please accept my apologies.

I think it is fair for you to ask for explanations of actual practice in Muslim countries, and I do think that you’re getting the runaround (not necessarily deliberate) when people take your questions at face value (about “Islam” as opposed to what happens on the ground in Pakistan).

Turning it around, imagine someone writing to you and asking why sati and the mistreatment of widows was allowed in Ram Rajya. You’d probably write to them and explain that they weren’t. If they equate Indian polity with Ram Rajya, however, they’d be convinced that is WAS and that you weren’t being truthful. So you’d be talking past each other, rather than communicating.

I’m afraid I’m not sure I agree with some of the things you said in your posts.

“But what if ordinary citizens themselves do not want elections?”

There’s no way of telling that about Pakistan right now. The only thing you can say is that ordinary citizens do not want elections enough to confront a military Government about them.

You also wrote:” Inspite of every physical threat, one is still free to think and have opinions. One is free to assemble and organize with others of similar mind.”

Yes, all true, but there is a heavy personal price for these things. We can wish people were willing to pay it, but unless we’ve been in their situation we don’t know what it’s like, and we can’t even be CERTAIN that we’d pay it ourselves. Like you, I feel fortunate that I grew up in India (for all its warts). Can you and I say with any certainty that we’d be the people we are today if we grew up elsewhere? In fact we probably wouldn’t be. Asma Jahangir is a rare human being.

(And think on this – how many Indians are there currently in our democracy who dare to advocate free and fair elections in Kashmir with independance and merger with Pakistan as options on the ballot? Not many, since these are deeply unpopular options. Perhaps that is our current Lakshman Rekha?)

No comments on the Pakistani intellectual class – don’t know enough of them. (But what proportion of ours went against the Govt. during the Emergency?) And I think you know what would happen in India if 100,000 members of a minority were prevented from casting their vote. The Government would fall. As it should. (Jai Hind.)

Zafar

PS Not questioning your right to disagree with anyone. :)

#440 tahmed

Mr. Ahmed, all very well, but what you`re saying is a non sequiter. One has to do with whether islam assigns a hierarchy to religions, placing itself (naturally) at the top and the other has to do with what happens on ``judgement day``. The first one is more relevant to what happens in the here and now and is very real for those who are not lucky enough to be at the top. Your personal beliefs aside, what do you have to say about the hierarchy thing? Is Zafar Al-Taib wrong?

TAhmed:

[This post is addressed to you and you only. I do not have your email address otherwise I would have emailed you directly.]

Why are you wasting you time on this plain rubbish ? This is beyond my comprehension. You do not have to spoon-feed others with your views till they are fully convinced.

Please do not waste your time here. I think you should look into something real worthwhile: what happened to the UNICEF thing that you wanted to look into? I can give you quite a few references and you should seriously get involved in them. That would be a much better use of your precious time than indulging in a petty discussion.

Hope you will make a serious note of this request.

Take Care.

And tahmed, you should be debating this with your coreligionists, the difference between what you say and what many others say is really confusing.

friend #442
I agree with you, you bet we are responsible.

#441
I was speechless with wonder that some donot bother to read the article even to understand what the persons they are berating are saying.

tahmed321 #440
Your personal beliefs are your business, its not my business to question them, and I am not presuming to do so. If there is such a reading of Quran and you subscribe to it, its to your great credit and I mean it.

I can honor you for that, and all others who think like you do in private and public life, not being stranger to them, having lived among Muslims too.

But while honoring you personally, at the same time I can fault you for not noticing(even on chowk)that many of your noncriminal/nonmullah co-religionists hold a different opinion about the equality of Muslims and nonMuslims, academic or in their personal belief or socially or politically.

Perhaps you donot notice that this perception of inequality is brought into social and political practices of Muslim societies, you have many many examples, can everything be ascribed to reactionary post-colonialism(if I get that right).

Or you donot notice it was a democratically elected leader Bhutto who introduced the anti-Ahmediya rules if I am right. The Federal Shariat Court, the gradual Islamization of the constitution, you cannot ascribe these to mullahs, criminals and extremists. You cannot ascribe the rise of say someone like Rafiq Tarar(whom I remember you calling something impolite) to uneducated unlettered bigots `misinterpreting` religion. And things like the riba judgement..

Basically here is where we differ : while having full respect for Islam and Muslims in general, one can still see trends in Islamic societies around the world, which donot bode well for their future as societies where true pluralism(or equality for all religious faiths) is a primary upheld value.

Even in countries like Turkey, the military guards the states secularism, leading to debates whether secularism is more important than democracy.

It doesnot help to have a moderate population saying there can be no wrong/neglect done by Muslims, except by bigots and criminals. And that for the effects on society of these bigots and criminals they(the moderates) eternally not responsible, its someones else`s job to get a broom and clean up.

If this were the attitude among Indians, we would have had by now Manu-smriti as law in India. Its interesting, btw to see Bangladeshis coping with similar trends, but they donot hesitate to come out into the streets to face down Islamists, especially the women, good for them!:)

Sadna #435 ``Am I a bigot for believing him and not tahmed?``

I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking you to believe the Quran - the Quran clearly says (in Surah Baqarah and elsewhere) that if you believe in God, the Judgement Day and do good deeds, then you have nothing to fear whether you are Christian, Jew, Sabian (like Hinduism, a non-Abrahamic religion) or any other religion. And the concept the Judgement Day has to do with deeds (not beliefs) - the Quran says that on the Judgement Day your lips will be sealed, there will be no one to speak on your behalf, and your hands and feet will do the talking (meaning what you did in life). On matters of faith, that is a judgement reserved by God for Himself, and muslims are clearly instructed (e.g. in Surah al-Kafiroon) not to get involved in these matters. Even the Holy Prophet himself is instructed that he is there to convey a message only, and it`s implementation is not his concern. I could go on, but I think this should give anyone with any sense of fairness some idea on what Islam is. And if you dont believe me, read the Holy Quran with an open mind and find out for yourself.

I agree that all this is very different from the religion that is practiced by the mullah, the king, the taliban, or a dictator like Zia. But this is is the Islam as conveyed by the Holy Prophet and as recorded in a book that has not been changed by one letter over fourteen centuries. This is the Islam that you refuse to accept.

MaheshG #434 I think on reading Sadna`s post #435 you will understand that it is not merely something I have ``got into my head`` that ``the only Islam that you (Sadna) believe exists is the one that is prevalent among Pakistani mullahs.``

I rest my case. I can only conclude that a person is hopelessly bigotted when coming up with such flat condemnations of other people`s religion.

Friend: Actually, maybe I have not explained enough to you - when I belittled Sadna`s IQ, it had nothing to do with her being a woman. I have criticized her before a number of times on chowk, but I ask you or Sadna or anyone else to find one post from me where I have written something which has to do with her being a woman. And I have apologized twice on this board for what I wrote about her IQ.

You, my friend, have post after post addressed to women posters where you berate them in ways you can only berate a woman (for example, by using words like ``ugly`` that are designed to put down a woman in ways you could never put down a man). There is a basic difference here, and you obviously never learnt that in the gutter.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed321 #432

``Do I start holding all Indians responsible for the burning to death of the two Australian boys a couple of years ago?``

Yes Sir,

I am responsible for that crime. All Indians are responsible for that crime. It will be a crime for any society that lets it happen.

Why I am responsible? Because someone felt that he can get go away after committing all that. What should I do to reduce my guilt? Perhaps, to break my links with groups that supported that crime and vocally oppose them whenever they support such crimes.

What you do in your country in similar situation is your business. If you prefer, close your eyes and ears.

But no, you can`t start a campaign of ``kill the messanger``.

tahmed321 #433

``Yaar, guru you can have my turn. I think I have explained

enough to you.``

I guess you should certainly give your turn to someone else. Filling BAhmed`s shoes is a big task and you didn`t prove your self equal to that.

sadna #431

``friend, I was lost in wonder myself. ``

About what?

tahmed sahab:

:) i dont think ure mean at all..crazy funny most of the times :0)

friend sweetie:

id be bitchy but the weathers lovely...wind and rain...dont feel like dissing...im going to go dance in the rain

byebye

anNy

Zafar Al-Talib:

It took me a few minutes to understand your one liner. I agree as well as disagree. Why? Some other time.

Take Care.

MaheshG #434

There is nothing to clarify. Let me quote Zafar Al-Talib

#400
`` As to the Muslims are more equal than non-Muslims thing, please see my response #33. I think it is clear, as far as it goes. This is, of course, open to Ijtihad, however. Kaun karne thaiyar hai?``

#33
`` If we see heirarchy as a process of assigning relative values to individuals, Islam codifies heirarchies as well. For example ``Muslims are better than People of the Book who are in turn better than Kaafirs``. Or (I know fundies will argue with this but anyway) ``Men carry greater legal weight than Women`` (as shown in the relative importance of male and female witnesses).

Interestingly, [while ]Islam is very specific about who is and is not a muslim, and then ranks non-Muslims in order of closeness to God`s word (people of the book, the rest), etc ``

Doesnot this make it clear that Islam codifies a heirarchy with Muslims ABOVE nonMuslims? Namely according to Islamic principles, Muslims and nonMuslims are not equal. Am I a bigot for believing him and not tahmed?

I will ask you too, why is it bigotted and anti-Muslim to ask in which Muslim society are Muslims considered equal to nonMuslims?

Zafar, I`m sorry to drag your fair name into this meaningless tussle. Why people cannot read the posts(and articles) before interacting is beyond me.

friend #425 ``Yaar, guru ho tum!``

Yaar, guru you can have my turn. I think I have explained enough to you.

Zafar Al-Talib #424 ``I find this disagreement between you (sadna) and tahmed321 quite confusing``

Please see my post #421 where I write ``Hope this makes you understand why I resent Sadna`s refusal to accept any version of Islam other than the worst kind.`` The other issue I have is on her concept of ``collective guilt`` as she explained to me in an earlier board and which makes no sense to me. Do I start holding all Indians responsible for the burning to death of the two Australian boys a couple of years ago? Or for the attacks on muslims in Mumbai under Thakeray? Surely there is as much injustice in India as there is in Pakistan. Just the fact that one is a democracy and the other does not change the fact that there are criminals in every society. Does one tar the entire society with the same brush as one applies to the criminals.

PM: I think Zafar Al-Talib has provided a better response to your post than I could have, and I agree with it.

Sadna, can you clarify to Tahmed that you don`t think the only Islam is the worst kind. Somehow, he`s got into his head that the only Islam that you believe exists is the one that is prevalent among Pakistani mullahs.

friend
I was lost in wonder myself.

Zafar Al-Talib #429 #419

You say it is hard to fight fundamentalists and their modus operandi of violence hence ordinary citizens cannot be heard unless there are regular elections. I agree fully.

But what if ordinary citizens themselves donot want elections? What if the intellectual and educated themselves donot want elections? How are fundamentalists to be dealt with then? Thats the sort of scenario where young people who may have never seen an election in their lifetimes, propagate theories about Hindus and Indians as the reason for all evils.

And hence I am not confused by disagreements between myself and many other chowkwallahs, I think I have very fundamental differences with them, which has nothing to do with mutually impolite behaviour.


I wrote last week to a Dawn columnist that I feel fortunate that I didnot grow up learning values from intellectuals like himself and that I was proud of the equality that we are striving for in every public sphere in India, to erase inequities of class, caste and religion.

That pretty much sums up my contempt for most(though not all) Pakistani `intellectuals`.

Inspite of every physical threat, one is still free to think and have opinions. One is free to assemble and organize with others of similar mind. One is free to see what is happening in the rest of the world and draw parallels to understand what is happening at home. One`s soul is free, one`s belief in God is free, one doesnot owe the neighbourhood mullah anything, however many goons or guns he has.

I was reading an article by an Algerian woman who mentioned how in Algeria over the years 1000s of intellectuals have been murdered by Islamists and a secular polity with a well defined `Algerian` identity which existed in the 50s-60s has dissolved and its now how Islamic or unIslamic one is, how Islamic or unIslamic is society, with the Algerian minorities being considered inferior on basis of Islam. It seems to be a similar scenario in Egypt?

Have scores of intellectuals been murdered in Pakistan? I donot know the answer to that question.

But the day I see any group of this reported majority of `moderates` (who seem to be much wealthier than the average salary-earning middle class Indian)get organized and leave their drawing rooms and take a public stand on ANYTHING for the whole world and fundamentalists to see and not leave it to solitary fighters like Asma Jahangir, is the day I will begin to have respect for them.

Till then I will consider articles like this one to be part of the `reactionary` tendency, whose secular tendency extends to only anti-Hinduism or ant-Indianism, where the external threat is made an excuse for internal apathy.

As an Indian, I donot plan to be fall guy in a 1000 years of blame which I think is all that is in store for India and Indians from Pakistan:).

On that note, I can bet many people of the moderate mentality would not have read the article in the Friday Times about the Hisbah ordinance either, much less pondered what they can, if anything do about it, (if they oppose it).

I wonder what would happen in India if such a measure was contemplated or 100 thousand women were prevented from voting by a religious party.