The Virgin Bride

ahmed madani

You can not be Pakistani. You dont help.

Dear Hobbyty:

Thanks for posting/pasting the whole ``book`` on Chowk -- I don`t question our subcontinental NEED for reassurance from Western writers about the greatness of our religion -- but are you sure this is the conclusion one should draw from the Robin Wright`s article?

``...it is secular leadership that seek to keep them backward.``

Ahmed Madani

why you talkin` like an Indian Opu Kapoor. man, the British teach you etiquette, manners; the Muslims teach you art and culinary delights; the Buddhists teach you peace and love.

We used to take the piss out of you Indians about your accents. Now there you go and prove us right.

Really a touching tale. Its wonderful how the author has tackled so many issues at a time. The emotional readiness of a pakistani youth heading for the land of fortunes, the impact of age difference on brige, the blindness of parents who often tie the knots of thier young daughters to older ones just because they are making good bucks.

Dear madam, I want to congratulate you. You have opened my eyes & have made me think about it. The norms of our society are so incorrect. A young man cant get married even in his mid twenties only because he is not setteled in his life & girls parents wont marry their daughter with him. This makes him frustrated. Not every one is tough enough to handle that kind of frustration & will let it go sooner or later.

What is the solution then. Our religion Isalm. It advocates early marriages.

hamidm

``unlike the bible, the koran makes the perverse claim of being complete in every respect, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for muslims to make any meaningful progress``

How true.

It`s the debilitating headlock that suffocates the community -- will never come out of it as long it believes in it -- no Martin Luther for Islam.

Hamidm

I take the point of your sceptic`s approach - Yes many dissappointments - it`s the nature of the journey and the the journey is a responsibility, I prefer to think of the galss as half full.

Nasah

I urge you to read this article again or read Soroush or Al-Gahannouchi and others who want to break with fossilized conservatives. These conservatives seek to obfuscate Islam, They are least interested in Injtehad, Ijma is anathema as and Shura, a rubber stamp formality. Please do not give up on Muslims as a group, please be with us in this long journey.

Gohwardan:

Did you read my last post? perhaps you did not understand it. You may want to read it again. You may want to read Soroush or Al-Ghannouchi independently.

My concerns with Hindutva are:

1. The construction of a false history - the projection on a continous 5000 year history. There is no doubt that the history of civilization in India is even longer, but it is not the case that the history of Indian/Hindu civilization is one long unbroken rcord.

2. The Ideology that suggests India was a whole which Islam and the Muslim did break apart.

3a. The notion that the experience of Islam in India is one of slavery.

3b. The notion that the Muslim is the enemy of India and must accept the undoing of Islamic history in India.

4. The promotion of these ideas through national federally funded education.

dentist

``Never give up on an idea simply because it is bad and doesn`t work. Cling to it even when it is hopeless. Anyone can cut and run, but it takes a very special person to stay with something that is stupid and harmful`` ....... carlin

...... see, what i told ya`all ? ....... if something doesn`t work, or works the way you don`t want it to work, it is because you didn`t do it the way god meant it to be done ........ all this talk about sex, all this wanking and frigging, all this fornicating all over the place like monkeys and pigs, this decadence, broken homes, frustrated wives, abused children, disease, pesitlience, world hunger and cars that don`t run - all this is because we didn`t follow the good book .........

........ dentist has it all figured it out ... he could have been happily married at fifteen to a twelve year old and wouldn`t have had to live with raging hormones and the fear of blindness and eternal damnation ..... they could have played and prayed and grown together to raise little jihadis to defend the faith, start dot.coms and solve the puzzle of the unified theory by deciphering the relevant passages in the koran - it is all there , we just don`t see it because we don`t have faith ........

............`` Always remember, today doesn`t count. Trying to make something out of today only robs you of precious time that could be spent daydreaming or resting up`` ........ carlin, again.

Since you guys are so worried about letting women have sex (marrying them off when they are young being a suggested solution), this news will interest you.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=1299

Dont some people think of women as individuals with their own brains and feelings?

Hobbyty

I have read the article.

IT DOES ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND RSS VHP PEOPLE. I have asked you these questions again and again. You have not answered them.

KINDLY ANSWER THE FOLLOWING -

1. Dont you use the bogey of western domination as VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people do?

2. Dont you promote a us and them thinking between Muslims and others, just like like VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people do?

3. Dont you use your interpretation of history to appeal to Muslims young peoples emotions, just like like VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people appeal to Hindus young peoples emotions?

4. Dont you paint a picture of Muslims being annhilated by non muslims, just like like VHP, RSS, SHIV SENA people paint Hindus being annhilated by Muslims?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE, HOBBYTY?

Be honest. Dot tell me to read the article. I have read it. It understand it fully. I disagree with it almost entirely. It doesnt answer my questions to you. Dont also tell me I am too dumb. I may be. Please give simple short answers that I may understand. YES and NO will do for me.

Expecting answers to my simple questions. We must find out how you are not a carbon copy of the most hateful Hindutva fanatics?

Hobbyty

Nobody is giving up on Muslims as a group. Only on extremists like you.

You should come to India. You will meet very fine Muslim men and women. Just leave your fanaticism behind.

Reply Hobbyty #178

Has Gowardhan started defending Hindutva? If not, why set him up as the person to debate on this issue? Can`t you find anybody who supports these propositions you put forward for Hindutva?

Rather than debating ideas which you`ve formulated yourself why don`t you put up a post asking for a real live Hindutvawadi to stand up and then debate him? You both might learn something.

(Koi hai Hindutvawadi jo Hobbyty se debate karne thaiyaar hai? Hai tho naam bathao zor se...)

hobbyty #165 I read the article you attached to your post. I had not heard about Saroush and El-Ghanouchi before, and it was interesting to see how influential they are. There is certainly a need for people to speak out boldly, as these individuals are doing, what Islam is about.

You posed the question: What does it mean to be a Muslim? My response would be ``It means to look up only to God; to neither look up to any man (even the Holy Prophet himself) or look down upon any man; to consider all individuals - muslim or not -to be equal before the eyes of God; to use one`s God-given abilities to see and to think logically; and to take an interest in God`s creation (science).``. When I read the Quran, this is the message that comes out loud and clear to me. Surely this message of the Quran provides a sound foundation for the ideas of democracy and secularism that Saroush and Ghanouchi are promoting, and more.

Thanks for your kind words concerning myself, incidentally, quite inaccurate though they are.

Zafar, Gohwardan, Tahmed

Zafar:

I did not set up Gohwardan or anybody else for this debate, rather it is he, who has suggested that I am no different that VHP, RSS etc and asks that refute this charge. I was happy discussing sex - Notice I am not making the charge that he or anyone with whom I have converesed is a hindutva ideologue. Indeed Gohwardan is unique in that he has stated that he totally rejects ideas within Hindutva ideology that are designed to offer offense. My beef with Hindutva is specifically with the creation of a false history and the role of Islam and Muslims within that world view. Gohwardan put the charge to me, and I am only answering his questions.

As to whether I learned something or not? Yes, I did. Recall my contention that Pakistan will be voice for Muslims in India - to a degree this is true, but from reading your posts with devkant and also Stuka and Narain`s I do now realize why my position was objectionable to you and others, and that my position needs to rethought, it`s basic assumption reexamined.

Your posts with Devkant reveal a pride, an ownership of your hertiage and citizenship that I had not valued, indeed was not sensitized to the depth of that sentiment. I thought that my initial insensitivity to your objection had put you in a uncomfortable position where you had to prove your nationalistic sense to other Indians - this realization was shattered when I read some of your other interactions (devkant). To that degree, yes I can say I have learned something important about the depth of pride and ownership, some Muslim Indians feel. But ofcourse many others do not (Kashmiri and non-secularized Muslims)and indeed the notion that Pakistan shall have a voice for Muslims in India deserves a rethink, a reexamination of some of the basic assumptions that go towards formulating such a position.

Let me also say, that I remain astonished by the degree of defensiveness by some, to the idea that the propagation of anti Islamic ideas taking place within present indian society. I am astonished that so few have come forward, at least Gohwardan has, to condemn such ideas - to ask that they be reexamined. Others have suggested that such ideas are against the ``secular`` values of the Indian State - I have no position clear position with regard to that and I suggest that this is a meaningless as the focus is not the secular or not character of the state but the diffusion of ideas hostile to the history, role and religion of the muslim in India.

Yet others suggest that I, who brought this in to discussion am the very same as the VHP, RSS, etc. This seems to be to be blaming the messenger for the content of the message. It seems to me that too few value anything other than ``secular``, honest inquiry, diversity of opinion and an intellectual openness are integral, whether we ascribe to secular or sectarian world views. But ofcourse, I will answer this charge and therfore the following:

Gohwardan

in all of my posts to you have I ever said you were stupid? have I not always tried to engage you? have I not pointed out to you about ``vicious``? Obviously, like myself you are here to connect. Consider, have you connected? What if I had treated you in the same manner that you had treated me? Do you usually connect by calling people names? You are a grown man and you must come up with answer you feel comfortable with - but I do request you consider your purpose. If I understand you correctly you feel that I am a menace, a pompous, hypocrite, bigot, etc - Have you considered how such a response from you makes you look or what it says about the defensiveness and hurt with which you respond to me personally and not the position? Grown men generally do not behave with others in such a way - do consider - Ok, now you want me to answer charges -

Apparently I have not provided you the answers you seek and I will try again in a more clear and direct way - BUT I have a request: I should like you to me give me a detailed input on the Robin Wright article and to what and why do you feel you disagree with everything in it - deal?

I don`t want you to be convinced or give up any position but rather that you understand mine, I will try and keep my answers short but if I do, how will you be able to distinguish whether I am a carbon copy of Hindutva ideology? - but OK, not to be concerned, I will happily set myself up - sooner or later you will realize what`s what :

1. I do not use Western domination as a bogey - I pointed out that VHP, RSS etc., do. But this too vague a question - Muslims, Hindus, Pakistanis, Indians have a history with the West. For general purposes, this history is a mix of good and bad, depending on one`s perspective. Do Western interest always coincide with those of Pakistan, India or Muslims or Hindus - no they do not. I feel comforatble saying that where these interests intersect we should cooperate, where they do not we should seek to persuade. If confrontation beomes inevitable, it`s down side must be minimized. Everybody realizes that the West is zealous in the promotion of what it considers it`s values, to non-Western countries and civilizations. I contend that while not all countries and civilizations have the resources of the West to promote and project their values, they do have similar compulsions and should exercise these.

2. No, I do not promote a ``Us versus Them`` thinking. Quite the opposite. But I acknowledge it`s existence, that is when I am confronted with that kind of thinking. When confronted by a ``us versus them`` thinking, I do suggest that we should pay back in the same coin. I do not suggest that Muslims societies should be a door mat either, We should avoid confrontation if possible, but that does not mean not asserting what we hold as our values, our interests. As Pakistan is a more than 95% Muslim country and as Islam is a universal religion, Pakistani and Muslim interests have a multiplicity of resonance within communities in the world and not just the sub-continent. That is to say that Pakistani Muslims are connected by faith to peoples around the world and I most definitely favor any reasonable suggestions that would bring Muslims in all countries closer to one another, especially in faith. I urge you to again review the article to better understand where I am coming from. I make the point that Muslim societies by and large have become ossified, that our ethics no longer support our morality - that we do not live our faith - that our faith is not dead, set of dos` and Donts` - that we live in environments where we are confronted by plurality of every kind and with questions that conservative interpretations refuse to acknowledge and that they do promote an obscuritanist world view. Ijtehad, Ijma and Shura are destined to win the day - even as the day is not yet close - In essence, this point of view seeks to value freedom of conscience, confession and personal liberty. too many on these boards have a reflexive reaction to the political Islam, yet such reactions tend not to promote dialogue. Muslim societies while favoring change, seek to do so with the context of their own constructs, because only these will have long term legitamcy. As the Chinese say, It does not matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse.

3. No, I do not use ``my interpretation of history`` - I feel uncomforatble saying this as I am not entirely sure just exactly what you mean by ``my interpretation of history`` - perhaps you will explain - and will please justify your use of ``my interpretation of history``

4. No, I do not paint a picture of Muslims being anihilated and therefore they must unite. The concept of Ummah is not ``my`` invention. It is an article of faith, it envisions Muslims anywhere, everywhere being a sigle community of faith. Muslims are everywhere in the world as majorities and as sizable minorities. In Places such as Bosnia, where for the first time in it`s collective history, Muslims were subjected to concentration camps - is a special cause of concern. I do suggest that Muslims remain vigilant, lest the concentration camps make a come back. While the concept of the nation State is realized, so is the concept of the Ummah, realized - but not acknowledged by all. Also, I want to make the point that I am a supporter of the concept of Jihad ( Such can never be offensive, but in support of one`s self or other - again refer to the article to better understand the use of this concept) VHP,RSS, etc, falsify history, with a view to constructing a glorious past, defiled by Muslims - I have not and do not seek to falsify history, indeed, cannot create a false history because it goes against my argument. I point out that the very same ideas, ideas hostile to the notion of Islam and Muslims, that caused the tragedy in Bosnia and Kosovo and Chechnyia are still around and we owe it to ourselves to challenge these where ever they appear. For too long now have we been hearing that the call of Muslims to be Muslims is the cause of the visitation of oppression - I should like you to remember, that secularism does not include hostility towards any religion - indeed secularism, without the values of the freedom of conscience and confession is just fascism.

VHP and RSS contend that the last 1000 years of their experience with Islam and Muslims are the equivalent of Slavery - this is manifestly not true. Is it not so that they are not true? if it were true, what would individuals like Zafar be? Foreigners in the country of their birth?

VHP, RSS, etc contend that Muslims in India are invaders, aliens - VHP, RSS etc., contend that the experience of this ``slavery`` has made the Hindu pathetic and cowardly, I make no such assertion.

A question you have not asked, but I will proivide an answer for, is why are my posts tending more and more to derive sanction from the ``Islamic``. You have said I am an Islamist - Yes I am. And being on chowk has greatly influenced this, because of the hostility towards it`s assertion. The cause of the underdog has an appeal for me and windmills await me as well. Before reading and participating on Chowk, I had ofcourse studied Islamic history and civilization and have since early teenage years been generally interested in the spirtuality, ethical and moral teachings (a sure sign of a weak character) had more or less vague ideas of the role of Islam in politics and international relations. Many persons on chowk had described themselves as secularist, held secularism superior to other ideas of societal organization - with the zeal of true believers - with the intolerance of fascists -it was most interesting - but as time passed and I read more posts and interacted, I have come to the conclusion that most persons on Chowk believe it is enough simply to be ``secular`` and seem to cultivate an intolerance towards things islamic, as if a badge of merit - all the other values that go along with the ideology of secularism, in particular the lack of hostility towards religion (political secularism itself is a development out of protestant Christianity) and the respect for and accomodation of a diversity of views is most certainly and shockingly, missing. That is to say that the ideas of ``secular``, have been drafted into the service of nationalism. These very same secularist then bemoan that Islam as a sectarian idea, has been drafted in to the service of nationalism. The lack of tolerance and objectivity given to the depth of religious sentiment and religion based intellectual constructs, here on Chowk, is really a disgrace and I contend, uniquely out of pace with the kinds of dialogues occuring more frequently everywhere else in the world. Through out the world, individuals and institutions are turning towards religious ethical, moral and intellectual constructs to better understand the reality of their experience. On Chowk, sadly, such efforts are viewed with suspiscion and a level of intolerance that is testing.

I hope you will try and understand my position and internalize the effort I have made on your behalf and mine. Please respond in detail to the article - and also this post.



Tahmed

Sir, I would like to point out that Ijtehad, Ijma and Shura are not meant to secularize Islam, (Islam incorporates the rational as integral) but rather, to reaffirm basic Islamic teaching, to reaffirm the role of the individual believer and his or her responsiblity for his/her relationship with the allmighty, temporal authorities and with the Ummah in plural and individual Muslims. It is important to note that the Muslim cannot be a Muslim in any environment other than a politically, intellectually, confessionally, personally, free environment and that this is a continuous struggle. Very many Muslim movements suffer suppression precisely because it is this freedom that the so called keeper of the flame, an abomination, fear. It`s these keepers who have reduced Islam to what kinds of clothes make a Muslim, irrational and fearful attitudes towards memebers of the opposit sex, make a Muslim. A closed and rigid mind, make a Muslim. A Beard makes a Muslim. The coming debates will discredit them, because the Muslim sees this as a necessity of his or her faith. Weak and Needy Sinners such as myself see this, surely learned amongst us see that Only an educated and free Muslim can make the choice of peace and freedom in submission to the will of God.

Sir , have you read Kierkegaard`s ``Fear And Trembling And The Sickness On To Death``? The ``Leap of Faith`` and The Knight of Faith`` are concepts he develops and you may find merit in how similar are Soroush and Al-Ghannouchi with this Catholic`s thinking. Some even refer to him as a progenitor of existentialism, which makes reading him even more fascinating.

hobbyty:

Keep your horrible pointy paki nose out of Indian affairs. Pakis have exterminated all minorities in your country. Repent for the murder of 3 million Bengalis. You have no right to speak on anyones behalf except your own. Your country persecutes, decapitates and shoots dead ahmadiyas, shias, hindus and christians. Attend to your own problems. Your own interpratation of history is as skewed as that of the RSS/VHP people who are obsessed with. Whinge whine and moan. You have been skinned alive in debates on this forum. Take your pompous flatulent clap trap elsewhere. You are the Shahen-Shah of dispossesed Moghuls. Mind your own goddamn business.

Hobbyty, please answer Gowardhan`s questions.

HobbyTy:

Okay, I am a believer in some aspects of Hindutva and I disagree on other aspects. I will try and play the devil`s advocate here. Let me be clear at the outset. There are some positions on Hindutva that I will explain but not defend, because I don`t agree myself.

First and Foremost, Hindutva is a political and not a religious agenda. It is inherently inclusive, and not exclusive. Religion and nationalism are not synonymous. Therein lies the biggest difference between RSS and Islamic organizations. The RSS wants to be the voice of all Indians, regardless of religion, and not all Hindus worldwide. The Hare Krishnas are not our concern. Pan Islamic organizations cut across national lines.

Regarding your specific queries:

1. The construction of a false history - the projection on a continous 5000 year history. There is no doubt that the history of civilization in India is even longer, but it is not the case that the history of Indian/Hindu civilization is one long unbroken rcord.

The history of India is indeed continuous. There have been events/invasions, and yes, breaks in the rule of specific dynasties. But, the history of the geographic sub-continent has been continuous. If you are talking about Hindu rule, Hindutva certainly does not suggest that the Hindus have ruled over India continuously. There have been foreign invasions, the Greeks, the Turks, Mughals and the English have all invaded India. I would like to point out here the difference between rule and civilzation. Just as the Romans ruled over Judea, but the underlying civilaztion remained Judean with Roman overtones, similarly the civilization of present day India retained a continuous Hindu structure even though the rulers may have changed.

2. The Ideology that suggests India was a whole which Islam and the Muslim did break apart.

India was never whole as modern nation state. But neither was Germany, Italy, or for that matter the United Kingdom. The German state came into being in tle late 19th century, and India came into being in 1947. A difference at best of a 100 years. However, inspite of never being a united Modern state, Hind was always considered a distinct geographic entity. Was China ever considered a part of Hind? No Was Iran ever considered a part of Hind? No. Even though the borders of Hind were not demarcated on the ground, a seperate geographic entity called Hind existed. This was succeeded by two modern nation states, India and Pakistan. I would remind you here that Jinnah himself stated that India consisted of 2 distinct nations, Hindu and Muslim. It was the Muslim League that chose to define nationalism by religion, and not culture, language or geographic unit, not us. We believed, and continue to believe that religion cannot and does not define nationalism. Therefore, the Hindutwavadi does not believe that it was Islam that rent India asunder, but its political re-incarnation, the Muslim League that did it. Now, the successor nation of Hind is India. The Muslims of India have CHOSEN to reject religion as a definition of nationality, and are therefore as Indian as Hindus. They are still Muslims, but that is their religion and not their nationality. Just because Pakistan has chosen religion as a definition of nationalism, does not mean we do the same. I imply no crticism of the choice your country has made, but just reaffirm our country`s right to forge our own path.

3a. The notion that the experience of Islam in India is one of slavery.

If you reject poltical correctness, you will see for yourself that Islam was spread by the sword and not by missionaries. If the ruling and the ruled are defined by religion, then yes for the ruled it is an experience of slavery. However, a distinction has to be made here between Islam and Mughals. Again, you have paraphrased this statement from your perspective. Islam is incidental. It is just a religion. But, Hind was enslaved by the Turks (slave kings) and then the Mughals. The Sultans of Delhi, Babar to Aurangzeb,Muhammad Ghor, these were not Indians. They were Turks or Afghans who enslaved India. They happened to be Muslim. The British too enslaved India, and they happened to be christian. If you substitute Islam by Mughal or Turk or English than yes your statement is correct.

3b. The notion that the Muslim is the enemy of India and must accept the undoing of Islamic history in India.

The Muslims who advocate separatism are the enemies of India. Muslims who support Pakistan over India are enemies of India. How are we supposed to undo History?

4. The promotion of these ideas through national federally funded education.

Educational research has always been federally funded. How come nobody raised these questions when the socialists were propagating their ideas through federally funded education?

STUKA