In Search of the Moderate Muslim

Sigalph da and Shima di,

Oh Oh...It is no fun seeing two good Bengalis sad, and that too at the same time.

Shima di, I know you are highlighting genuine problems but then Bengalis, I hear, are the last people to despair. It will be terribly hard-hearted, even brutish, to minimize the gravity of those problems. So I will absolutely not do that. But the very fact that the two of you expressed sadness at the same time is a sure and strong sign of real optimism in the face of a common challenge. We (many people in India and Bangladesh) have the goodwill. We agree on what kind of societies we want to live in. Together, we need not lose hope even confronted with the biggest challenges.

Shima, I am sure sighalph da and people like him will do all they can to help the people who you rightly describe as largely helpless and unfortunate. On our part we should help people like sigalph da. While part of the problem is certainly indigenous to Bangladesh, I can not help but think that a part of the problem also lies with us Indians. Think about it, Shima di, is it not just shameful that a country of our size can not protect its interests (if that is what we fears is happening) in Bangladesh, not by manipulating and coercing Bangladeshis but by working with them?!

I read somewhere (I may be wrong) that Indians have been very slow and inept in keeping up with changes taking places in the political landscape of Bangladesh, that we continue to deal with Bangladesh through some Calcutta based bureaucrats who live in their own fantasy worlds.

If both Indians and Bangladeshis work together, all those problems can be solved, but working together is KEY; and for India, it is important to fire all those who have been handling our Bangladesh policy and get some new blood on board.

It does seem, then, that we should be grateful to Babu for introducing the topic. If India wakes up to some of its own shortcomings and Bangladesh is strengthened at the same time, we will have to thank people like Babu for giving us the warning signs. Only, I add again, we have to deal with these warning signs carefully.

Regards to both of you.

Stuka #497:

``Why should India be concerned for Bangladeshi Hindus? It`s an internal affair of Bangladesh. Are the Hindus of any country our responsibility? If they are, then the Muslims of any country are our responsibility too, right?``

Tough question. They are coming in as refugees into India - that makes it our concern. Second, as someone pointed out, people in West Bengal have relatives across the border. But our aim should be to make them go back - we dont want them overcrowding the North East, be they BD Hindus or Muslims.

In the future, I think India is going to be concerned about the fate of Indian (not Hindu) diaspora everywhere, even if they are not Indian citizens. Examples are the Gulf, the West, Fiji etc.

#509

``The tell-tale sign of what became Pakistan`s menace is there in Bangladesh too. Being a Bengalee myself I do associate with many Bangladeshi friends and most of them are very warm and proud people. They are always extremely courteous and good hosts in one-to-one interaction, but when it comes to the community, they never fail to criticize India (if you really do not know Bengalees, they really can bring storms in tea-cups)and that hurts. However, our best bets are still these people who really are forward looking, hard working proud Bengalees. Hope Khaleda Zia (who shares part of the name of Zia-Ul-Haq), realises how dangerous is to play with fire and control those Jamatis before they create a havoc in the country and World.``



AAmi jantam na ,aapni bangali ,Aami bangla,likhte ,porrhte ar bujhte paari .But i ll reply in English for the benefit of Eklavia & others.

The dynamics of refugees on both sides is totally different.Whereas ,refugees from Bangladesh(e.Pakistan)& west Pakistan to India have been taken in by Far greater than from India to Pakistan & Bangladesh.Refugee Joyti Basu reigned 18yrs as c.m. of Bengal,.A indian muslim refugee cant dream of becoming C.M or Gov. of any province of Pakistan.Musharaf became through separate military connection. So for all practical purposes Pakistan was not made for Indian muslims.Whether ,India could be home of all the hindu of Pakistan & Bangladesh would depend upon India wanting to remain Secular or Hindu Rashtr for hindu.I dont care ,but i speak only for my self.

India in gen & Bengal in Particular have always avoided refugee resettlement rehabilitation by passing the buck to atroceties of Pakistan .

Bangladesh creation was one argument for sealing the exodus of hindus from east bengal once & for all.I personally abhor & despise those noakhali mymen singh & komilla rioters.If you ask me , i probably hate those bengali muslim for maltreating hindu minoreties than Sangh Parivar.Atleast Sangh Parivar are equally hindutva to Victor banerjee to Khanna & Advani ,but thses bengali muslim first formed Muslim league .Initiates riots in noakhali & when Gandhi went there to stop it they stole his goat .

Then few years later ,Mujibur Rehman ,who was a 3rd grade student of Calcutta University living in Baker Hostel .colluded with his pre partition buddy to decide otherwise causing millions of peoples death.

We cannot undo the partition ,but if we dont people accountable for proper & gentelmanly word of honour all those voting & democracy i care two pence for .Most of the idiot bangladesh ministers are monkies anyway .I have never seen a bangladeshy worthy of my intellectual appreciation.Can you name one.

So bangladesh is not islam or typical muslims hatred for non muslims but group of pl. who hate there own mother.

re: hamzad afaqui # 508

Dualism is just one of the many ways of answering the question of the unknown. Do you mean to say that the ultimate sin is a philosophy, not evil behavior?!

Stuka, India should never interfere with Bangladesh as long as the situation is not conducive for mass migration of the Hindus. And Hindus should not believe in universal Hindu brotherhood also as this is a recipe for trouble and mayhem as you can see worldwide now, rather one should look for universal brotherhood. However, the situation is bit different when India-Pakistan-Bangladesh are concerned. Because of partition, there are still enough people in West Bengal who have relatives left behind in Bangladesh, and it is only natural that these people will worry for the well-being of the loved ones. You just have to go to see those people in Ranaghat, Chakdah, Siliguri, etc. areas and just feel the worry and anguish. Have these people done anything to create trouble in Bangladesh? None. Is there a Kashmir style self determination of the Hindus in Bangladesh? No, because there is not enough left to do that either. So what will be their fate? Just take chance and stay behind? Or should also they migrate to India? Then, how we can stay indifferent?

Just to add one positive note, situation is not as bad as in cities as it is in the villages.

Dear Eklavya,

My objection to your post to Babu was that when most of us are presenting their own views in Chowk, he was merely presenting a fact, which should not be restricted. People can form their own opinion with a bit of salt. I pointed out your concern about Indian muslims just to make a point. I also believe peace and harmony should be the first step to work together.

Things are bit more complex than what you perceive. Why do you think Pakistani rulers could create such an all-pervasive hate against India for generations to come? You know the answer. The same thing is happening in Bangladesh now. I had been to Bangladesh in 1972 just after the independence, the sort of warmth one Indian could experience is gone now. Why? because, the same trick is being played by the politicians, that all the woes of Bangladesh are because of India. And somehow this plays very well with the general population. I can think of two obvious reasons: economy and religion. While Indira Gandhi was worshipped in 1972, in 1974 she was accused of robbing Bangladesh, the saying was ``indure sab dhan laiya gelo`` meaning the rats are taking all the rice. Whereas ground reality was different and still different, that Bangladesh has enjoyed a good business relationship with India, is seldom highlighted in mainstream media. For example, beef in Bangladesh would have been so much costlier if India was not there. The tell-tale sign of what became Pakistan`s menace is there in Bangladesh too. Being a Bengalee myself I do associate with many Bangladeshi friends and most of them are very warm and proud people. They are always extremely courteous and good hosts in one-to-one interaction, but when it comes to the community, they never fail to criticize India (if you really do not know Bengalees, they really can bring storms in tea-cups)and that hurts. However, our best bets are still these people who really are forward looking, hard working proud Bengalees. Hope Khaleda Zia (who shares part of the name of Zia-Ul-Haq), realises how dangerous is to play with fire and control those Jamatis before they create a havoc in the country and World.

There are people in Afganisthan who are suffering beacuse of their leadership, and whole world is praying for them. What is the fault of these Hindus in Bangladesh? These are very timid, surrendered group of people without any voice. Every time something happens in external world, they are the victims, whether it is Babri Musjid or Bombing of Afganisthan. Who will speak for them? You have Bukhari in India, do you have a Bal-Thackere in Bangladesh? No, no way...

Farzana, that is the difference my friend.

I wish Sigalph could post a balanced view on this matter, not giving the examples of Staines and Bujrung Dal in India. It is a sad sad world...

Regards

Search for moderate pakistani, to give visa.

from dawn of today

Visas for Pakistanis

After September 11 attacks on the US, the whole scenario has changed around the world. Pakistanis have been the most affected.

Many countries are not giving visas to Pakistanis. Even UAE, which is a Muslim country, is also not issuing visit visas.

It is worth mentioning that no Pakistani was involved in the attacks on WTC but we are being victimized.

The government must take this issue seriously and try to pursue the matter specially in Muslim countries, so that visa restrictions are lifted.

AFTAB AHMED

Hyderabad

karakoram---500

You said:

{There is no Other, there is only the One. and the One is the source of everything: good and evil. There would be no evil in the world if the One did not will it. The One produces good but he also creates evil. The One is weird, because he is beyond our comprehension. The One is the weirdest because there can be no limits when it comes to the One. Am I making sense ? Its like yin and yang, a balance, the karmic cycle, zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance... think about it in private.}



You are right.Except that it is the zoroastrian viewpoint & their way to understand & explain it.

Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.--the duality.

In Islam He is the Rehmaan and Raheem.Iblees or shaitaan is the one who has been given a free hand to tempt His followers.Iblees is still one of creations like malaaika & Insaan.Humans alone are the benefactors of Qazaa as well as qadr---meaning pre-ordination and free-will.

Duality is the ultimate sin in Islam!

....

dost-mittar:

Marxism/atheism is not a western or modern concept.Mazdak of Iran,pre-Islamic,established a society based on joint ownership of all resources including men & women.Relying on the philosophy that evils like greed,avarice,covetness,theft and have-not-ness would disappear if every one was equal.

Needless to say that some did manage to prove that some are more equal than others.

Capitalist/atheism subscribes to the view that to whet the `evil`in humans and therefore exalts those inherent desires like greed,avarice..(etc as above) and declares that there are no crooks; only stupids.

They soon find out that humans do not live by bread alone.

Mind you both examples are of the extreme forms just to bring home the point.

...

When a child at 2 or 3 cannot figure out if he is stealing when he is helping himself with another

childs toy or is being jealous that the other child should not have what he wants;is he acting natural & innocent or are these things taught?If taught(or not taught) then how do these thoughts originate in the mind of the teacher(parent)who happens to be an atheist?Is there or can there be a Natural Born Atheist?

Is the animal kingdom not supreme in the art of social contract?No species hurt their own kind(to killing) and are ``respectful`` of each other and do not do what they not want to be done to themselves.So can we conclude that they have a very high level of `understanding` good or evil.

Is it only restricted to survival for secular needs?Is the behaviour of a dog as a fire-fighter to save its master out of gratitude(doing good) or observing the social contract.Is there an element of individuality,ego,or personna of the dog involved at anytime(yes I do sound naive here)?

Got to go!Later

romair---you are right.the word ``ensure`` by me was not meant to mean ``legally enforce`` and the ulamas role was only advisory. but in traditional islamic societies the law was based on shar`iah and the top ulama were often very close to the rulers or and/or very influential and so a ruler could not hope to be very popular if he ignored the advice of the ulama.

Ofcourse many of the ulama were also eminently qualified judges, diplomats etc and so filled these posts too. that is what the difference between those ulama and todays ulama is and what i was lamenting...

But having a religious ruler and shar`iat as the Law to start of with does help!

See,we agree on most things!

:-)

Re Asif Naqshbandi Sahib (#465):

You are making two critical mistakes.

You are abrogating a few Quranic verses. Secondly, you are assigning the responsibility of understanding Quran (and its selected abrogation) strictly to scholars, while limiting yourself only to following what the ullema tell you.

As a Muslim, I firmly believe that none of the Quranic verses can be abrogated. In Quran Allah Almighty has promised the believers that He is the Guardian over this Book. History is a witness to the truthfulness of this promise. Quran has existed in its original form for 1400 years … all over the world. No book or writing in the history of mankind shares this distinction. And now, these mullahs want to change the word of Allah! You think they can win against Allah Almighty? I do not think so.

Your claim that understanding Quran, and its selective abrogation, is for scholars only, and is beyond the reach of a layman, does not make sense either.

Quran was revealed for all believers … not just religious scholars. It addresses the believers over and over again, and not only the “scholars” or the “learned ones”. Allah revealed Quran to guide us all. Read it … ponder over it … practice it. But do not ignore it. Do not let someone else think for you. Knowledge and wisdom are for all to gain … not only a few select people.

You are giving preference to the works of scholars over the Word of God. The corrupt “scholars” have turned Quran into a tool with which they control people’s lives and their thoughts. This has led all religions to their downfall. Islam here is no exception.

Asad

PS: One interesting question for Urstruly Sahib (if he is peaking from behind the curtains ….):

Ahmadi-Muslims are considered kaffirs, since they interpret some words of Quran differently from the mainstream Muslims. Now that Naqshbandi Sahib and his army of “ullema” are reportedly abrogating a few Quranic verses, what does that make them? Enlightened Muslims, kaffirs, heretics, or apostates? Feel free to comment.

re asif n

``The fact remains that ONLY modernists like yourself-- a a tiny, insignificant minority-- disagree on this issue.``

They may be tiny, insignificant, and a minority. But they`re the future. It is the pampered defenders of bigoted obscurantism(excuse me, I mean the `classical scholars) who will be found in the dusty history books of the future alongside other `classical scholars` like Dr Goebbels, PW Botha and Mullah Omar. For you see asif, freedom is always the wave of the future. The small number of vocal, concientious Muslims like Sattar are the nucleus of the coming Reformation of Islam. That day we will bury the evil ghosts of Ghazalli and Ibn Tamiyya and Abdul Wahab together forever.

re aamir 470

I still didn`t see a straightforward defense of Rushdie`s right to free speech.

re eklavya 484

Hard headed, realism at its best. Sad but true.

re: Stuka # 497

Stuka, this question must be answered at two levels. One, India should be concerned with the welfare of Bangladeshi minorities, Hindus or Buddhists, only to the extent that they try to enter India as refugees. Otherwise, we really have no business poking our nose in any other country`s internal affairs. Two, India has a vital interest in helping Bangladesh stay on the path of moderation and communal harmony, just as we do. If, God forbid, there is widespread massacres of minorities in Bangladesh (a hypothetical situation, because I don`t at all believe any such tragedy is around the corner), that could put tremendous strain on communal relations in parts of our own country.

You see, I am a selfish man driven not by emotions but what I perceive to be the long-term interests of India. And I believe the best way to secure the interests of India is, to the extent possible, create win-win solutions to our problems with all neighbors.

Regards.

Asif Naqshbandi: #465: ``ulama HAVE traditionally done throughout islamic history is to advise the rulers and ensure that * *they do not make any laws which go against the shar`iat. * *``

I agree with a lot of what you have stated in the reply to my queries. I disagree with two parts, however.

I do think it is the job of the ulema to advise the rulers, but I do not think they have any authority, nor should they have any authority, to, ``ensure,`` anything. This is where all the problems start. This allows the ulema to become part of the judiciary, the legistalature, or ultimately the executive, purely on the basis of their religious knowledge. Their only capacity should be an advisory role in the realm of religion. Because frankly speaking, that is all they know about. If they develop the skills to beocome statesmen, generals, etc., only then should they be allowed to occupy those position.

If the religious education of ulema does not give them enough qualification to fly a simple Cessna aircraft, or drive a truck, how can they claim a more important position, outside religion, on the basis of purely religious education.

The second point is that it is impossible to give a firm decision on who is a great aalim and who is not. It is a subjective decision, and not a scientific one. Maybe someone whom you consider to be a great aalim is considered a hypocrite by another person, and vice-versa. This is why religious leaders are always in a state of conflict with each other. So one cannot state in a blanket fashion that the ideas of such and such aalim should be followed by everyone. One can only apply the ulema`s knowledge on one`s own self.

The position of ulema in an Islamic society, where the shepherds and the salesmen have not bothered to study religion, should be that of a science professor in a univeristy. He/she studies a subject, and presents his ideas. He advises people who seek advice from him. He cannot force or prosecute anyone who disagrees with him, or decides not to follow him. He, does not automatically get any legislative, judicial or executive power, on the basis of his scientific knowledge, alone. He has to do that separately, with a separate set of skills and qualifications.

The above is not a separation of church and state, nor is it a modern Shariah. It is simply keeping people`s authorities within their areas of qualification.

TALIBAN ARE OUR CHILDREN - ISI CHIEF

http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/07/top18.htm

Riyadh recognized Taliban govt on Islamabad`s advice: Prince Turki

By Our Correspondent

RIYADH, Nov 6: Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki Al-Faisal, who remained deeply involved in the Afghanistan issue for almost 25 years, ever since the Soviet invasion, told the local Saudi daily Arab News that Saudi Arabia had recognized the Taliban government in 1997 `` on the advice of our Pakistani brothers.``

In the third part of an exclusive interview jointly conducted by Arab News and the MBC Television, carried on Tuesday, Prince Turki said the former Pakistani interior minister Naseerullah Babar had introduced the Taliban in an interesting way. ``He had said they are my children.``

Recognizing the Taliban regime was a hasty decision, he said. One of the reasons`` why we recognized the Taliban government was the agreement between the Kingdom and Pakistan since the time of President Zia-ul-Haq on consulting and coordinating on all matters concerning Afghanistan. It was a result of this agreement and the advice of our Pakistani brothers that we recognized the Taliban.``

Further, until ``that time the Taliban had not created any controversy. It was controlling 95 per cent of the territory when the Kingdom accorded recognition to the Taliban regime in 1997. It was also providing security and stability in the region. We recognized them several months after they captured Kabul.``

During the interview the prince confirmed that Sudan, at one time, had agreed to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the Kingdom before he returned to Afghanistan in 1996. ``Pesident Bashir (of Sudan) had asked for guarantees that Osama would not be prosecuted.

The prince said Bashir was told that no one was above the law and that`` we could not give any such guarantees.`` He also hinted that, at a point in time, Mulla Omar had also given positive signals to the Saudi demand that Osama be handed over to the Saudi government.

In his first of the two meetings with Mulla Omar, Dr Abdullah Al-Turki, the current secretary general of the Muslim World League, had also accompanied the prince. `` Mulla Omar did not object to Sheikh Al-Turki`s arguments on the extradition of the Al-Qaeda chief to the Kingdom and I thought he agreed with Al-Turki`s arguments on the basis of Shariat. At the second meeting,after the US embassy bombings in Africa, however, Mulla Omar was not in a mood to listen to any one,`` the prince said.

He could not recall Mulla Omar`s exact words, except that he had used an abusive language to criticize the Kingdom`s leadership during the meeting.

Prince Turki pointed out that after the Russian withdrawal, the United States` interest in Afghanistan had dwindled. However, he said, the US wanted to see some sort of stability in the region. It kept monitoring the activities of the oil companies which were working for establishing a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea through Afghanistan and Pakistan, he added.

``There were only three choices: the pipeline could either go through Russia, but the Caucasus mountains and the Chechen crisis obstructed the project; or through Iran to Bandar Abbas. But the American firms were banned by the US administration from operating in Iran. So the only viable option left was through the war-torn Afghanistan.``

The prince hinted (that in order to secure support for the pipeline project) some of the oil companies might have even provided funds to the Taliban regime. `` These (oil) companies had contacted the Taliban and I cannot rule out that they had offered their support to the Taliban. In such cases, the assistance could have been in millions or in the form of a promise,`` he added.