Dissing Ideologies

Deepika:429

Thank you. That was a GREAT article.

Fawad79, Tahmed

EXCELLENT! We must continue to clear headedly hold out hope and educate persons who find it difficult to think rationally, in this melieu of fear, confusion and hate.

Normative, as in norm - the attitude displayed in the article you posted is now normative - No Osama could have achieved the victory that bigotry and intellectual lazyness of societies that lecture the ``uncivilized`` about values, have handed to terrorists. So potent and so irrational are these attitudes, that in actualizing these bigoted attitudes in so called ``civilized`` societies, it is the not just those civilized societies that have placed themselves in risk, but the ideals that allow them to claim ``civilized`` are themselves in danger of being eclipsed.

A prevailing line of thinking in India (prevailing in the sense that BJP, VHP and that assortment of murderous bigots forward this view and prevailing in that they have succeeded in persuading, otherwise reasonable persons of the validity of their assertion: witness the systematic attack on the intellectual foundations and symbol of Islam and intellectual foundations and institutions of the Indian state) is that Muslims of India must ``redeem the past`` - All present day Muslims are responsible for the actions of Aurangzeb against Hindus.

In these criticisms of Islam and Muslims, we can discern a philosophy of history, that argues Islam and by extension Muslims, as doctrine, is justifiable only by offering negative evidence. But this is relatively easy to evaluate and characterize as meaningless; after all, shall we not arrive at the exact opposite by offering evidence of a positive nature? Either way, such a tool is most unsatisfactory.

Yet the bigotry and intellectual lazyness detailed in your post, should also serve to remind us that Obscuritanists version of the justifiablity of religious doctrine in relation to to Islam as doctrine is similar. By claiming unverfiablity, they reject any notion that such propositions can be justfiable. All will have to wait till judgemnt day, as if judgement day itself is subject to verifiablity and justification.

Tahmed

I have been thinking about a part your post - where you wanted to imagine what it would be like if, X, if Y, If Z had happened instead of what did happen and I want to understand why you, given the prevailing ideas, doctrines, of the time, (which prevail even today) things could be fundamentally or even significantly different?

Saxena

``re: shammi to hobbyty

{(ii) your motive }

...u still don`t know his motives?...

``

This guy hobbyty is a very very cunning person. All the baniyas and Jews i.e. Hunood-o-Yahood of the world can not teach this guy another lesson in cunningness. He disguises his extremely malicious ``real`` motives very carefully in his bombastic speech. You just have to observe this guy over a long time reading between the lines and of course use your brahmin-baniya(thanx my Paki friends for this phrase) brain to uncover the extreme hatred in his heart against Hindus. He nurtures a hatred several orders of magnitude greater than Urstruly, only much better concealed.

re: shammi to hobbyty

{(ii) your motive }

...u still don`t know his motives?...

VEILED REVOLUTION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BY ANANYA JAHANARA KABIR

On January 5, 2001, newspapers carried a photograph of Asiya Andrabi, head of the pro-Pakistan Duhktarane Milat, and three other women at a press conference in Srinagar. The women are clothed in black, except for their hands and their eyes. An average reader would describe their dress as burkha. It is perhaps more accurate to describe it as hijab. While burkha conjures up images of obscurantism, illiteracy and oppression, hijab bears very different connotations. As a Muslim student of mine at the University of California, Berkeley, declared, the muhajjaba (hijab-wearing woman) willingly covers her head. She participates not in patriarchy, but in a ?contra-modern revolution?.

I left India two months before December 6, 1992, still basking in the cosy glow of secularism. At Oxford, I encountered, among other things, the topsy-turvy world of pan-Islamism. I was bewildered by all those Muslim women at Oxbridge who were articulate and ambitious, but who foregrounded their Muslimness by wearing a headscarf. This was clearly a choice, not a compromise. To discover its reasons, I spoke to Muslim women from Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan and Chechnya, to British and American Muslims from Bengali, Punjabi, Hyderabadi and Kashmiri families. I wanted to understand, through these diverse women, the pull of the hijab, and not condemn it outright (much the easier option in the circles in which I move).

In the process I learnt that the terms burkha and purdah are not in currency among such women. Iranians wear the chador ? an overgarment resembling the south Asian burkha, but not necessarily black, teamed with an often rather fancy headscarf. Most Sunni Muslim women describe their Islamic dress as hijab (Arabic for ?modesty?). This can range from trousers and a turban-like headscarf to a long skirt and loose headscarf framing the neck and shoulders. The lowest common denominator is the headscarf, which signals ?I am Muslim and proud of being so?.

Secondly, hijab has more to do with constructing a neo-Islamic identity than remembering south Asian traditions. Most south Asian muhajjabas reject the salwar-kameez-dupatta or sari worn by their mothers (who are not necessarily burkha-clad) as ?un-Islamic?. They thereby bypass such inherited identities as Pakistani/ Bangladeshi/Indian, which in any case remain insufficiently defined in the case of families that left south Asia around the time of the Partition (and who prefer, therefore, ethnic labels such as Kashmiri, Bengali or Punjabi over national ones). By adopting, instead, the headscarf and modest ?Western clothes? they tap into a subculture of self-definition for various non-white women growing up in first world milieux ? be it France, Belgium or Germany.

Hijab enables such women to negotiate diasporic identity and participate in a wider discourse of ?discovering the truth about Western imperialism?. This discourse, disseminated ironically through the electronic media, constantly connects modernity with the colonialism of various ?Muslim peoples? and with American neo-imperialism. It brands 20th century ?modernizers? such as Mustapha Kemal Ataturk and the Shah of Iran as elitist and atheist genuflectors to Western culture, whose misguidedness crystallized in their mass unveiling of women. Hence the support of the chador by many Iranian feminists and the agitations by women in Turkish universities against Ataturk?s ban on headscarves in campuses.

This highly politicized Islam grants an agency to Muslim women in the Western world, finding visible expression in the headscarf and/or other forms of Islamic dress. For many young women, of course, it is simply a way of being different and, as some men might admit, seductively so (remember Pakeezah?). I once asked an extremely stylish Afghan student whether she would ever consider hijab. Her reply: ?My parents would never insist on it. But one day, after Jumma namaz, I walked out on the street with my headscarf. I sensed people looking at me strangely. Suddenly, I was different, and it felt powerful.? This power hit me when, on the streets of Copenhagen, I saw a young woman in headscarf and sequinned jeans, smoking a cigarette with insouciance. It struck me again when, at a San Francisco evening of ?Islamic protest poetry?, a woman, scarf as tight around head as trousers around hips, spoke of Allah and against the taliban?s treatment of her sisters.

Does all this have any relevance for India? The day after the Andrabi photograph appeared, I attended a symposium on Kashmir at Netaji Bhavan. A packed audience listened to the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader, Mohammed Yasin Malik, the vice president of the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party, Mehbooba Mufti, the senior journalist, Ved Bhasin, and others. We also heard questions testifying to the deep paranoia within members of the Indian mainstream (if we may thus characterize the predominantly Bengali Hindu, educated, male audience) regarding the capacity of the Kashmiris to govern themselves and their minority populations if granted autonomy and/or independence.

Amidst predictable questions about the JKLF?s setting of watches to Pakistani time, a senior academic asked whether Kashmiri Muslims would be able to protect the rights of women by preventing the imposition of the burkha. That the Andrabi photograph had done its ideological work was evident in the academic?s reference to that very photograph within his question. Was it not astonishing, I wondered, that those thus concerned about the rights of Kashmiri women were silent about the targeted rape of countless such women, young and old, about which we had just heard? Was it not astonishing that our intellectuals so readily transfer stereotypes of Islamic anti-feminism ? effectively congealed in the image of the burkha-clad (usually poor and illiterate) Muslim woman ? to a woman in hijab capable of summoning a press conference?

In dismissing what she called ?the burkha thing?, Mehbooba Mufti declared, ?People from outside do not have to teach us Kashmiris about Islam.? She was probably referring to hardline Muslim groups parading a particular mode of hijab as the only way to interpret the Quranic injunction (Sura Noor, 24:31) that believing women ?draw their veils over their bosoms?. Mufti?s dupatta-covered head was perhaps her own interpretation of that injunction. What even our most well-meaning ?secularists? need to remember is wearing Islam on one?s sleeve, or one?s head, does not per se signal, ?here is an oppressed/fundamentalist woman?. Choice and context are more important than the outward form of female dress.

We require, instead, a nuanced understanding of which pan-Islamic trends have an impact on south Asian Muslims, and why. Simultaneously, we urgently need to unpack that lumpen category, ?the minority community?, in terms of region and socio-economic status before assessing the diverse ways in which Muslim women seek empowerment while exercising their right to retain the framework of faith. Only then can we distinguish between Shah Bano and Asiya Andrabi, for instance. Only then can we ask why in highly literate Kerala, Muslim women increasingly wear the headscarf (rather than burkha) and demand entry into the masjid, while Indian Muslim women elsewhere remain ignorant that Islam does not prevent them from praying in masjids any more than it insists they don the burkha.

The author is research fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge

Could this be of some help? Muslims,non-muslims, anyone?

A great site www.islamfortoday.com

__________________________________________________

The Islamic State and Religious Minorities

The Taliban are gone but they have left us with several serious questions about the future of religious minorities in Islamic states in particular and religious states in general.

By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.

Today there are at least three major conceptions of religious states ¨C Jewish, Islamic and Hindu. Israel strongly identifies itself as a Jewish state; Nepal is a Hindu state and India under the growing influence of Hindu Nationalism is toying with the idea of Ram Rajya ¨C Hindu statehood. Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Sudan and Afghanistan under Taliban claimed to be Islamic states.

Religious states face a significant challenge from diversity. They seek to advance and establish a specific normative social agenda. In order for these states to be successful it is important that the population share the ideological beliefs of those who hold power. The presence of diversity and difference of opinion between the populace makes it necessary for the state to privilege one element of the citizenry over others thereby institutionalizing discrimination and intolerance.

The Challenge of Diversity

Islamic states inevitably treat non-Muslim citizens as less than equal curbing their access to power and religious freedom. Even in Israel, which is a democracy, religious minorities face discrimination. In 1976 when Israel captured Jerusalem, 28% of its population was Christian and now only 2% of Jerusalem¡¯s inhabitants are Christians. Christians may become extinct in their own holy city and the primary reason for this is the religious importance of Jerusalem to Jewish state. This is a sobering example of how in spite of democracy a religious state can marginalize religious minorities.

Malaysia is an example where religious ideology and democracy mix very well. Malaysia is 65% Muslim and strongly identifies itself as an Islamic state. It is a very active member of OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences). In spite of its Islamic identity, Malaysian Muslims share power and wealth with Christians, Buddhists and Hindus who are all equal citizens of the country and have equal rights and duties.

But religious minorities in some Islamic states, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, suffer institutionalized discrimination because of these states¡¯ legalist orientation and their obsession with the Islamic jurisprudence. Some of the legalist positions in Islamic states are so strict that non-Muslim minorities find it a challenge to live normal lives. Blasphemy laws and apostasy laws are well known for the problems they cause minorities. Narrow interpretation of the role of women in Islamic societies has also restricted the scope of possibilities for non-Muslim women.

The Objectives of an Islamic Society

The Maqasid al Shariah (the objective of the Islamic law/way) are falah (welfare) and hayat-e-tayyabah (good life) for the members of the community. But when contemporary Islamists operationalize this divine vision of the Islamic state, they define the Islamic state as that which implements the Islamic law. Islamic law is divine in its origin, and since God does not need the consent of his creation, Contemporary Islamists insist on imposing Islamic law even without consent. Due to colonization, and prior to it, due to the decline of Islamic intelligentsia, Islamic legal tradition remains fossilized and is still struck in the middle ages. Islamic state therefore becomes a reduced to a coercive institution seeking to enforce a system of laws that were deduced from Islamic sources several centuries ago.

The irony of this reality is that in seeking to impose Islamic law and create an Islamic state, Islamists are actually in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of the Quran. The Quran is very explicit when it says ¡°there is no compulsion in religion,¡± (Quran 2: 256). Elsewhere the Quran exhorts Jews to live by the laws revealed to them in the Torah. In fact The Quran expresses surprise that some Jews sought the arbitration of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) rather than their own legal tradition (5:43). The Quran also orders Christians to live by their faith; ¡°So let the people of the Gospel judge by that which Allah has revealed therein, for he who judges not by that which Allah has revealed is a sinner,¡± (Quran 5:47). From these verses it is abundantly clear that an Islamic state must advocate religious pluralism even to the extent of permitting multiple legal systems.

Democratic polities are much better at dealing with minorities who do not subscribe to state ideology because they are based on constitutional guarantees of human rights conceived at the level of the individual ¨C the smallest minority. In a sense on some issues, such as the bill of rights in the American system ¨C the individual over rules even the majority opinion. Contemporary Islamic states have yet to develop a legal framework that ensures that there is no compulsion in religion and no discrimination against religious minorities even though the above-identified sources provide a clear Quranic foundation for guaranteeing religious freedom beyond even the scope of the American bill of rights.

Lessons from Medina

Unlike the present day Islamists, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when he established the first Islamic state in Medina ¨C actually a Jewish-Muslim federation extended to religious minorities the rights that are guaranteed to them in the Quran. Prophet Muhammad¡¯s Medina was based on the covenant of Medina, a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others that treated them as equal citizens of Medina. They enjoyed the freedom to choose the legal system they wished to live under. Jews could live under Islamic law, or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. There was no compulsion in religion even though Medina was an Islamic state. The difference between Medina and today¡¯s Islamic states is profound. The state of Medina was based on a real social contract that applied divine law but only in consultation and with consent of all citizens regardless of their faith. But contemporary Islamic states apply Islamic law without consent or consultation and often through coercion.

It is a sad commentary on contemporary Islamists that while democracy is a challenge to contemporary Islamic states, it was constitutive to the first Islamic state in Medina established by the Prophet of Islam.<

Kashmir:

The British-orchestrated drive for an independent Kashmir is run by Ayyub Thukar, the London-based head of the World Kashmir Freedom movement, and Amanullah Khan, the London resident heading the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Lord Avebury was the first British member of Parliament to publicly support the Kashmiri secessionists, in an address to a JKLF conference in London in 1991, where he also announced his support for their armed struggle. In a March 1995 issue of Thukar`s publication, {Kashmir Report,} Lord Avebury demanded that Indian troops be withdrawn from Kashmir. ``New Delhi fails to understand that if peaceful initiatives are thwarted, the inevitable result will be further violence,`` he thundered.

`Khalistan`:

Efforts to create an independent homeland in Indian Punjab for followers of the Sikh religion, dubbed ``Khalistan,`` are also run out of London. The British-based Jagjit Singh Chauhan of the World Sikh Organization, who took credit for the 1984 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, works closely with Lord Avebury, according to the spokesman of the organization.

Shammi

Musharraf held a referendum - he himself, agrees to its shortcomings. Whereas the MORI poll is a scientific study - lets see if you can get this:

Referendum = political, yes or no

MORI poll = scientific study.

As to my lack of criticism of the referendum method - Once again, the referendum is a political exercise and the criticism we witnessed, and to which I responded was unfortunately, political and not technical. Clearly, I agree with you that both in the referendum and the MORI poll, questions are designed to elicit approval of given political positions, yet the MORI poll (by definition, therefore it`s methodolgy included) is a scientific study, If it is not a scientific study - why don`t you come out and say that it is not scientific and is a political utility.

Have I been consistent in my criticisms? No, I have not. You be the first to tell me if such a thing is possible for falliable human beings.

Tahmed

Ahmed Sahab, I hope you will now see the rational of my objection and criticism of the position you are taking. I am not aware of any ``generally accepted`` - $10,000 position by any organization of body - in effect, the notion that one can argue Poverty or Ignorance has been irradicated is flawed, as what constitutes or not, Poverty, and What constitutes or not, Ignorance, are not objective in the scientific sense nor in the sense that there is a broad agreement as to what they may mean. If we shall argue the figure $10K, will that mean $6500 will mean Poverty and Ignorance, what about $8900 ? As a matter of fact, the meanings we infuse into what poverty and ignorance may mean or not, continue to change, as our understanding of what these words mean or constitute, changes.

Dost Mittar

I give you the benefit of the doubt: I very much disgree that the punishment for blasphemy and Apostasy, we are being told is ``Islamic``, is most certainly not! As a matter of fact these punishments are reviled within Islamia, noting the single most important endeavour of Muslims in the 20th century, lead by Allahmah, Iqbal lahori, is, the effort to distinguish the constant and the variable components of religion, so that it would be clear where Islam would be susceptible of change and where it would be unbending and resistant. Criticising the preeminence of the institution of Figh and Shariah, in Islam: ``...One cannot stand by and witness an oppressed woman from the Punjab, deprived of the right of religious divorce in order to escape a tyrannical husband, appeal to the law of apostasy.`` Indeed, thus far, no fresh thinking has enveloped the luminaries who serve Figh and Shariah and main stream Muslims have found that they do not have the luxury of negelect heaped on them by these brutes, they therefore appeal to reason, conscience and Quran to justify their position that no punishement is required for either - by all means objection and disapproval of the loss may be registered, but I stand on my understanding of Quran and Islam.

I invite you to view such things as these absurd punishments as the embodiment of Obscuritanism. I want you you to keep this visual in your mind: Islam is precious gem but it has collected a great deal dirt and grime on it - the struggle is clean this gem of the excess of Figh and Shariah and to polish it, so that it may be that beacon of God`s mercy, as it is intended. Recall that democracy requires tolerance of obscuritanism and it`s advocates - the defeat of obscuritanism must be an ideological defeat - it`s ideas, their epistemology, their anthropological foundation, their religious legitimacy. If we are to be tolerant, we need not seek the defeat of believers whom we described as obscuritanist, RATHER, we must seek to defeat the beliefs, never the believers, for then we shall be nothing different from obscuritanist, we will be imposing - we do not seek to impose our view on any body else, and we do want to be free to persuade, to appeal to the reason and conscience of men and women.

i thought id post this this is totally why im against racist inspired desprictions of muslim fundamentalists as islamists

The new Islamophobia

Muslims as nemesis of the ``civilized world``?

By R. Ebrahimi

June 10, 2002

The Iranian

French text

During a trip I met an American tourist. It was the time of hostage taking of Western tourists in the Philippines by members of Islamist commando Abu-Sayaf. This young woman asked me if I was ``feeling responsible``. I didn`t understand what she wanted to insinuate. Responsible for what and for whom?

``As a Muslim, you should feel responsible for what your coreligionists commit. It seems normal, specially for someone sensible,`` she said.

I had a very hard time believing what I was hearing. I, an Iranian child of the Middle East, living thousands of kilometers away from the Philippines, and, frankly, having no knowledge of this country, should feel responsible (this is nothing to take lightly) about what Abu-Sayaf was committing there in the name of Islam? Regardless of who I am or what my beliefs are? My being born Muslim should be enough to engage my person and my responsibility?

``Yes, I feel responsible,`` I replied. This seemed to satisfy her, as she was surely thinking that she was having a sensible Muslim as a rare specimen in front of her.

``And you, do you feel responsible?`` I asked her.

She frowned; she didn`t seem to grasp my question.

``Responsible for what?`` She asked me in turn.

``For what your coreligionists committed? The Inquisition, Crusades, Saint-Bartholomew massacre, colonization, genocides, slavery, serfdom, Napoleonic Wars, First World War, the Holocaust, the 60 million of human casualties of the Second World War, the atomic bomb, Vietnam, and the devastation of Iraq, to cite only the most atrocious.``

She thought there was no comparison Indeed there was none, because among Muslims there is no individuality. We only form a single fabric, although we are more than one billion in number. An act committed by one of us is enough to accuse us all. That`s the least of what people like her think.

And this interesting dialogue took place long before the events of September 11, before Islam became unofficially but openly the vociferous nemesis of our beautiful Western values of democracy and human rights. Something must have replaced Communism following its demise. Another negative pole must have been found to justify political acts, military actions and wars against terrorism. World`s polarization must have regenerated.

We are truly experiencing the new Islamophobia. On both sides of the Atlantic, demagogic voices, terrifying of violence scourge Islam, the so-called Islamic civilization, and Muslims. These voices dangerously recall anti-Semitic lampoons of late 19th century or even Mussolini and Hitler`s racist discourses. It makes one believe that the world retains no historical lessons.

Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, the present chief of the Italian prime minister declared that ``Muslim civilization is inferior to Europe and its history.`` Berlusconi occupies the seat that half a century ago was Mussolini`s. And the honorable American professor Samuel P. Huntington echoes his ``clash of civilizations``.

Can these levelheaded personalities give us a definition of what they call ``Islamic civilization``? A Senegalese, in the depth of sub-Saharan Africa, an Arab from the Middle East and an Indonesian of the farthest Far East are members of the same ``civilization`` on the pretext that those among them who practice Islam turn toward Mecca to pray?

Again, Muslim individuality is not recognized. Muslims became pawns of a supranational and supra-individual concept: Islam (or Islamism), a very poorly understood concept because of its actual absurdity, supposed to regroup all Muslims under a single enormous label.

I would even not evoke what Muslims have contributed to the world; I will not talk about the pioneers in mathematics or medicine; I would not like to lower myself to the level of engaging in ``comparison of civilizations`` as if it was a question of height measurement, or rating Hollywood films.

An Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci just published a book, ``Anger and Pride``. This book has had record sales in Italy and Spain. Ms. Fallaci carries out a strongly grotesque amalgam between Muslims, delinquent immigrants, and terrorists and pretends to uncover the real face of Islam.

She exploits all hyper-mediatic themes of our sad era: terrorism, insecurity in Europe, prostitution, and fundamentalism; she blames them on Islam, incites racial hatred, and thus sells books. She pretends that Muslims ``urinate in baptisteries and multiply like rats``.

Imagine for a single instant if a personality as much enlightened as Ms. Fallaci holds similar talks about Jews. He would be accused of being anti-Semite or revisionist, and it would be highly probable that his book would not be published at all. Trials would justly shower down upon him.

But when racism and revisionism target Islam and Muslims, it apparently does not disturb anyone. It is rare for intellectuals to raise their voices against it. Does a cause need a holocaust to be intellectualized?

Islamophobia has evidently a much harsher and more repulsive face in the United States by conjugated action of the latent ignorance of the American people on this subject, Zionist glorification and the events of September 11. In the U.S., being a Muslim often equates with exclusively being a Palestinian terrorist. (Let`s suppose there are are 10,000, of these terrorists. What do they represent in a total Muslim population of 1.1 billion?)

In the U.S., even the evocation of an eventual Palestinian state and talking about the sufferings of Palestinians is politically incorrect and can result in you being a engaged in ``anti-Semitism`` and subsequently ``anti-Americanism``. It happens daily during political meetings or academic conferences. The American alternative press reports it every day.

The mass culture which wants Islam to be equal to violence, terrorism and rejection of peace is reinforced by the silence of intellectual and political authorities and their failure to refute such categorizations.

Misinformation amplifies this phenomenon. The Arab-Israeli conflict is reported by mainstream media (often right-wing and conservative) through an exclusive siding with one specific party`s viewpoint: Israel.

One of the techniques commonly used by Islamophobes is the arbitrary reference to Koranic texts, taken out of their context and presented to the masses to demonstrate a so-called intimate and organic relation between Islam and violence.

An American personality, whose confession and political orientation have no importance here, appeared recently on radio with many references to the Koran in order to claim that the holy book of Muslims encourages Jihad (implying crusade in this case), expansionism, and consequently violence and war.

I could also devote myself to this idiotic and malicious game by citing such reference in the Torah (Deuteronomy 7, 23 & 24), which uses even more extreme terms than the Koran:

``But the LORD thy God shall deliver those nations unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be exterminated. And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have exterminated them.`` Taken out of its context, the above phrase sounds like nothing more than inciting genocide.

On CNN, a very media savvy American priest maintained, with many references taken out of the Koran too, that because a religion like Islam not recognize women`s rights, it can not be fair and peaceful. I could, in reply to this honorable lover of Christ and of its apostles, evoke this injunction announced by the Apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians (chapter 11):

``The head of the woman is the man. Therefore if a woman is not covered, let her also be shaved. A man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man. For this reason, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.``

All racist discourses based on religion are interchangeable. Muslims today have enemies called amalgamation, ignorance, misinformation, propaganda, intolerance and demagogy. The repeated attacks of the media and of some dark and repulsive personalities like Oriana Fallaci, who make themselves out to be intellectual elites of our era, bring me out of my reserve.

One should not be surprised if confronting such a perception shared by so many non-Muslims, being Christian, Jewish, or even Hindu, would in retaliation inspire Muslim youth of the four corners of the world to sustain fundamentalist organizations: the only haven validating their identity.

Meditate on this simple fact: in Gujarat and in Ramllah, men and women are assassinated because their only crime is being born a Muslim, not a Hindu or a Jew. In Italy a book sells based on its abusiveness and despise towards and for Muslims.

Without an intent of downplaying events, victims of what is called ``Islamophobia`` incomparably outnumber those of the Twin Towers or those of Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem. And all this seems to occur in an atmosphere of general indifference.

French text

Comment for The Iranian letters section

Comment to R. Ebrahimi



RELATED

Victimology

It is not America`s moral responsibility to create or foster ``free societies`` in the Muslim world. This is the responsibility of Muslims themselves

By Lee Howard Hodges

A place to call our own

We have to acknowledge the commonality of our history

By Loay AbdelKarim

Who`s a Nazi?

Is this a fair criticism of Israel?

By William Baker

Placing the onus

Of victims and perpetrators

By Manoutchehr M. Eskandari-Qajar

Islamphobia

Prejudicial views

By Kamran D. Rastegar

ALSO

By R. Ebrahimi

When words kill

Here, the word doesn`t tolerate criticism; it censures

See French text

The coming individualism

Iran`s irreversibly metamorphic process towards democracy

See French text

SECTIONS

* Recent

* Covers

* Writers

* All sections









Copyright © Iranian.com All Rights Reserved. Legal Terms for more information contact: times@iranian.com

Web design by BTC Consultants

Internet server Global Publishing Group

hobbyty #421 you write ``when will we agree that poverty has been irradicated or that ignorance has ended - is there ever an end to poverty or ignorance?``

I believe the generally accepted figure is about $10,000 per capital (vs. about $450 today in Pakistan/India). It is then that we dont see children begging at every street corner, and no child grows up without seeing the inside of a school for at least 10 years. And once people are gainfully employed in today`s world, they tend to become less concerned with international politics and more concerned with international markets, job opportunities, partnerships, and so forth.

Re: Hobbyty #421

Your defense/criticism would have been more rational if you had UNIFORMLY upheld the need for transparency and the representative nature of the Kashmir govt. and Musharraf`s regime both of whom claim legitimacy on the basis of polls. Since you appear to be applying different standards in each case (i.e compare your detailed questioning about the nature of the MORI poll, with none whatsoever about the Musharraf referendum) raises serious questions about (i) the consistency/integrity of your position on the issue of polling, (ii) your motive -- are you truly interested in fair polling (if you were then you would oppose the Musharraf regime just as fervently as you oppose the J&K govt.) or in something else?

Narain

A coup0le of clarifications may help to consider Hurriyets role. First of all Hurriyet is a amalgm of political parties and the suggestion that it is a Pakistani creation are not only false but unhelful. In my earlier posts with several interlocutors I had requested feedback on on a couple of ideas that have a fair chance of being accepted. - The first of these was to establish a process involving Pakistan, India and Hurriyet - the feedback was why not include other stake holders - seems like a fair idea and it makes the process more representative. The establishment of this process must be predicated on Hurriyet`s call to end armed struggle and Pakistan`s commitment to ensure that inflitration will cease at the same time Indian occupation forces will be evacuated out of captive kashmir. Indian civil service and police may remain until final status agreement and implementation.

In such a melieu, the concern of religitimating the players from captive kashmir can be established by holding elections in the presence of international monitors and observers.

You have asked why must we accept that Hurriyet is the repreentative of captive kashmiri - there is a methodological problem here, in my opinion - it`s as if it is legitimate to ask whether we voted to give ourselves the right to vote - this unwillingness to accept a bargaining partner suggests, to me, that I may not be wrong in asserting that the most important ``finding`` of the MORI poll is the ``need`` for a new political party.

While it`s entirely possible to create such a ``new` political party, I submit, this not really the problem - In the absebce of Hurriyet, we will again be left with issues of legitimacy - I put it you that this is the issue that must we dealt with, IF, long term acceptance of solutions is to be arrived at.

Shammi

You don`t want me to defend my position or be critical? You will grant that my criticism is justified and that it has been rational.

Tahmed

Ahmed Sahab - you are being unreasonable, I hope you will reconsider. Your position that freedom must wait for the end of poverty and ignorance is unsupportable. How so? After all, when will we agree that poverty has been irradicated or that ignorance has ended - is there ever an end to poverty or ignorance? of course not. When we are conscious that we have a good deal of knowledge, we are also conscious that by and large we remain ignorant. You and I are fairly educated, yet seem to be coming across as ignorant to each other. The same is true with regard to poverty - one may have a six figure salary, yet that may not be enough to satisfy ones needs.

Lajwanti,

I heard you want in the collaboration....do continue...

``Meanwhile, back in the jungle....``

Though is Nishan-e-Haider a civilian award? It might be Sitara-e-Pakistan, not sure.

Lord Avebury `headed`? a forum called Friends of Kashmir in UK. He is an awardee of Pakistan`s highest civilian award Nishan-e-Haider.

Chowkies (and please excuse cross-posting on other boards):

There is a petition being put together by an organization of Indians and Pakistanis in the US (but open of course to all) that calls for both governments to work together for peace. I hope you will read the petition, and if you think it makes sense (as I hope all of you will), you will also sign it. Here is the link.

www.petitiononline.com/IPPP1/petition.html