In Search of the Moderate Muslim

Please remember : coexistence means that Hindus, Muslims and everyone else in India are required to give the Constitutional form of government their ``effectual support``. This does not mean any particular political party or particular government, but the framework in which governments are created.

My default assumption is that all Indians support this. There need be no toleration for anyone who does not. Toleration is not a virtue, coexistence is; the enemies of coexistence need not be tolerated. Tolerant societies have the problem of figuring out how to tolerate those who want to destroy the society. Coexistent societies do not face this paradox.

-Arun Gupta

Good article. But . . .

``As an Indian and a Muslim``

``As an Indian and a Hindu``

``As an Indian and a gay/lesbian``

``As an Indian and an anything``

Does it matter? Does it matter in Pali Hill or Dharavi or Kamatipura, or ladies compartment of 8:52 fast . . .forget Behram Pada and Antop Hill for a while, Farzana, and come walk the inner lanes of Dharavi and Kamatipura with me and tell me if your religion or mmatters?

My surname is ``Malik``. I use it to maximise advantage as per the environment. Biryani for one rupee at the nearby mosque on Friday (now you know why they have crowds, and you thought it was to pray?? Temples you get only matthri and lassi while gurudwaras do better with halwa and langar . . . but biryani is best, no?) Better cuts of buffalo meat for Goofy and conspiratorial info on how all the mutton sold in restaurants in delhi - except chops - is actually buff? At the Defence Colony Club, where they know the surname as one which had great feudal zamindari and warrior attributes, but now tips well, I get my booze before others. At the temple near my home, it gets me more prasad and some goodwill because my mother gives generously of what the family earns. At school, my children`s school, the laurels that our daughter brought gets our son out of trouble. My surname is ``Malik`` . . . who cares or knows about my religion??

So what did my religion have to do with it, Farzana? If I can pull of an Aslam Allekum with as much ease as a RamRam or remember the Hail Mary I had to decades ago, big deal?

I tell you what, Farzana, seriously, call yourself Saraswati Muddaliar Ramalingam or something for six months, and see if it feels different?

Farzana,

Yuo are right - As a free citizen of democratic India, you have the rights , as guaranteed by the constitution, to do what you want and you don`t have to prove nothing about yourself. ( Probably -not even your loyalty to the same constitution which guarantees your right. )

And by the guarantees given by the same constitution, people who are asking the ``Muslim Question`` also have the right to ask such questions. You may choose not to answer them, once again you have the right under the constitution not to answer. But the questions will come nonetheless, because , once again , the constitution enables such questions to come in. See how complicated it becomes now.

The trouble is - you are not willing to face such questions head on. Some of the questions are outright contemptous, but many of them are valid ones too. My feeling is - You have decided to run away from the legitimate questions by using the constitution and rights as the smoke screen. But others have chosen to face it and say something about it. For sure - Shabana Azmi is looking for a constituency being the self-serving politician she is - but she is tackling the issues head-on, instead of running away from it. Some agree with her views, and some don`t. The debate thus generated must be welcome and I am sure from all this intellectual push and pull - lot of good things will come out. Much like the proverbial churning of the sea that the gods and demons carried out which produced Amrit - he ultimate life giving potion ( this is according the Hindu mythologies. Hope using this proverb does not hurt anybody`s sentiments)

So - the issue here is not your rights under the constitution - Asking ``muslim questions`` is not a threat to your rights at all. The questions are the direct result of the conflict that has suddenly befallen on us. These exact questions would come if it happens in context of any other religion/faith. For sure - questions were asked in case of Babri Masjid, Bombay riots, Bal Thackray, Staines Murder. The debates in these cases were as vigorous if not more.

So don`t run away. We all have a stake here in hashing out the issues. The conflict is genuine and some consider it gigantic. This is no conspiracy against anybody/faith/community.

Finally - as ``MaheshG - Reply #: 3`` pointed out - how far can we stretch our rights to ``do anything we please``. Should Bal Thackeray have such rights? Should Bukhari/ Shabana Azmi have such rights? Should anybody have such rights? Should there be any limits? Should there be a sense responsibility attached to the rights? Should anybody have rights to decalare Jihad / Crusdade / DharmYuddh or whatever? Think about it.

Here is an article that Farzana should read:

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/today/editor/opi2.htm

Amina Jilani

It is high time that the members of that amorphous community known as the Ummah, which makes vain attempts to trumpet its unity whilst agreeing to remain fractured, and hostile to one another, indulged in a bit of introspection.

In the aftermath of the September happening the Muslim nations have been either moaning and groaning, or they have been up in arms burning effigies and hurling violent abuse at the Great White Satans of this startled world. The cause of their ire or their self-pity is Afghanistan and its people. However, no humantarian aid of any sort from any Muslim state is flowing into that unhappy country to help its refugees and its widows and orphans for whose plight so many breasts are being beaten. The support from the Muslim world boils down to mere rhetoric with nothing behind it, except in the case of Pakistan which is reluctantly being overrun and forced to provide shelter, no matter how crude or rude.

For over a decade Afghanistan has been in a state of turmoil and civil war inflicted by Muslim upon Muslim. The Muslim people of Afghanistan have been murdered and pillaged by the Muslim Mujahadeen and then bludgeoned into submission by the Muslim Taliban whilst being at the same time starved and killed by drought. Where then were the other Muslim states? Those now jumping up and down were either silent observers, quite content to stand by and watch the atrocities of the Mujahadeen and the Taliban or, as with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, active participants in the interests of its own ‘strategic depth’.

Pakistan’s great Islamists (though divorced from the true faith) are now erupting in self-righteous violent fury over the doings of the Infidels. It seems that if Muslim hits, maims or kills Muslim, that’s fine, but let the infidel step in, having been a victim of terrorism with obvious Islamic connections, and things are quite different. When the alleged perpetrators claim their acts of terrorism are sanctioned by Islamic values few Islamic voices are raised in protest.

The good Muslim activists remain silent when the Taliban attack and sack the Western humanitarian relief agencies and seize food meant for the desperate civilian population. They remain silent when the Taliban steal equipment, supplies and vehicles from the relief agencies and thus hamper their ability to give relief? And last week brought rumors in the press that there are fears the Taliban may try to poison humanitarian food stuff being distributed to starving Afghan civilians and then blame the act on the Americans. This is not impossible, and should it happen how many ardent Muslims will protest?

There is a wealth of hypocrisy along the way. Muslims are up in arms against discriminatory practices in non-Islamic countries but are silent on discriminatory practices in Islamic states. For instance, Saddam Hussain is quite justified in killing Kurds; the Gulf states can base their laws and even salaries on ethnic origins and no Muslim will protest that this is a racist practise; Palestinian refugees can become citizens of the United States, but no Muslim state other than Jordan is prepared to grant them this facility though all the Muslim states pledge their undying support for the Palestine cause, and weep and wail over the plight of the Palestinians, and vow to fight to the death for their right to a homeland. The list is long.

At their recent meeting in Qatar the Organisation of the Islamic Conference refused to accept any responsibility for the September terrorist attack. Not one member wishes to take the lead in tackling the problem, or even talking about it, though terrorism is endemic to the Muslim world. Take Pakistan and its marauding groups of fanatics such as the Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Sipah-e-Muhammad, with which we here are all too familiar, who have been allowed to spread terror throughout the country. In Egypt, the Islamic Jihad and the Gama-e-Islami kill and destroy and make miserable the lives of their fellow Muslims. In the far off Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf band, supposedly fighting for liberation, are busy killing their fellow Muslims. There are few Muslim countries not terrorised by terrorism, and the worldwide victims of terrorism more often than not are Muslim victims of Muslim terrorists, particularly in such brutalised places as Palestine and Chechnya.

But, wallowing in a state of denial, the Muslim countries refuse to admit that terrorism is an internal problem. They shrug off all blame, and lay it at the doorsteps of the Western world, or the CIA, the Mossad, the Indians, the Jews. They are paranoiac, seeing conspiracies against them everywhere but in their own front yards.

What the Muslim world should now ask itself is how, in this day and age, it has spawned an Osama Bin Laden? And how, in the year 2001, is that man now transformed into a role model for millions of Muslim youth, both uneducated and educated, to emulate? Something is very wrong in the kingdom of Islam. Against all the tenets and teachings of Islam, it has allowed itself to be hijacked by a bunch of semi-literate demagogues, who practice a fanatic militancy geared to violence, combined with an illiberal repressive brand of fundamentalism. Enough is surely enough.

Here in Pakistan, we should not grudge the man who now heads this country any seat he may wish to sit in, any hat he may wish to wear, if he can somehow drag it into the 21st century and get it going on a path, no matter how rutted, towards progress. His volte face on the ‘national interest’ may well prove to be Pakistan’s saving grace.

But President General Pervez Musharraf, despite his act of support to the coalition, may not get it all his own way. He wants a government dominated by ‘moderate’ Talibans (this is like talking about ‘moderate’ Nazis in 1945). Last week, US Secretary of State General Colin Powell made it quite clear: “The next government of Afghanistan cannot be dictated into existence by Pakistan or any of the other neighbours. It has to be an internationally blessed process, and it has to involve the UN, and it has to involve all the Afghan people, not just who (Pakistan) might favour at a particular moment to put into power in Kabul.”

So much for Musharraf’s strategic depth. And another of his recommendations has been shot down. Colin Powell also has insisted that US forces will not limit their strikes on Afghanistan to the period before the start of the month of Ramadan. Action will continue until the objectives are reached, even though the US is ‘sensitive to Ramadan’.

An afterthought: Would it not be far more becoming to our President General and the image he presents to the world were he, since he feels the compulsion to dye his hair, to seek professional help so that he does appear before his international audiences as if wearing a chestnut skull cap atop a naturally graying head? Or better still, just go gray as nature dictates.

E-mail queries and comments to: aminajilani@nation.com.pk

Farzana,

What a simple soul, WTC attack, all the politicians of the politically correct variety insisted that it is the act of terrorists. Now you are puzzled, why no one is asking the christians and hindus what they thnk of WTC.

There is a fine print detail, all the hijackers as far as it is known came from one religios background.. and you will get full marks, that 0.1 for guessing that religion. Let me give you a clue, leaders of that religion from kashmir refused to have any meeting with the indian goverment, while they insisted and secured a meeting with the miltary dictator of a neighbouring islamic country.

Regrads and best wishes

jay

“Farzana Versey wrote...

``How religious can a moderate be? It is a tough question. I have often been blasted because while I am not religious I claim to be a Muslim. Why do I do that? Because I have little choice. Because I am culturally a Muslim. Because I am the Other, and instead of mouthing sweet nothings.``

Yes I am also a moderate Muslim and I am not religious – and I am a coward -- who sits among the Believers – eats with them -- hears all their BS -- but doesn’t contradict them – most of the time just sits there doesn’t say a thing – or silently digs in the Biryani or searches for the elusive meat in the bowl of Qorma -- but doesn’t say anything -- or just leaves the place and talks to the kids – because they sound more plausible than the Believers – yet he never confronts the Believers – because he IS a “moderate” Muslim – and he is a Coward Muslim – or a Muslim Coward.

That’s how the myth persists, perpetuates -- and all that illiterate religious garbage piles up – higher and higher – into another Himalaya of ignorance, bigotry and fanaticism.

It`s good to see articles from Indian Muslims on this site. Since they have a link with Pakistan through their religion, and with India through their nationality. They perhaps have a better insight into both societies then Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus.

I have noticed a few things about the various Indian Muslims I have met in the USA. Their outlook towards Pakistanis is definitely different than Indian Hindus. Around twenty percent or so seem to really like Pakistanis. They hang around with them, room with them, and seem to feel more comfortable with them, than with Indian Hindus.

Another ten to twenty percent, are at the other extreme. They go out of their way to show their Indian-ness. They go overboard in pointing out that Pakistan was a mistake. More so than Indian Hindus, who generally do not show their like/dislike for Pakistan too openly on a personal basis, in the USA.

The third (majority) group of Indian Muslims does not consider Pakistan a mistake, but does not want to be a Pakistani either. However, this group seems to have a lot of rage inside it, against something in India. They seem to be very defensive or offensive in their views (a sign of a frustrated activist). They seem disillusioned, and most of all confused of where they fit into in South Asia. Very different from the generally easy-going Indian Hindus, I have met. I wonder why?

Is Rafiq Zakria the father of Farid Zakaria?

Dear Farzana Versey:

You write:

``If we want to take to the streets, we can.

If we want to express political, social, economic concerns, we can.

If we want to wear burqas and grow beards, it is entirely our prerogative.

If we want to wear bindis and grow nothing, again it is our business.

If we want to declare a jihad, we can.

If we prefer to sit quiet, we can.

If we want to read blasphemous books, who is to stop us?

If we want to burn them, fine.

If we want to be exploited as a vote bank, it is our problem.

If we wish to raise a dissenting voice, good luck to us.

If we think our religion is the best, we have every right to believe so.

If we think all religions are equal, we must lead our lives in keeping with this cliché."

Yes ``we`` have the `right`` to do all those -- incuding the right to be -- stupid and sappy, ignorant and illiterate, backward and bigotted -- laughable and laughed at -- sacked in burqa -- or nunned in hijab -- to our heart content.

EXCEPT.

``If we want to declare a jihad, we can.``

NO Ms Versey -- ``we`` CANNOT -- not here in USA -- nor in INDIA. For that ``we`` have every ``right`` to be slapped, kicked, handcuffed, jailed AND -- even bombed.

And remember, Ms. Versey -- with all those rights that ``we`` claim in democracy -- ``we`` also must give the ``rights`` -- to be CRITICIZED and SCRUTINIZED -- to ``them``.

As far as -- `` Dr. Rafiq Zakaria. He had invited me for tea and talk. In the course of the conversation he told me how misguided I was about Islam and according to the shariat I could be sent straight to hell.`` -- are you sure it wasn`t meant to be a satire?

regards

Not too many Pakistanis have hit no. 1 on the international literary charts. I know Imran Khan`s autobiography (written by himself, without a ghost writer) reached no. 1 on the UK charts. I don`t think any other Pakistani`s autobiography has made it that far.

However, the following book may break all records for Pakistani authors:

``Ahmed Rashid`s book `Taliban - Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia` took him 21 years to write.....After the events of September 11 the print run in the US has soared to 350,000 copies and in Britain to 80,000 copies and, says Reuters: ``Last week Ahmed`s book on the once little-known fundamentalist militia hit number one on The New York Times bestseller list for paperback nonfiction, and after bobbing up and down on the list of the most popular books on sale by on-line retailer Amazon.com, it also hit the top spot there....`` (Cowasjee, DAWN, Pakistan)

Ms. Versey,

If hindus indulge in negative, harmful activities, you and every other Indian has the right to call them on their behavior. The same thing holds true for muslims as well. By stating that muslims will say and do whatever they please, you are not doing them any favor. If people of any community become misguided, the rest of society has to stand up and voice their opinion. That is not a curb on their freedom or an attempt to assimilate, it is in our collective self-interest. India is not simply a place where we live. It is the homeland for all of us, hindus and muslims. It is our duty to make it a better place for our future generations.

The fact of the matter is that religious zealotry is a nasty phenomenon, no matter which community is afflicted by it. It is a cancer that we must all try to eradicate. Our people have so much potential, if we can get above the stupid religious nonsense, we can work wonders in India. I personally consider religion to be good enough for celebrating some festivals and having some fun at that time. Other than that, it is a diversion away from accomplishing anything substantial in life. We all must work together as a team and keep religion in its right place in our society. If that means that we must criticize Mr. Bukhari or Mr. Thackrey, we should not hesitate for an instant.

LUCKY MUSLIMS,

Muslims where they are a minority are the lucky ones. Every where else, ranging from pakistan to saudi, where the muslims are in majority, it has to be an islamic republic, sheria, all knowledge is in one book and the rot sets in.

Pakistan is a good example, the young there have no role models, they have no example of any one who has made it through education. In india in varios parts, muslims are concentrating on the education and making a progress.

In pakistan there are more madrassas today than they were 50 years ago, women are less educated than 50 years ago, all of the `horrible hinduu` ideas have been changed to the real good ones.

Some other hinduised versions of islam like the ahmadias have been declared kafirs and made taboos. The apkistanis of the YLh variety are left with no one to emulate and hark back to the period of sher sha suri, looking for role models.

Lucky muslims are the one where they are in minority, the dreaded book is not the ultimate of everything.

Romair # 30 . . . ``Is Rafiq Zakria the father of Farid Zakaria?``

Mrs. Zakaria is out looking for you with unsheathed kitchen chopper.

I mean, how did you know? On chowk, that too?

Tobah-tobah!!

ylh # 28 . . . famous quote: `My grave will not be in India, it will be nearer to Jinnah`s mausoleum.`

Dear ylh, a lot of people have called yu many things, nasty usually, but I havre often admired you for your basic intelligence.

But this time you`ve been had, dude.

Jinnah wanted to be interred in India.

Now if that was not sarcastic on the part of Gianchandani . . . then?

By the way, ylh, would you like to comment on the poor Christians slaughtered in Bahawalpur earlier today? Sad, no? Wonder how it made it to the medi, must be all those firang reporters hanging around . . .

Asif,

{{BTW, I don`t know much about Imam Bukhari of the Shahi Masjid in Delhi. Is he a Sunni, Deobandi, Wahabi, Shia, Naichari...? }}

Pray, is that a factor in your assessment of muslims? If Islam is egalitarian; a muslim is a muslim. This ``sect`` system is as bad as the ``caste`` system among hindus.

Was the Prophet(pbuh) a Sunni, Deobandi, Wahabi, Shia, Naichari...?

Islam is a perfect religion; but some muslims seem to be more perfect than others...

Romair,

{{Is Rafiq Zakria the father of Farid Zakaria? }}

Yes, Rafiq Zakaria is the father of Farid. His sons went to St Mary`s school, Bombay. Farid`s older brother Mansoor was my classmate.

{{However, this group seems to have a lot of rage inside it, against something in India. They seem to be very defensive or offensive in their views (a sign of a frustrated activist).}}

IMO, this rage is universal for muslims that live in societies that claim are ``free, secular & democracies``--but see the hypocracy of those assertions, both in their internal & foreign policies.

Correct me if I`m wrong; but I see the same signs of a frustrated activist in you--esp when you comment on US foreign policy.

``What does that make me then?``

Well, nothing`s really changed... it kind of makes you irrelevent, though you`re not really bright enough to gather it. Narcissism is like that. It`s excited by vulnerability, not for connection, but to humiliate and grind to pulp. It believes that to capture a thing in words, is to invoke its absolute form. Godlikeness. Its theories of things like religion, politic, love and war contain no ACTION. They come from a safe distance to avoid such action. They describe a thing beautifully, but are incapable of `experiencing` a thing. Therein lies the Big Lie. Note the lack of EXPERIENCE. Nothing is related from experience, only lofty theory and the smoke-screen of a condescending `complexity`.

Who best understands a thing than those who experience it? Between the description of the thing and the experience itself, lies the mystery of the ages, not a Muslim, Hindu or Christian God. Get over it.

Pakistan gunmen kill 15 Christians

October 28, 2001 Posted: 4:24 AM EST (0924 GMT)

undefined undefined

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Masked gunmen on motorcycles shot dead as many as 15 Christians and a policeman at Sunday prayers in a central Pakistani town, witnesses say.

Reuters news agency reported that six men on three motorcycles rode up to Saint Dominic`s Church and pulled out AK47 assault rifles from bags, one witness said.

They shot two police guards, killing one, before entering the packed church firing indiscriminately. Dozens were wounded.

COUNTRY PROFILE

At a glance: Pakistan

Provided by CountryWatch.com





CNN.com Asia

More news from our

Asia edition











``It is a security failure,`` Pakistan`s minister for minorities affairs S.K. Tressler told Reuters.

The town of Bahawalpur is 100 kilometers (60 miles) south of Multan near the Indian border,and the church was located in a residential area called Gulzar-e-Sadiq.

Christians have expressed fears they could become targets if unrest broke out in Muslim Pakistan over opposition to the U.S. attacks on neighboring Afghanistan`s ruling Muslim Taliban militia.

Police have been posted at Christian churches since the September 11 attacks on the United States that have been blamed on Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, sheltering in Afghanistan under the protection of the ruling hardline Taliban.

Christians account for about one percent of Pakistan`s 120 million population. ``Women were among the dead,`` a police spokesman said.

``Around nine this morning, six people on two motorcycles stormed into the church and they sprayed bullets indiscriminately on people inside the church,`` one news agency was told.

``We received eight dead bodies, and we have been told that eight more bodies are lying outside the church,`` said Dr. Altaf Malik, medical superintendent of the Civil Hospital of Behawalpur, according to The Associated Press news agency.

He said ``at least five`` more people were being treated for bullet wounds.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

Pakistan is an overwhelmingly Muslim country but around two percent of its 140 million population belong to various Christian churches.

Saint Dominic`s is a Catholic church but a Protestant service was being held. This was the first such attack on Christians in the region, the police spokesman said.

In 1997, Muslim rioters in southern Punjab sacked 13 churches and a school and burned and looted hundreds of houses, saying some Christians had committed blasphemy by throwing torn pages of the Koran into a mosque.

A 1986 law that makes blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad punishable by death has been used to intimidate religious minorities, including Christians, rights groups say.

About 2,500 peope are said to be in jail or to face charges for blasphemy.