In Search of the Moderate Muslim
Farzana Versey October 28, 2001
#351 Posted by rajanjua on November 4, 2001 7:50:33 pm
re: sattar
``If this is a “moderate” Muslim, then Islam may as well be a cult of devil worshippers.``
Sattar Sahib, The best way to describe Naqshbandi Sahib is as a ``dangerous idiot`` - If he would have left out the death sentences he can be ignored, after all he has a right to have his opinions - But since his types advocate violence against anyone who does`nt agree with their religious beliefs I think they should be dealt with accordingly.
I personally think that the whole imposition of Shariah business is a disgrace to humanity and especially three things ``declaration of Ahmedis as non-Muslims``, ``Hudood Ordinance`` and ``Blasphemy Laws`` stand out as examples of how low humans can go in the name of religion.
``If this is a “moderate” Muslim, then Islam may as well be a cult of devil worshippers.``
Sattar Sahib, The best way to describe Naqshbandi Sahib is as a ``dangerous idiot`` - If he would have left out the death sentences he can be ignored, after all he has a right to have his opinions - But since his types advocate violence against anyone who does`nt agree with their religious beliefs I think they should be dealt with accordingly.
I personally think that the whole imposition of Shariah business is a disgrace to humanity and especially three things ``declaration of Ahmedis as non-Muslims``, ``Hudood Ordinance`` and ``Blasphemy Laws`` stand out as examples of how low humans can go in the name of religion.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#350 Posted by Gowardhan on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
nasah
Eklviya and Dostmittar are two most polite people on Chowk. I prefer your * carrion eaters * for describing these dirty chaddhi wearing fascists.
ylh
Like other civilized countries India also always sees debate about its history. History is always controversial which can not be settled easily. The quality of our debate is different from Pakistani history in which Hindus are openly called names, described as cowards, liers, cheaters, untrustworthy and no minister or general has courage to raise the issue. Udaykumar`s qualification only he knows. Chowk has published articles even by you. No intelligence or honesty is needed.
See this article for important debate on Indian history. Indian people are worried *before * wrong things may happen. When they write wrong things there will be big uproar in India. If they call Muslims liers cheaters untrustworthy, I will denounce and fight them, not you. In Pakistan fools like you spend time fighting Indians instead of having courage to challenge your lies taught to Pakistani young people -
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1822/18220820.htm
CONTROVERSY
History and sensibilities
The government`s censorship of the NCERT`s Class XI history textbook following a hue and cry by the Sikh community over the depiction of Guru Tegh Bahadur angers social scientists.
NAUNIDHI KAUR
History should not be commanded to any direction that the writer fancies. Discuss.
ANY undergraduate student of history answering this question in the present context will perhaps find a case study in the controversy raging over the depiction of the ninth Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur, as a plunderer in the Class XI Medieval India history textbook authored by Professor Satish Chandra. After scrutinising the debate on the use of sources by historians to write history, the student would no doubt be disappointed with the Human Resource Development Ministry`s response of quashing the debate with a fiat to delete the controversial paragraphs. Worse still, any scholar would be concerned, as most social scientists now are, about the secrecy being maintained by the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in writing new history books.
S. SUBRAMANIUM
Professor Satish Chandra.
``Hurt by the account`` in the textbook, Arvinder Singh Lovely, a Congress legislator, raised the matter in the Delhi Assembly on September 28. The Congress members called the use of Persian sources, which gave a ``distorted`` account of the Guru, ``an act of sacrilege``. Talking to Frontline, Arvinder Singh said that Satish Chandra referred to Persian sources as the official account, completely ignoring religious sources.
The passage that has been found objectionable in the textbook reads: ``However, in 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested with five of his followers, brought to Delhi and executed. The official explanation for this as given in some later Persian sources is that after his return from Assam, the Guru, in association with one Hafiz Adam, a follower of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, had resorted to plunder and rapine, laying waste the province of the Punjab.``
Satish Chandra, a former Professor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, clarified that he called the Persian source an ``official account, or the official justification, because for a historian, official accounts are generally full of evasion and distortion to justify official action.``
He said that he did not want to hurt the sentiments of any community and that he was willing to change the wordings in one of the objectionable passages. ``My emphasis has been to present the social, economic and religious factors to the students.`` Religion was just one of the factors that are instrumental in the study of history, not the only factor, he said. ``The social and economic factors are very important. Students need to be made aware of these factors so that they can think independently,`` he explained.
Apparently, the controversy has provided the HRD Ministry a golden opportunity to place history books before religious teachers. Outraged by the Ministry`s knee-jerk reaction, social scientists said that the vetting of texts by religious leaders would curtail scientific inquiry, which starts on the premise that there are always more than one viewpoint. Historians have objected to HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi`s directive to the NCERT to have the portion on the Sikh Guru deleted.
``If sentiments are the criteria for deleting portions from history books, then what would happen to scientific inquiry? Reason has to prevail in history, not sentiments,`` said K.M. Shrimali of Delhi University. ``We strongly object to the directive of putting history textbooks to the censorship of religious leaders. Such a decision is reprehensible in a country committed to secular values and cannot be accepted by any historian or social scientist worth the name,`` said eminent historian Irfan Habib at a media conference organised to condemn the government`s action.
``It remains to be seen what kind of people would qualify to be religious teachers,`` said Dr. Arjun Dev, former head of the Department of Social Science and Humanities in the NCERT. ``The government is bent upon destroying history as a branch of knowledge,`` he said.
Historians are also concerned about the secrecy with which the NCERT has been handling the new syllabus. This view was endorsed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on October 12 asking the government to demystify the process of changing the syllabus. ``I believe such secrecy in academic matters is unprecedented,`` she wrote.
In the process, the debate on the use of sources in presenting historical facts has been silenced. Objections to the depiction of Tegh Bahadur are not new and are a part of the debate on the use of Persian sources in the study of Sikh and Mughal history. The Persian source referred by Satish Chandra is Siyar-ul-Mutakharin, written in 1783 by Ghulam Husain Taba-Tabai. Historians who have discouraged the use of the text have pointed out that it was written more than a century after Guru Tegh Bahadur`s death. And Ghulam Husain lived far away from Punjab. Also, the Guru`s association with Hafiz Adam is anachronistic. Hafiz Adam died in Medina in A.D. 1643, 21 years before Tegh Bahadur attained the status of Guru. Further, they point out that according to Ghulam Husain, Tegh Bahadur was confined in Gwalior, where, under imperial orders, his body was ``cut into four quarters`` and hung at the four gates of the fortress. Critics say that Tegh Bahadur was executed in Delhi where the Sisganj Gurudwara is situated at present.
Further, there are various translations of Ghulam Husain`s text. The historian, Joseph Davey Cunningham (A History of Sikhs; London, 1842) has used Raymond`s translation, on which Satish Chandra has also relied.
There is another translation of the same text, which is more precise and less derisive of Tegh Bahadur. This has been used by noted Sikh historian Ganda Singh in his works.
It reads: ``Tegh Bahadur, gathering many disciples, became powerful, and thousands of people accompanied him. A contemporary of his, Hafiz Adam, who was a fakir belonging to the order of Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, had gathered about him a great multitude of followers. Both of these took to the practice of levying forcible exactions and moved about in the land of the Punjab. Tegh Bahadur took money from Hindus and Hafiz Adam from Mussalmans. The royal news writers wrote to the Emperor that the two fakirs, one Hindu and the other Muslim named so-and-so, had taken to the practice. It would not be strange if, with the increase of their influence, they created trouble.`` This translation which makes no mention of ``subsisting by plunder`` has been accepted as more accurate by historians such as Harbans Singh and Norman Gerald Barrier in The Punjab: Past and Present: Essays in Honour of Dr. Ganda Singh, Khushwant Singh in `A History of the Sikhs` and A.C.Banerjee.
Satish Chandra said he would have no objections in using this translation in the NCERT book in place of the ``objectionable`` one. He said: ``If it is a question of changing a few words I would be a very happy person. I have never wanted to hurt the sentiments of any community. Unfortunately, at the time that I wrote the NCERT book I did not have the Persian translation and I relied on Cunningham`s translation. Later I came across other accounts that I have found more convincing.``
The second point of controversy refers to the following passage in the textbook: ``According to Sikh tradition, the execution was due to intrigues of some members of his (Guru Tegh Bahadur`s) family who disputed his succession, and by others who had joined them. But we are also told that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims to Sikhism. There is also the tradition that the Guru was punished because he had raised a protest against the religious persecution of the Hindus in Kashmir by the local governor. However, the persecution of the Hindus is not mentioned in any of the histories of Kashmir, including the one written by Narayan Kaul in 1710. Saif Khan, the Mughal governor of Kashmir, is famous as a builder of bridges. He was a humane and broad-minded person who had appointed a Hindu to advise him in administrative matters. His successor after 1671, Iftekhar Khan, was anti-Shia but there are no references to his persecuting the Hindus.``
The Congress legislators objected to the negation of the Guru as the protector of Kashmiri Pandits. However Satish Chandra says: ``I have treated this issue in a slightly different manner. My focus was to render a constructive interpretation of tradition. Hence I have concluded that the Guru was giving expression to the discontent and disaffection of the Hindus of the region over Aurangzeb`s decision to break some long-standing temples.`` He has used Sohan Lal Suri`s Umdat-ut-Tawarikh to come to this conclusion. Satish Chandra has however concluded in the textbook: ``Whatever the reasons, Aurangzeb`s action was unjustified from any point of view and betrayed a narrow approach,`` and that ``the Guru gave up his life for cherished principles.``
Historians, including Max Arthur Macauliffe, who support the role of Tegh Bahadur as a saviour of Kashmiri Pandits, quote Bachittar Natak written by Tegh Bahadur`s son and the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. Tegh Bahadur is described as the protector of the sacred marks (tilak) and the sacred thread (janju) of Hindus. The book also states that the Guru courted martyrdom to uphold his religious beliefs.
Satish Chandra questions the use of Bachittar Natak as a contemporary source. ``Bachittar Natak is a religious account. It is not history in the strict sense. Moreover, it does not say explicitly that Hindus came to the Guru and protested. It does not even mention the important historical fact that Tegh Bahadur was asked by Emperor Aurangzeb to perform a miracle,`` to prove his divine powers. These controversies have cropped up because the details regarding Guru Tegh Bahadur`s execution are shrouded in mystery. Historians use hagiographic accounts in the contemporary and near-contemporary sources to buttress their accounts. As a result, there are competing Muslim and Sikh claims about Tegh Bahadur`s activities and capture. The Persian sources maintain that the Guru was a bandit and was justly executed for his rebel activity. The Sikh narratives hold that Tegh Bahadur died during an attempt to secure the rights of all the people, particularly, the Brahmins of Kashmir, to practise their religion and don their religious symbols in good conscience. By using Persian sources or emphasising Kashmiri sources, Satish Chandra has not been ambiguous in his stand. Hence, even his worst critics cannot accuse him of suspending judgment.
Satish Chandra told Frontline: ``There is no occasion for creating and nursing the feeling that in the textbook the Guru has been maligned or that an attempt has been made to hurt Sikh sentiments. On the other hand, the book places Guru Tegh Bahadur on a very high pedestal.`` For other historians, honouring or dishonouring historical figures is not so much the point as understanding them in their social and political contexts.
Satish Chandra has objected to NCERT Director J.S. Rajput`s statement that the deplorable tradition of denigrating minorities by some historians who are working hand-in-glove with the destabilising forces must end. He said: ``If some historian, or for that matter any individual, acts in collusion with destabilising forces, the Government of India has the authority to act against them. It is hardly the NCERT Director`s job to make such allegations, thereby creating unnecessary tension and importing politics into what was a historical debate.``
Historians have reacted strongly to the NCERT`s decision to ask Dr. T.P. Verma, formerly of the Benaras Hindu University, and Makkhan Lal, Director, Institute of Heritage Research and Management, for writing the Class XI Ancient India textbook. They point to the saffron hues that were apparent in Verma`s Ayodhya ka Itihaas Evam Puratattva and Makkhan Lal`s tacit approval of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Arjun Dev said: ``Apart from ideological leanings, the quality of the works produced by such experts in questionable. Dr. Lal specialises in the archaeological branch of painted greyware. He does not seem to have a general background in ancient Indian history that would have helped him write the volume. There is more to ancient India than archaeology.``
The NCERT`s response to the controversy over the Medieval India textbook and naming of Verma and Makkhan Lal as writers of the Ancient India books shows that the NCERT has made up its mind to ``rewrite history with a completely different ideological leaning,`` Arjun Dev said. Questioning Dr. Verma`s credentials, Dr. Shrimali said: ``He has only one research monograph to his credit. If writing pamphlets for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is a credential, then it would reflect on the end results as well. All this is a very serious matter. We shudder to think of the future and remain wary of where we are being led.``
Eklviya and Dostmittar are two most polite people on Chowk. I prefer your * carrion eaters * for describing these dirty chaddhi wearing fascists.
ylh
Like other civilized countries India also always sees debate about its history. History is always controversial which can not be settled easily. The quality of our debate is different from Pakistani history in which Hindus are openly called names, described as cowards, liers, cheaters, untrustworthy and no minister or general has courage to raise the issue. Udaykumar`s qualification only he knows. Chowk has published articles even by you. No intelligence or honesty is needed.
See this article for important debate on Indian history. Indian people are worried *before * wrong things may happen. When they write wrong things there will be big uproar in India. If they call Muslims liers cheaters untrustworthy, I will denounce and fight them, not you. In Pakistan fools like you spend time fighting Indians instead of having courage to challenge your lies taught to Pakistani young people -
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1822/18220820.htm
CONTROVERSY
History and sensibilities
The government`s censorship of the NCERT`s Class XI history textbook following a hue and cry by the Sikh community over the depiction of Guru Tegh Bahadur angers social scientists.
NAUNIDHI KAUR
History should not be commanded to any direction that the writer fancies. Discuss.
ANY undergraduate student of history answering this question in the present context will perhaps find a case study in the controversy raging over the depiction of the ninth Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur, as a plunderer in the Class XI Medieval India history textbook authored by Professor Satish Chandra. After scrutinising the debate on the use of sources by historians to write history, the student would no doubt be disappointed with the Human Resource Development Ministry`s response of quashing the debate with a fiat to delete the controversial paragraphs. Worse still, any scholar would be concerned, as most social scientists now are, about the secrecy being maintained by the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in writing new history books.
S. SUBRAMANIUM
Professor Satish Chandra.
``Hurt by the account`` in the textbook, Arvinder Singh Lovely, a Congress legislator, raised the matter in the Delhi Assembly on September 28. The Congress members called the use of Persian sources, which gave a ``distorted`` account of the Guru, ``an act of sacrilege``. Talking to Frontline, Arvinder Singh said that Satish Chandra referred to Persian sources as the official account, completely ignoring religious sources.
The passage that has been found objectionable in the textbook reads: ``However, in 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested with five of his followers, brought to Delhi and executed. The official explanation for this as given in some later Persian sources is that after his return from Assam, the Guru, in association with one Hafiz Adam, a follower of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, had resorted to plunder and rapine, laying waste the province of the Punjab.``
Satish Chandra, a former Professor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, clarified that he called the Persian source an ``official account, or the official justification, because for a historian, official accounts are generally full of evasion and distortion to justify official action.``
He said that he did not want to hurt the sentiments of any community and that he was willing to change the wordings in one of the objectionable passages. ``My emphasis has been to present the social, economic and religious factors to the students.`` Religion was just one of the factors that are instrumental in the study of history, not the only factor, he said. ``The social and economic factors are very important. Students need to be made aware of these factors so that they can think independently,`` he explained.
Apparently, the controversy has provided the HRD Ministry a golden opportunity to place history books before religious teachers. Outraged by the Ministry`s knee-jerk reaction, social scientists said that the vetting of texts by religious leaders would curtail scientific inquiry, which starts on the premise that there are always more than one viewpoint. Historians have objected to HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi`s directive to the NCERT to have the portion on the Sikh Guru deleted.
``If sentiments are the criteria for deleting portions from history books, then what would happen to scientific inquiry? Reason has to prevail in history, not sentiments,`` said K.M. Shrimali of Delhi University. ``We strongly object to the directive of putting history textbooks to the censorship of religious leaders. Such a decision is reprehensible in a country committed to secular values and cannot be accepted by any historian or social scientist worth the name,`` said eminent historian Irfan Habib at a media conference organised to condemn the government`s action.
``It remains to be seen what kind of people would qualify to be religious teachers,`` said Dr. Arjun Dev, former head of the Department of Social Science and Humanities in the NCERT. ``The government is bent upon destroying history as a branch of knowledge,`` he said.
Historians are also concerned about the secrecy with which the NCERT has been handling the new syllabus. This view was endorsed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on October 12 asking the government to demystify the process of changing the syllabus. ``I believe such secrecy in academic matters is unprecedented,`` she wrote.
In the process, the debate on the use of sources in presenting historical facts has been silenced. Objections to the depiction of Tegh Bahadur are not new and are a part of the debate on the use of Persian sources in the study of Sikh and Mughal history. The Persian source referred by Satish Chandra is Siyar-ul-Mutakharin, written in 1783 by Ghulam Husain Taba-Tabai. Historians who have discouraged the use of the text have pointed out that it was written more than a century after Guru Tegh Bahadur`s death. And Ghulam Husain lived far away from Punjab. Also, the Guru`s association with Hafiz Adam is anachronistic. Hafiz Adam died in Medina in A.D. 1643, 21 years before Tegh Bahadur attained the status of Guru. Further, they point out that according to Ghulam Husain, Tegh Bahadur was confined in Gwalior, where, under imperial orders, his body was ``cut into four quarters`` and hung at the four gates of the fortress. Critics say that Tegh Bahadur was executed in Delhi where the Sisganj Gurudwara is situated at present.
Further, there are various translations of Ghulam Husain`s text. The historian, Joseph Davey Cunningham (A History of Sikhs; London, 1842) has used Raymond`s translation, on which Satish Chandra has also relied.
There is another translation of the same text, which is more precise and less derisive of Tegh Bahadur. This has been used by noted Sikh historian Ganda Singh in his works.
It reads: ``Tegh Bahadur, gathering many disciples, became powerful, and thousands of people accompanied him. A contemporary of his, Hafiz Adam, who was a fakir belonging to the order of Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, had gathered about him a great multitude of followers. Both of these took to the practice of levying forcible exactions and moved about in the land of the Punjab. Tegh Bahadur took money from Hindus and Hafiz Adam from Mussalmans. The royal news writers wrote to the Emperor that the two fakirs, one Hindu and the other Muslim named so-and-so, had taken to the practice. It would not be strange if, with the increase of their influence, they created trouble.`` This translation which makes no mention of ``subsisting by plunder`` has been accepted as more accurate by historians such as Harbans Singh and Norman Gerald Barrier in The Punjab: Past and Present: Essays in Honour of Dr. Ganda Singh, Khushwant Singh in `A History of the Sikhs` and A.C.Banerjee.
Satish Chandra said he would have no objections in using this translation in the NCERT book in place of the ``objectionable`` one. He said: ``If it is a question of changing a few words I would be a very happy person. I have never wanted to hurt the sentiments of any community. Unfortunately, at the time that I wrote the NCERT book I did not have the Persian translation and I relied on Cunningham`s translation. Later I came across other accounts that I have found more convincing.``
The second point of controversy refers to the following passage in the textbook: ``According to Sikh tradition, the execution was due to intrigues of some members of his (Guru Tegh Bahadur`s) family who disputed his succession, and by others who had joined them. But we are also told that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims to Sikhism. There is also the tradition that the Guru was punished because he had raised a protest against the religious persecution of the Hindus in Kashmir by the local governor. However, the persecution of the Hindus is not mentioned in any of the histories of Kashmir, including the one written by Narayan Kaul in 1710. Saif Khan, the Mughal governor of Kashmir, is famous as a builder of bridges. He was a humane and broad-minded person who had appointed a Hindu to advise him in administrative matters. His successor after 1671, Iftekhar Khan, was anti-Shia but there are no references to his persecuting the Hindus.``
The Congress legislators objected to the negation of the Guru as the protector of Kashmiri Pandits. However Satish Chandra says: ``I have treated this issue in a slightly different manner. My focus was to render a constructive interpretation of tradition. Hence I have concluded that the Guru was giving expression to the discontent and disaffection of the Hindus of the region over Aurangzeb`s decision to break some long-standing temples.`` He has used Sohan Lal Suri`s Umdat-ut-Tawarikh to come to this conclusion. Satish Chandra has however concluded in the textbook: ``Whatever the reasons, Aurangzeb`s action was unjustified from any point of view and betrayed a narrow approach,`` and that ``the Guru gave up his life for cherished principles.``
Historians, including Max Arthur Macauliffe, who support the role of Tegh Bahadur as a saviour of Kashmiri Pandits, quote Bachittar Natak written by Tegh Bahadur`s son and the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. Tegh Bahadur is described as the protector of the sacred marks (tilak) and the sacred thread (janju) of Hindus. The book also states that the Guru courted martyrdom to uphold his religious beliefs.
Satish Chandra questions the use of Bachittar Natak as a contemporary source. ``Bachittar Natak is a religious account. It is not history in the strict sense. Moreover, it does not say explicitly that Hindus came to the Guru and protested. It does not even mention the important historical fact that Tegh Bahadur was asked by Emperor Aurangzeb to perform a miracle,`` to prove his divine powers. These controversies have cropped up because the details regarding Guru Tegh Bahadur`s execution are shrouded in mystery. Historians use hagiographic accounts in the contemporary and near-contemporary sources to buttress their accounts. As a result, there are competing Muslim and Sikh claims about Tegh Bahadur`s activities and capture. The Persian sources maintain that the Guru was a bandit and was justly executed for his rebel activity. The Sikh narratives hold that Tegh Bahadur died during an attempt to secure the rights of all the people, particularly, the Brahmins of Kashmir, to practise their religion and don their religious symbols in good conscience. By using Persian sources or emphasising Kashmiri sources, Satish Chandra has not been ambiguous in his stand. Hence, even his worst critics cannot accuse him of suspending judgment.
Satish Chandra told Frontline: ``There is no occasion for creating and nursing the feeling that in the textbook the Guru has been maligned or that an attempt has been made to hurt Sikh sentiments. On the other hand, the book places Guru Tegh Bahadur on a very high pedestal.`` For other historians, honouring or dishonouring historical figures is not so much the point as understanding them in their social and political contexts.
Satish Chandra has objected to NCERT Director J.S. Rajput`s statement that the deplorable tradition of denigrating minorities by some historians who are working hand-in-glove with the destabilising forces must end. He said: ``If some historian, or for that matter any individual, acts in collusion with destabilising forces, the Government of India has the authority to act against them. It is hardly the NCERT Director`s job to make such allegations, thereby creating unnecessary tension and importing politics into what was a historical debate.``
Historians have reacted strongly to the NCERT`s decision to ask Dr. T.P. Verma, formerly of the Benaras Hindu University, and Makkhan Lal, Director, Institute of Heritage Research and Management, for writing the Class XI Ancient India textbook. They point to the saffron hues that were apparent in Verma`s Ayodhya ka Itihaas Evam Puratattva and Makkhan Lal`s tacit approval of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Arjun Dev said: ``Apart from ideological leanings, the quality of the works produced by such experts in questionable. Dr. Lal specialises in the archaeological branch of painted greyware. He does not seem to have a general background in ancient Indian history that would have helped him write the volume. There is more to ancient India than archaeology.``
The NCERT`s response to the controversy over the Medieval India textbook and naming of Verma and Makkhan Lal as writers of the Ancient India books shows that the NCERT has made up its mind to ``rewrite history with a completely different ideological leaning,`` Arjun Dev said. Questioning Dr. Verma`s credentials, Dr. Shrimali said: ``He has only one research monograph to his credit. If writing pamphlets for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is a credential, then it would reflect on the end results as well. All this is a very serious matter. We shudder to think of the future and remain wary of where we are being led.``
#349 Posted by Romair on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
shankar #348: ``I`ve also changed my opinion about Mushy. I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.``
I said this on day one, after the coup. I had no idea who Musharraf was before he became the COAS. And I had no idea what he would do after the coup. But, after working with, for and meeting enough Pakistani generals in my life, it is quite easy to pick out the sincere ones from the non-sincere ones.
Within the limited maneouvring space available to him, he has made mostly the right decisions. The wrong ones have been due to lack of experience and not due to lack of intent. Now he has a lot of room to maneouvre, and Pakistan`s condition should improve. He is somewhat of a hero in the Western world. I bet he gets VIP treatment on his visit to the US. Perhaps a standing ovation or two.
People had stated, he was running Pakistan with his corps commanders. I had said, he was running it with the core members of his cabinet. So far, he has replaced (or they have retired on their own) nearly all the corps commanders, he came in with. Including the ones who carried out the coup. He has replaced many of the governors. He has replaced the members of the National Security Council.
However, the core cabinet members are still there. These include Shaukut Aziz (the most successful Pakistani and perhaps South Asian, banker in the world, and the second most powerful man in Pakistan; a candidate for the Prime Minster position), Razzaq Dawood (on the board of directors of Imran Khan`s cancer hospital), Omar Asghar (Cambridge educated head of a well-known philathrapic organization, and son of the father of the PAF, Asghar Khan), Abdus Sattar (don`t know much about him), Ata-ur-Rahman (the most accomplished scientist in Pakistan), etc. I think Maleeha Lodhi has a lot of input also (I believe her brother is absconding and is wanted by NAB; this indicates the honesty of this regime).
Musharraf wants Imran Khan or Asghar Khan to be the next PM. However, that is not possible in the feudal Pakistani politics. So, the next PM will either be Shaukut Aziz (through some Presidential action), or a non-feudal relatively honest leader from the either of the two parties that will win the next elections, i.e. PPP or PML.
I have been stating all along that Musharraf and Vajpayee have the Kashmir problem solved between them. I like Vajpayee also. I think he is willing to allow some sort of self-determination for Kashmiris. I have stated that quite often. Musharraf being the dictator can get Pakistan to accept his solution on Kashmir. Now if the BJP fundoos would get off Vajpayee`s back, he could do something. Unfortunately, the BJP hardliners have dominated him now, and once Vajpayee goes, Indo-Pak relations will be down the tube even furthur.
Indians would be well-advised to deal with a mild-mannered, balanced Muhajir in authority like Musharraf, on Kashmir. Otherwise, they will be stuck with people like myself (ill-educated Sindhi, Punjabi, Pathans and Kashmiris leaders in positions of power in Pakistan). I said this two years ago. And Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is getting stronger and stronger. Ten years from now, Musharraf may not be around, and Pakistanis may be in a such a strong position that they maybe unwilling to negotiate.
I said this on day one, after the coup. I had no idea who Musharraf was before he became the COAS. And I had no idea what he would do after the coup. But, after working with, for and meeting enough Pakistani generals in my life, it is quite easy to pick out the sincere ones from the non-sincere ones.
Within the limited maneouvring space available to him, he has made mostly the right decisions. The wrong ones have been due to lack of experience and not due to lack of intent. Now he has a lot of room to maneouvre, and Pakistan`s condition should improve. He is somewhat of a hero in the Western world. I bet he gets VIP treatment on his visit to the US. Perhaps a standing ovation or two.
People had stated, he was running Pakistan with his corps commanders. I had said, he was running it with the core members of his cabinet. So far, he has replaced (or they have retired on their own) nearly all the corps commanders, he came in with. Including the ones who carried out the coup. He has replaced many of the governors. He has replaced the members of the National Security Council.
However, the core cabinet members are still there. These include Shaukut Aziz (the most successful Pakistani and perhaps South Asian, banker in the world, and the second most powerful man in Pakistan; a candidate for the Prime Minster position), Razzaq Dawood (on the board of directors of Imran Khan`s cancer hospital), Omar Asghar (Cambridge educated head of a well-known philathrapic organization, and son of the father of the PAF, Asghar Khan), Abdus Sattar (don`t know much about him), Ata-ur-Rahman (the most accomplished scientist in Pakistan), etc. I think Maleeha Lodhi has a lot of input also (I believe her brother is absconding and is wanted by NAB; this indicates the honesty of this regime).
Musharraf wants Imran Khan or Asghar Khan to be the next PM. However, that is not possible in the feudal Pakistani politics. So, the next PM will either be Shaukut Aziz (through some Presidential action), or a non-feudal relatively honest leader from the either of the two parties that will win the next elections, i.e. PPP or PML.
I have been stating all along that Musharraf and Vajpayee have the Kashmir problem solved between them. I like Vajpayee also. I think he is willing to allow some sort of self-determination for Kashmiris. I have stated that quite often. Musharraf being the dictator can get Pakistan to accept his solution on Kashmir. Now if the BJP fundoos would get off Vajpayee`s back, he could do something. Unfortunately, the BJP hardliners have dominated him now, and once Vajpayee goes, Indo-Pak relations will be down the tube even furthur.
Indians would be well-advised to deal with a mild-mannered, balanced Muhajir in authority like Musharraf, on Kashmir. Otherwise, they will be stuck with people like myself (ill-educated Sindhi, Punjabi, Pathans and Kashmiris leaders in positions of power in Pakistan). I said this two years ago. And Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is getting stronger and stronger. Ten years from now, Musharraf may not be around, and Pakistanis may be in a such a strong position that they maybe unwilling to negotiate.
#348 Posted by nasah on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
Dear Asif Naqshbandi:
You write to tahmed:
“urstruly said something offensive to hindus and i missed it; but if he calls them ``kaafirs`` then that, as far as i am considered, is not an insult from an islamic point of view … if that is what you mean by my condoning him then i am guilty as charged.
Asif mian -- you DO stand “guilty as charged” -- of crassness and bigotry -- calling the Hindu interactors on Chowk -- Kaafirs. You ARE deluded to think that YOU have the MONOPOLY on “ islamic point of view” – YOU DO NOT.
On the other hand -- if, as a “GOOD MUSLIM” -- you are trying to collect some RAIN-CHECKS from God -- through Tableegh of this “islamic point of view” -- in order for you to build let`s say -- a free mansion in JUNNUT -- with houris and ghilmans as free slaves, serving you plenty of free wine – then why don’t you take your “Islamic preaching” -- on the SUNNI.ORG – where you can get far more dividends for far less effort of yours.
What a Zahid like you doing in a Tavern like Chowk – you should be among the Believers.
You write to tahmed:
“urstruly said something offensive to hindus and i missed it; but if he calls them ``kaafirs`` then that, as far as i am considered, is not an insult from an islamic point of view … if that is what you mean by my condoning him then i am guilty as charged.
Asif mian -- you DO stand “guilty as charged” -- of crassness and bigotry -- calling the Hindu interactors on Chowk -- Kaafirs. You ARE deluded to think that YOU have the MONOPOLY on “ islamic point of view” – YOU DO NOT.
On the other hand -- if, as a “GOOD MUSLIM” -- you are trying to collect some RAIN-CHECKS from God -- through Tableegh of this “islamic point of view” -- in order for you to build let`s say -- a free mansion in JUNNUT -- with houris and ghilmans as free slaves, serving you plenty of free wine – then why don’t you take your “Islamic preaching” -- on the SUNNI.ORG – where you can get far more dividends for far less effort of yours.
What a Zahid like you doing in a Tavern like Chowk – you should be among the Believers.
#347 Posted by sattar2 on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
Speaking of “Moderate Muslim” … I am engaged in a debate regarding Blasphemy Laws with Naqshbandi Sahib on another board (India’s Communal Gamble, under Civic Center). Naqshbandi Sahib insists on being an “open-minded Muslim who is free from hatred”, but does not hesitate to condemn to death those who blaspheme against Quran and Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).
If this is a “moderate” Muslim, then Islam may as well be a cult of devil worshippers.
I have pointed out the verses of Quran that ask believers to merely sever social ties with those who blaspheme against signs of Allah, but Naqshbandi Sahib insists on deriving conclusions based on the works of scholars who concluded very differently. Quran tells us to “ignore and avoid” such people, whereas Naqshbandi Sahib wants to kill these people, in the name of Islam. Our dear Urstruly has equally idiotic ideas, the reasoning behind which can only be understood by a dumb-wit … like he himself, or his cousin Naqshbandi, or his illetrate doodh-waala.
Such “jahil” mullahs have distorted the face of Islam, and the fanatic element in the population continues to follow them. These animals have caused much bloodshed in the past, and continue to do so even today. As long as Muslims of the world are guided by such corrupt, “jahil” mullahs, they will remain in the bottom of the social order across the world.
Asad
If this is a “moderate” Muslim, then Islam may as well be a cult of devil worshippers.
I have pointed out the verses of Quran that ask believers to merely sever social ties with those who blaspheme against signs of Allah, but Naqshbandi Sahib insists on deriving conclusions based on the works of scholars who concluded very differently. Quran tells us to “ignore and avoid” such people, whereas Naqshbandi Sahib wants to kill these people, in the name of Islam. Our dear Urstruly has equally idiotic ideas, the reasoning behind which can only be understood by a dumb-wit … like he himself, or his cousin Naqshbandi, or his illetrate doodh-waala.
Such “jahil” mullahs have distorted the face of Islam, and the fanatic element in the population continues to follow them. These animals have caused much bloodshed in the past, and continue to do so even today. As long as Muslims of the world are guided by such corrupt, “jahil” mullahs, they will remain in the bottom of the social order across the world.
Asad
#345 Posted by hamzadafaqui on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
A muslim is a muslim.There is no such a thing as a moderate or immoderate muslim.Just as there is no such a thing as a patriotic & kinda-patriotic American or a fundamentalist scientist and jumpingjack scientist.
______________
Sunday Telegraph
May 28, 1995
HEADLINE: Why I chose Islam, by bride Jemima Goldsmith
---------
When Jemima Goldsmith, the 21-year-old daughter of billionaire Sir James, married Imran Khan she embraced not only the world`s most handsome sportsman but also the Muslim faith, taking the name Haiqa. Here, in an exclusive account, she tells how she journeyed from the glamorous society of London to the austere religion of Lahore
By Jemima Goldsmith
THE media present me as a naive, besotted 21-year-old who has made a hasty decision without really considering the consequences - thus effectively condemning herself to a life of interminable subservience, misery and isolation. Although I must confess I have rather enjoyed the various depictions of a veiled and miserable ``Haiqa Khan`` incarcerated in chains, the reality is somewhat different. Contrary to current opinion, my decision to convert to Islam was entirely my own choice and in no way hurried. Whilst the act of conversion itself is surprisingly quick - entailing the simple assertion that ``there is only one God and Mohammed is His Prophet`` - the preparation is not necessarily so speedy a process. In my case, this began last July, whilst the actual conversion took place in early February - three months before the Nikkah in Paris.
During that time, I studied in depth both the Quran and the works of various Islamic scholars (Gai Eaton, the Bosnian president Alia Izetbegovic, Muhammad Asad) , thus giving me ample time to reflect before making my decision. What began as intellectual curiosity slowly ripened into a dawning realisation of the universal and eternal truth that is Islam. In the statement given out a week ago, I particularly stressed that I had converted to Islam entirely ``through my own convictions``. The significance of this has been largely ignored by the press. The point is that my conversion was not, as so many have assumed, a pre-requisite to my marriage. It was entirely my own choice. Religiously speaking, there was absolutely no compulsion for me to convert prior to my marriage. As it explicitly states in the Quran, a Muslim is permitted to marry from ``the People of the Book`` - in other words, either a Christian or a Jew. Indeed, the Sunnah - which describes the life of the Prophet - shows that the messenger of Islam himself married both a Christian and a Jew during his lifetime.
I believe that much of this hostility towards my marriage and conversion stems from widespread misconceptions about an alien culture and religion. Not only is there a huge gulf between the Western view of Islam and the reality, but there is in some cases also a significant distinction between Islam based directly on the Quran and the Sunnah and that practised by some Islamic societies. During the last year I have had the opportunity to visit Pakistan on three separate occasions and have observed Islamic family life in practice. Thus, to some extent I now feel qualified to judge for myself the true role and position of women in the religion. At the risk of sounding defensive, I would like to point out that Islam is not a religion which subjugates women whilst elevating men to the status of mini-dictators in their own homes.
I was able to see this first-hand when I met Imran`s sisters in Lahore: they are all highly educated professional women. His oldest sister, Robina, is an alumnus of the LSE and holds a senior position in the United Nations in New York. Another sister, Aleema, has a master`s degree in business administration and runs a successful business; Uzma is a highly qualified surgeon working in a Lahore hospital, whilst Rani is a university graduate who co-ordinates charity work. They can hardly be seen as ``women in chains`` dominated by tyrannical husbands. On the contrary, they are strong-minded independent women - yet at the same time they remain deeply committed both to their families and their religion. Thus, I was able to see - in theory and in practice - how Islam promotes the essential notion of the family unit without subjugating its female members.
I am nevertheless fully aware that women are sometimes exploited and oppressed in Islamic societies, as in other parts of the world. Judging by some of the articles which have appeared in the press, it would seem that a Western woman`s happiness hinges largely upon her access to nightclubs, alcohol and revealing clothes; and the absence of such apparent freedom and luxuries in Islamic societies is seen as an infringement of her basic rights. However, as we all know, such superficialities have very little to do with true happiness. Besides, without in any way wishing to disparage the culture of the Western world, into which I was born, I am more than willing to forego the transient pleasures derived from alcohol and nightclubs; and as for the clothes I will be wearing, I find the traditional shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) worn by most Pakistani women far more elegant and feminine than anything in my wardrobe.
Finally, it seems futile to speculate on my chances of marital success. Marriage, as Imran`s father has been quoted as saying, is indeed ``a gamble``. However, when I see that in a society based on family life the divorce rate is just a fraction of that in European or American society, I cannot see that my chances of success are any less than if I had chosen to marry a Westerner. I am all too aware of the enormous task of adapting to a new and radically different culture. But with the love of my husband and the support of his family I look forward to the challenge wholeheartedly, and would like to feel that people wish me well. Whilst I do appreciate the genuine concerns of many, I must confess to feeling somewhat bewildered by all of the commotion.
______________
Sunday Telegraph
May 28, 1995
HEADLINE: Why I chose Islam, by bride Jemima Goldsmith
---------
When Jemima Goldsmith, the 21-year-old daughter of billionaire Sir James, married Imran Khan she embraced not only the world`s most handsome sportsman but also the Muslim faith, taking the name Haiqa. Here, in an exclusive account, she tells how she journeyed from the glamorous society of London to the austere religion of Lahore
By Jemima Goldsmith
THE media present me as a naive, besotted 21-year-old who has made a hasty decision without really considering the consequences - thus effectively condemning herself to a life of interminable subservience, misery and isolation. Although I must confess I have rather enjoyed the various depictions of a veiled and miserable ``Haiqa Khan`` incarcerated in chains, the reality is somewhat different. Contrary to current opinion, my decision to convert to Islam was entirely my own choice and in no way hurried. Whilst the act of conversion itself is surprisingly quick - entailing the simple assertion that ``there is only one God and Mohammed is His Prophet`` - the preparation is not necessarily so speedy a process. In my case, this began last July, whilst the actual conversion took place in early February - three months before the Nikkah in Paris.
During that time, I studied in depth both the Quran and the works of various Islamic scholars (Gai Eaton, the Bosnian president Alia Izetbegovic, Muhammad Asad) , thus giving me ample time to reflect before making my decision. What began as intellectual curiosity slowly ripened into a dawning realisation of the universal and eternal truth that is Islam. In the statement given out a week ago, I particularly stressed that I had converted to Islam entirely ``through my own convictions``. The significance of this has been largely ignored by the press. The point is that my conversion was not, as so many have assumed, a pre-requisite to my marriage. It was entirely my own choice. Religiously speaking, there was absolutely no compulsion for me to convert prior to my marriage. As it explicitly states in the Quran, a Muslim is permitted to marry from ``the People of the Book`` - in other words, either a Christian or a Jew. Indeed, the Sunnah - which describes the life of the Prophet - shows that the messenger of Islam himself married both a Christian and a Jew during his lifetime.
I believe that much of this hostility towards my marriage and conversion stems from widespread misconceptions about an alien culture and religion. Not only is there a huge gulf between the Western view of Islam and the reality, but there is in some cases also a significant distinction between Islam based directly on the Quran and the Sunnah and that practised by some Islamic societies. During the last year I have had the opportunity to visit Pakistan on three separate occasions and have observed Islamic family life in practice. Thus, to some extent I now feel qualified to judge for myself the true role and position of women in the religion. At the risk of sounding defensive, I would like to point out that Islam is not a religion which subjugates women whilst elevating men to the status of mini-dictators in their own homes.
I was able to see this first-hand when I met Imran`s sisters in Lahore: they are all highly educated professional women. His oldest sister, Robina, is an alumnus of the LSE and holds a senior position in the United Nations in New York. Another sister, Aleema, has a master`s degree in business administration and runs a successful business; Uzma is a highly qualified surgeon working in a Lahore hospital, whilst Rani is a university graduate who co-ordinates charity work. They can hardly be seen as ``women in chains`` dominated by tyrannical husbands. On the contrary, they are strong-minded independent women - yet at the same time they remain deeply committed both to their families and their religion. Thus, I was able to see - in theory and in practice - how Islam promotes the essential notion of the family unit without subjugating its female members.
I am nevertheless fully aware that women are sometimes exploited and oppressed in Islamic societies, as in other parts of the world. Judging by some of the articles which have appeared in the press, it would seem that a Western woman`s happiness hinges largely upon her access to nightclubs, alcohol and revealing clothes; and the absence of such apparent freedom and luxuries in Islamic societies is seen as an infringement of her basic rights. However, as we all know, such superficialities have very little to do with true happiness. Besides, without in any way wishing to disparage the culture of the Western world, into which I was born, I am more than willing to forego the transient pleasures derived from alcohol and nightclubs; and as for the clothes I will be wearing, I find the traditional shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) worn by most Pakistani women far more elegant and feminine than anything in my wardrobe.
Finally, it seems futile to speculate on my chances of marital success. Marriage, as Imran`s father has been quoted as saying, is indeed ``a gamble``. However, when I see that in a society based on family life the divorce rate is just a fraction of that in European or American society, I cannot see that my chances of success are any less than if I had chosen to marry a Westerner. I am all too aware of the enormous task of adapting to a new and radically different culture. But with the love of my husband and the support of his family I look forward to the challenge wholeheartedly, and would like to feel that people wish me well. Whilst I do appreciate the genuine concerns of many, I must confess to feeling somewhat bewildered by all of the commotion.
#344 Posted by Eklavya on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
re: shankar # 348
``I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.``
I hope my Pakistani friends will excuse me, but that is no great commendation. For some Goddamn reason, Pakistan just hasn`t produced leaders of any worth. It surely isn`t the nature of Pakisani people holding them back: anNy and tahmed together will make better leaders than any we have had in India.
But, Shankar, I wouldn`t go overboard with Musharraf yet. He does have my support for the moment. The more important question is: Will he prove to be the kind of leader who can help Pakistan after this crisis abates a little.
For that to happen, he has to demonstrate that he has some genuine long-term vision and the guts to fight for that vision, INDEPENDENT of the current crisis and INDEPENDENT of international compulsions. In managerial terminology, he has to bring about what the nation desperately needs - a bout of internally generated ``second loop learning.`` If he doesn`t do that, we will be worshipping another god with feet of clay.
So let us be enthusiastic about him, but let us also temper our enthusiasm with a healthy dose of cynicism. That way we will be better judge of men and matters.
Regards.
``I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.``
I hope my Pakistani friends will excuse me, but that is no great commendation. For some Goddamn reason, Pakistan just hasn`t produced leaders of any worth. It surely isn`t the nature of Pakisani people holding them back: anNy and tahmed together will make better leaders than any we have had in India.
But, Shankar, I wouldn`t go overboard with Musharraf yet. He does have my support for the moment. The more important question is: Will he prove to be the kind of leader who can help Pakistan after this crisis abates a little.
For that to happen, he has to demonstrate that he has some genuine long-term vision and the guts to fight for that vision, INDEPENDENT of the current crisis and INDEPENDENT of international compulsions. In managerial terminology, he has to bring about what the nation desperately needs - a bout of internally generated ``second loop learning.`` If he doesn`t do that, we will be worshipping another god with feet of clay.
So let us be enthusiastic about him, but let us also temper our enthusiasm with a healthy dose of cynicism. That way we will be better judge of men and matters.
Regards.
#343 Posted by Eklavya on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
Pyar,
Let me turn the question around. What do you or I do to help the ``moderate`` Muslims you are looking for? Or, more appropriately, what do we do to help ``moderate`` anything, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh?
Pyar, the pull of extremism is very strong (believe me, being a hot-blooded man, I have been there). It becomes even stronger among the young. If you notice, almost all the bombings, murders are carried out by people under 30. If the broader ideological framework condones violence under any pretext, things easily get pathologically out of hand. One type of extremism feeds on another kind. The answer may lie in a simultaneous drive to root out extremism everywhere.
Let me turn the question around. What do you or I do to help the ``moderate`` Muslims you are looking for? Or, more appropriately, what do we do to help ``moderate`` anything, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh?
Pyar, the pull of extremism is very strong (believe me, being a hot-blooded man, I have been there). It becomes even stronger among the young. If you notice, almost all the bombings, murders are carried out by people under 30. If the broader ideological framework condones violence under any pretext, things easily get pathologically out of hand. One type of extremism feeds on another kind. The answer may lie in a simultaneous drive to root out extremism everywhere.
#342 Posted by Eklavya on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
nasah # 354
My dear friend, you made me hang my head in shame for even sharing my religion with such people as these. Your father`s story reinforces my belief: The harder these forces of darkness push, the harder we have to push them back.
There is no sitting on the fence so far as forces of religious bigotry are concerned. You are either against them or for them. Those who deny this fact are living in a world of dreams.
My dear friend, you made me hang my head in shame for even sharing my religion with such people as these. Your father`s story reinforces my belief: The harder these forces of darkness push, the harder we have to push them back.
There is no sitting on the fence so far as forces of religious bigotry are concerned. You are either against them or for them. Those who deny this fact are living in a world of dreams.
#341 Posted by arjun_m on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#340 Posted by Truth on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
Farzana:
You are the one who made the original reference to the ``informal chat`` and drew some rather absurd conclusions about Rafiq Zakaria - conclusions that are hard for a reader to follow from the facts you presented. The issue is not Rafiq Zakaria, but your own powers of logical discourse. I`m happy to drop the topic but you have raised a new one - that Rafiq Zakaria was in favor of Muslims paying jaziya. Please provide us some evidence to back that accusation. I will wait for your response before I comment further.
You are the one who made the original reference to the ``informal chat`` and drew some rather absurd conclusions about Rafiq Zakaria - conclusions that are hard for a reader to follow from the facts you presented. The issue is not Rafiq Zakaria, but your own powers of logical discourse. I`m happy to drop the topic but you have raised a new one - that Rafiq Zakaria was in favor of Muslims paying jaziya. Please provide us some evidence to back that accusation. I will wait for your response before I comment further.
#339 Posted by hamzadafaqui on November 4, 2001 7:01:55 pm
Maybe there IS hope after-all.Is ignorance of the Western mind receding?Is there a silver-lining behind the rubble-cloud?
Let us keep hoping & praying
Fundamentalism, as such a phenomenon, is deemed incomprehensible to many. Many Americans were and are taught to equate theocracy with medievalism and medievalism with backwardness and intolerance. Fundamentalist or so-called Islamic movements are, by definition, according to classical western historians, backward-looking. And to many people - especially Americans - the idea of history moving backwards is irrational. It is as if after being kissed, Sleeping Beauty rolled over and closed her eyes again. People, once exposed to new ideas, are supposed to discard old ways of thinking. Classical scholarship, steeped in ideas of western superiority and ``progress`` and influenced by social Darwinism, was unable to account for modern movements advocating an Islamic resurgence. Faced with the problem of having to explain the refusal of Islamic societies to consign Islam to the political sidelines, as was done with Christianity in Europe, some have clung more to the old historiography and sought answers there. The fundamentalists, we are told, wish to return to the glory of Harun al Rashid.
But fundamentalism makes more sense with regard to the 19th and 20th centuries than to the 9th or 10th centuries. Classical Western scholarship of the Middle East treats the period of Western imperialism as one which, on balance, was beneficial to the development of those societies.
According to this tradition the Middle East was in a period of such deep stagnation that it required a rude awakening to move it toward the future. We have no way of knowing what course their history would have taken had European powers not politically dominated the Middle East in the 19th century.
However, we do history a disservice by ignoring the ugly truths of the era. Never mind the elegant colonial lifestyle portrayed ad nauseam in movies and miniseries. History tells us that the imperial powers forced their way into these countries and ran the political systems and economies to their own advantage. They murdered or exiled opposition leaders and limited educational opportunities. Finally, they denigrated the religion and culture and placed foreigners and foreign interests in a separate legal universe, which made them unanswerable to local authority in personal matters and in business affairs. It`s worth remembering that, while we preach democracy and secularism to these countries, most of these ``foreigners`` were natives of the country who were removed from the legal authority of the local power by the European imperial powers because they were non-Muslims. Not to mention that all major European powers claimed to be protecting religious minorities, thus reinforcing the concept of non-secular citizenship.
As we seek to use history in our understanding of the region we might consider that the Western rather than the Arab imperial past has been the major influence on fundamentalists as they fight their political-cultural war. And there is no hiding that the United States is tainted by that legacy in the eyes of many in the Middle East. Indeed, what is seen as a change in world leadership from colonialist Europeans to democratic Americans, others may see as continuity under a different flag. For example:
The replacement of the centuries old British-Russian rivalry in the Middle East and elsewhere with the U.S.-Soviet rivalry.
The accumulated debts of the mid- to late-19th century, in particular, of Middle Eastern rulers owed to European banks compared with the tremendous debts now owed to the United States and institutions where the United States is prominent.
Bickering between Americans and Europeans over contracts in Kuwait following the Gulf War, which bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the centuries-old conflict among Europeans over capitulations in the Ottoman empire with which they also had a protective relationship.
The merits of these comparisons are less important than that past events appearing to have contemporary parallels influence the perception of the United States in the area. There is no question that all Arab countries harbor some form of anti-Americanism. In many cases it is officially sanctioned - even by governments friendly to the United States - to preserve governments from unflattering comparisons with the vulnerability of their 19th-century predecessors. In that sense, America`s strength is also its weakness, for if the United States was a lesser power, governments would be less anxious about whether cordiality will be interpreted by political enemies as a display of weakness. A corollary to this somewhat defensive attitude is the admiration in the Middle East for stridently anti-American leaders. The idea is that, however oppressive they are, such leaders represent the desire to ``stand up to the United States.`` A desire intensified, in their eyes, by American support for Israel over the years. One of America`s diplomatic difficulties is cutting through this perception. Only bullies need to be ``stood up to`` and Americans do not see their country as a bully. Moreover, U.S. policy of helping to spread democracy has overall made little impact in the Middle East. It is a source of frustration that Islamists continue to gain ground.
Although skirmishes continue to occur, Islam - though not fundamentalism - has a respected place in Western scholarship. Interest in Islamic legal opinions and court decisions is spreading rapidly and solidifying the argument of scholars who claim that the Middle East was developing fine, even without the West. Documents, such as court records dating from the period before Western penetration, show that women had control over economic resources, engaged in business relationships and created client networks just like the men did. Recent works also indicate that Jews and Christians had business partnerships with Muslims. Such research supports the view that Islam was, as a system, flexible, rather than inflexible.
It is certainly important for the United States to have friends in the Middle East, but is it really useful for U.S. diplomats to engage in hand-wringing over how to influence those cultures to their advantage? The United States is neither the demon nor the bully that it has been made out to be in many Arab countries, but, on the other hand, the attitude of some Middle East diplomats and historians is not one of total respect for Middle Eastern societies. All too often, so-called ``experts`` try to dictate to Muslims what their religion really requires in obligations and duties. As an example, in writings against fundamentalism, Arabs generally come in for the greater share of censure, in part because many detractors of Islam write off the Shi`a sect as an aberration or just a minority in Islam. But historians are beginning to question the usefulness of the rigid Sunni-Shi`a division, given the number of the societies in which both were present. The same is true for the four main schools of law. The desire to control and define Arabic culture is part of Arabs` residual superiority complex inherited from the era of imperialism, which impairs America`s ability to sift information properly and to treat people with respect.
Americans must also seriously ask themselves if the frustration in the United States over Islamic movements does not in part stem from anxiety over the increasing visibility of Muslims in Western countries. Overseas the United States preaches secularism and encourages others to place religion in the private not public sphere - but in the United States, Christian groups challenge the notion of separation of church and state. Certainly secularism is not everyone`s creed in America. One of the ambassadors I worked for held official prayer breakfasts. His wife began a ``Jump for Jesus`` aerobics class at the residence that she advertised on the embassy bulletin board. I was stunned, but someone explained, ``don`t think of it in terms of church and state, think of it as American.`` And she was right, of course.
Official U.S. culture, like the official cultures of many countries, is often at odds with ``the people,`` and in many societies, including America, the popular culture is becoming more and more official. As the new Middle East history shows us, religion is an important part of culture and the strength of culture is that it is constantly changing, even though fundamentalists seek to support their position by calling upon ``tradition.`` This is a fascinating and complicated process which is at the moment overturning once obvious truths about the meaning of progress and modernization.
The complexity of issues involving tradition vs. modernization was recently demonstrated in France, where three Muslim girls were expelled from school for refusing to remove their scarves, which were banned in school because they were considered religious symbols. There was a television discussion with one of the expelled girls, another Muslim immigrant girl who had renounced the scarf, and a Frenchwoman married to a Muslim, who now wore a scarf. The scarfless immigrant girl, after listening to much praise by the host and other French panelists for her ``courage,`` admitted that she stopped wearing the scarf because none of her French classmates would speak to her. The Muslim husband of the French Muslim woman tried to talk but could not get a word as his wife argued for traditional values in Islam, including the woman remaining in ``her place.`` The girl who had refused to remove her scarf was asked what she wanted to do with her life. With great dignity, she replied that she had plans to become a doctor and that she had the full support of her father. No one bothered to ask the other girl her plans, perhaps because she was wearing jeans and a T-shirt and so clearly was ``modern.``
If Americans can learn to stop trying to explain other people to themselves, to stop telling others how to practice their religion and to divest ourselves of 19th-century ideas about what is ``modern`` and what is ``backward,`` they might alter their image abroad of being a cultural bully. Better yet, Americans might begin to better understand what is happening in these countries. A rereading of Middle East history can help Americans stop putting people in categories that mean nothing to them.
At the very end of the French television discussion, the father who had insisted his daughter wear her scarf to school finally spoke up. He looked entirely bewildered by the proceedings and said in a pleading voice, ``Everyone keeps calling me a fundamentalist but I don`t belong to any political group. I`m just trying to raise my daughter. Why does everyone keep calling me a fundamentalist?`` Why, indeed?
Carol Madison Graham is a former FSO who left the Foreign Service in 1988 after eight years at the U.S. Information Agency. She served in Tunis, Beirut, Paris and Abu Dhabi. She now lives in London, where she is a doctoral student in Mideast history and a professor of Mideast politics at Richmond College.
Let us keep hoping & praying
Fundamentalism, as such a phenomenon, is deemed incomprehensible to many. Many Americans were and are taught to equate theocracy with medievalism and medievalism with backwardness and intolerance. Fundamentalist or so-called Islamic movements are, by definition, according to classical western historians, backward-looking. And to many people - especially Americans - the idea of history moving backwards is irrational. It is as if after being kissed, Sleeping Beauty rolled over and closed her eyes again. People, once exposed to new ideas, are supposed to discard old ways of thinking. Classical scholarship, steeped in ideas of western superiority and ``progress`` and influenced by social Darwinism, was unable to account for modern movements advocating an Islamic resurgence. Faced with the problem of having to explain the refusal of Islamic societies to consign Islam to the political sidelines, as was done with Christianity in Europe, some have clung more to the old historiography and sought answers there. The fundamentalists, we are told, wish to return to the glory of Harun al Rashid.
But fundamentalism makes more sense with regard to the 19th and 20th centuries than to the 9th or 10th centuries. Classical Western scholarship of the Middle East treats the period of Western imperialism as one which, on balance, was beneficial to the development of those societies.
According to this tradition the Middle East was in a period of such deep stagnation that it required a rude awakening to move it toward the future. We have no way of knowing what course their history would have taken had European powers not politically dominated the Middle East in the 19th century.
However, we do history a disservice by ignoring the ugly truths of the era. Never mind the elegant colonial lifestyle portrayed ad nauseam in movies and miniseries. History tells us that the imperial powers forced their way into these countries and ran the political systems and economies to their own advantage. They murdered or exiled opposition leaders and limited educational opportunities. Finally, they denigrated the religion and culture and placed foreigners and foreign interests in a separate legal universe, which made them unanswerable to local authority in personal matters and in business affairs. It`s worth remembering that, while we preach democracy and secularism to these countries, most of these ``foreigners`` were natives of the country who were removed from the legal authority of the local power by the European imperial powers because they were non-Muslims. Not to mention that all major European powers claimed to be protecting religious minorities, thus reinforcing the concept of non-secular citizenship.
As we seek to use history in our understanding of the region we might consider that the Western rather than the Arab imperial past has been the major influence on fundamentalists as they fight their political-cultural war. And there is no hiding that the United States is tainted by that legacy in the eyes of many in the Middle East. Indeed, what is seen as a change in world leadership from colonialist Europeans to democratic Americans, others may see as continuity under a different flag. For example:
The replacement of the centuries old British-Russian rivalry in the Middle East and elsewhere with the U.S.-Soviet rivalry.
The accumulated debts of the mid- to late-19th century, in particular, of Middle Eastern rulers owed to European banks compared with the tremendous debts now owed to the United States and institutions where the United States is prominent.
Bickering between Americans and Europeans over contracts in Kuwait following the Gulf War, which bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the centuries-old conflict among Europeans over capitulations in the Ottoman empire with which they also had a protective relationship.
The merits of these comparisons are less important than that past events appearing to have contemporary parallels influence the perception of the United States in the area. There is no question that all Arab countries harbor some form of anti-Americanism. In many cases it is officially sanctioned - even by governments friendly to the United States - to preserve governments from unflattering comparisons with the vulnerability of their 19th-century predecessors. In that sense, America`s strength is also its weakness, for if the United States was a lesser power, governments would be less anxious about whether cordiality will be interpreted by political enemies as a display of weakness. A corollary to this somewhat defensive attitude is the admiration in the Middle East for stridently anti-American leaders. The idea is that, however oppressive they are, such leaders represent the desire to ``stand up to the United States.`` A desire intensified, in their eyes, by American support for Israel over the years. One of America`s diplomatic difficulties is cutting through this perception. Only bullies need to be ``stood up to`` and Americans do not see their country as a bully. Moreover, U.S. policy of helping to spread democracy has overall made little impact in the Middle East. It is a source of frustration that Islamists continue to gain ground.
Although skirmishes continue to occur, Islam - though not fundamentalism - has a respected place in Western scholarship. Interest in Islamic legal opinions and court decisions is spreading rapidly and solidifying the argument of scholars who claim that the Middle East was developing fine, even without the West. Documents, such as court records dating from the period before Western penetration, show that women had control over economic resources, engaged in business relationships and created client networks just like the men did. Recent works also indicate that Jews and Christians had business partnerships with Muslims. Such research supports the view that Islam was, as a system, flexible, rather than inflexible.
It is certainly important for the United States to have friends in the Middle East, but is it really useful for U.S. diplomats to engage in hand-wringing over how to influence those cultures to their advantage? The United States is neither the demon nor the bully that it has been made out to be in many Arab countries, but, on the other hand, the attitude of some Middle East diplomats and historians is not one of total respect for Middle Eastern societies. All too often, so-called ``experts`` try to dictate to Muslims what their religion really requires in obligations and duties. As an example, in writings against fundamentalism, Arabs generally come in for the greater share of censure, in part because many detractors of Islam write off the Shi`a sect as an aberration or just a minority in Islam. But historians are beginning to question the usefulness of the rigid Sunni-Shi`a division, given the number of the societies in which both were present. The same is true for the four main schools of law. The desire to control and define Arabic culture is part of Arabs` residual superiority complex inherited from the era of imperialism, which impairs America`s ability to sift information properly and to treat people with respect.
Americans must also seriously ask themselves if the frustration in the United States over Islamic movements does not in part stem from anxiety over the increasing visibility of Muslims in Western countries. Overseas the United States preaches secularism and encourages others to place religion in the private not public sphere - but in the United States, Christian groups challenge the notion of separation of church and state. Certainly secularism is not everyone`s creed in America. One of the ambassadors I worked for held official prayer breakfasts. His wife began a ``Jump for Jesus`` aerobics class at the residence that she advertised on the embassy bulletin board. I was stunned, but someone explained, ``don`t think of it in terms of church and state, think of it as American.`` And she was right, of course.
Official U.S. culture, like the official cultures of many countries, is often at odds with ``the people,`` and in many societies, including America, the popular culture is becoming more and more official. As the new Middle East history shows us, religion is an important part of culture and the strength of culture is that it is constantly changing, even though fundamentalists seek to support their position by calling upon ``tradition.`` This is a fascinating and complicated process which is at the moment overturning once obvious truths about the meaning of progress and modernization.
The complexity of issues involving tradition vs. modernization was recently demonstrated in France, where three Muslim girls were expelled from school for refusing to remove their scarves, which were banned in school because they were considered religious symbols. There was a television discussion with one of the expelled girls, another Muslim immigrant girl who had renounced the scarf, and a Frenchwoman married to a Muslim, who now wore a scarf. The scarfless immigrant girl, after listening to much praise by the host and other French panelists for her ``courage,`` admitted that she stopped wearing the scarf because none of her French classmates would speak to her. The Muslim husband of the French Muslim woman tried to talk but could not get a word as his wife argued for traditional values in Islam, including the woman remaining in ``her place.`` The girl who had refused to remove her scarf was asked what she wanted to do with her life. With great dignity, she replied that she had plans to become a doctor and that she had the full support of her father. No one bothered to ask the other girl her plans, perhaps because she was wearing jeans and a T-shirt and so clearly was ``modern.``
If Americans can learn to stop trying to explain other people to themselves, to stop telling others how to practice their religion and to divest ourselves of 19th-century ideas about what is ``modern`` and what is ``backward,`` they might alter their image abroad of being a cultural bully. Better yet, Americans might begin to better understand what is happening in these countries. A rereading of Middle East history can help Americans stop putting people in categories that mean nothing to them.
At the very end of the French television discussion, the father who had insisted his daughter wear her scarf to school finally spoke up. He looked entirely bewildered by the proceedings and said in a pleading voice, ``Everyone keeps calling me a fundamentalist but I don`t belong to any political group. I`m just trying to raise my daughter. Why does everyone keep calling me a fundamentalist?`` Why, indeed?
Carol Madison Graham is a former FSO who left the Foreign Service in 1988 after eight years at the U.S. Information Agency. She served in Tunis, Beirut, Paris and Abu Dhabi. She now lives in London, where she is a doctoral student in Mideast history and a professor of Mideast politics at Richmond College.
#338 Posted by nasah on November 4, 2001 2:17:57 pm
Dear Eklavya and Dost-mittar:
Ah these RSS scoundrels -- these ``CARION EATERS`` with jet balck caps on their heads and jet black hearts in their chests -- are today`s ``super-patriots`` it`s so FUNNY -- I remember those days -- when these vultures were sitting on the fence or picking on the Hindu-Muslim riot victims -- when my father -- a journalist -- was carrying out armed struggle with JP`s socialist wing -- against the British in 1942 -- he escaped hanging on a technicality thanks to an Indian magistrate`s judicial knit picking -- and was jailed for 4 years along with JP.
He came out of Jail in 1946 -- and became a Jama Masjid refugee in his own FREE country in 1947!!!
You two are very generous with these Indian brand of Talibani good-for-nothing mongrels.
hasan
Ah these RSS scoundrels -- these ``CARION EATERS`` with jet balck caps on their heads and jet black hearts in their chests -- are today`s ``super-patriots`` it`s so FUNNY -- I remember those days -- when these vultures were sitting on the fence or picking on the Hindu-Muslim riot victims -- when my father -- a journalist -- was carrying out armed struggle with JP`s socialist wing -- against the British in 1942 -- he escaped hanging on a technicality thanks to an Indian magistrate`s judicial knit picking -- and was jailed for 4 years along with JP.
He came out of Jail in 1946 -- and became a Jama Masjid refugee in his own FREE country in 1947!!!
You two are very generous with these Indian brand of Talibani good-for-nothing mongrels.
hasan
#337 Posted by Eklavya on November 4, 2001 2:17:57 pm
re: Dost-Mittar # 350
Dost, I am glad these nitwits don`t have a better dress sense. If they did, imagine the horror: they might have a greater appeal for the sheep that passes for much of our humanity.
RSS distorts the traditional Hindu approach to Sikhism. Most Hindus have a deep reverence for Sikh Gurus. Like many of my Hindu friends, I too have gone to Gurudwaras for ``Maatha Tekne.`` Despite these close bonds, few Hindus would deny Sikhs their separate identity. By their behavior, RSS zealots threaten what has turned out to, for the most, a beautiful co-existence between Hindus and Sikhs, extremists on both sides and the eternally shameful Delhi riots notwithstanding.
One more point about those riots. I used to get mad that someone like Dawood Ibrahim lives a life of utter luxury and power in Karachi under the protection of ISI. But then I had no face to hold onto that anger when someone on Chowk reminded us how we have the vermin that instigated Delhi riots roaming free in India. How can we blame others when we ourselves don`t do what we expect others to do?
Do you know the legal status of some of those riot cases? Specially cases against some Congress bigwigs?
Dost, I am glad these nitwits don`t have a better dress sense. If they did, imagine the horror: they might have a greater appeal for the sheep that passes for much of our humanity.
RSS distorts the traditional Hindu approach to Sikhism. Most Hindus have a deep reverence for Sikh Gurus. Like many of my Hindu friends, I too have gone to Gurudwaras for ``Maatha Tekne.`` Despite these close bonds, few Hindus would deny Sikhs their separate identity. By their behavior, RSS zealots threaten what has turned out to, for the most, a beautiful co-existence between Hindus and Sikhs, extremists on both sides and the eternally shameful Delhi riots notwithstanding.
One more point about those riots. I used to get mad that someone like Dawood Ibrahim lives a life of utter luxury and power in Karachi under the protection of ISI. But then I had no face to hold onto that anger when someone on Chowk reminded us how we have the vermin that instigated Delhi riots roaming free in India. How can we blame others when we ourselves don`t do what we expect others to do?
Do you know the legal status of some of those riot cases? Specially cases against some Congress bigwigs?
#333 Posted by Naqshbandi on November 4, 2001 10:20:25 am
330 tahmed321,
i admit i do not follow every thread on chowk so perhaps urstruly said something offensive to hindus and i missed it; but if he calls them ``kaafirs`` then that, as far as i am considered, is not an insult from an islamic point of view because all those who reject belief in Allah AND His Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the basic tenets of Islam (the ``zaruriyat-e-deen``) are kaafirs [`those who reject`/infidels/non-believers].
if that is what you mean by my condoning him then i am guilty as charged but if it is something else he said then i admit i may be wrong.
:-)
i admit i do not follow every thread on chowk so perhaps urstruly said something offensive to hindus and i missed it; but if he calls them ``kaafirs`` then that, as far as i am considered, is not an insult from an islamic point of view because all those who reject belief in Allah AND His Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the basic tenets of Islam (the ``zaruriyat-e-deen``) are kaafirs [`those who reject`/infidels/non-believers].
if that is what you mean by my condoning him then i am guilty as charged but if it is something else he said then i admit i may be wrong.
:-)
#332 Posted by shankar on November 4, 2001 10:20:25 am
anNy, Tahmed,
#345
Its because of people like you (& many others on Chowk) I believe that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are not fanatical ogres.
I`ve also changed my opinion about Mushy. I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.
#345
Its because of people like you (& many others on Chowk) I believe that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are not fanatical ogres.
I`ve also changed my opinion about Mushy. I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- guru: Given this fact about... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- guru: MJ Akbar, a sekularist... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- zeemax: #5 Posted by RiazHaq, Nawaz... NRO Is Just a
- Goldfinger: Re: # 28 harish...unfortunately you're... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Goldfinger: Re: # 27 SPY...known Indian... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- pavocavalry: A final round has... NRO Is Just a
- adnanmanzoor: Re: # 5 I think... Morality of Lawyers' Movement
- MatloobZaman: Skeptical just read the... NRO Is Just a
