Sharjeel's profile~ * ~ * ~ * ~ The Libret...PhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
|
7/21/2007 Why can't I simply be an Indian Muslim??This writeup has been written by Fidel Khan, a friend of mine, and I take the pleasure in reproducing it here on my blog. The writeup beautifully captures the latest, hot and contentious, and one of the most frenzied topics of political discussion recently - that of the two brothers and one cousin enamored in the infamous Glasgow episode. Kafeel Ahmed was apparently driving the vehicle that rammed into the Glasgow airport. His brother Sabeel Ahmed was accused of concealing/withholding information regarding the attack. The worst hit seems to be the Australia-based doctor Mohammed Haneef - accused of owning the SIM card that was found with Sabeel Ahmed. Ironically, the investigating agencies in the UK have now found that this "impeached" SIM card was actually NOT found at the site. As a latest update, "the Australian media reported that the police have admitted the charges against Haneef were "incorrect"". [This information appears on MSN News at http://content.msn.co.in/News/National/NationalIANS_210707_1545.htm.]
As an aftereffect, the mass media got a really engaging story - Indian Muslims influenced by "Islamic radicalism" (read terrorism)??? This writeup questions the logic and rationale of the story. I am totally influenced and agree to the logic forwarded by the author here, and this is one reason why I am felicitous in reproducing it here.
- Arman
Last night I was watching a talk show on CNN-IBN, and the topic our "liberal and progressive" media had selected was Indian Muslims Gullibility for Global Terror Network blah blah…
No points for guessing that this latest frenzied topic raging in the country has erupted in the aftermath of Glasgow Airport bombing. Nothing that was being discussed was new. It was an all-to-familiar rhetoric of moderate vs. fanatic Islam, Muslims' sense of victim hood, lack of enlightened leadership for Indian Muslims, a version of Islam preaching hatred and terror, Islam needs reformation, Muslims need to change…
However, one thing which emerged new amidst the series of regular accusations and counter accusations was the media now flashing an essentially one-off incident involving and Indian Muslim as a sort of phenomenon. All right, the man who rammed the jeep into the Glasgow Airport was indeed an educated Indian Muslim from one of the most cosmopolitan cities of the country. But is this one incident enough to promulgate and debate the idea of how the "Indian Muslim youths are inclined and attracted towards the global terror network"? Should the media cry foul and try to establish something which essentially does'nt exist. How touchy!
Not many realize, but many Indian Muslims has an enterprising zest of finding more lucrative jobs and opportunity outside the country. The flourishing Diaspora of Indian Muslims can be found all across the Middle East, UK, USA, Canada, and Australia. But never before Glasgow was any Indian Muslim thought of as actively participating in the global terror network. However, it seems that just one incident is more than enough for our spirited media to paint a dubious picture of an eternal nexus between Indian Muslims and the global terror network. Should not the media exercise some more restrain and stop perpetuating malicious ideas? Is this one-off incident really enough to establish that educated Indian Muslims have fallen for and romanticize the likes of Al-Qaida? Is one Kafeel Ahmed from Bangalore enough to prove that Indian Muslims essentially does'nt have a mind?
Coming back to the talk show, there were all too familiar reactions from the audience as well. A skull-cap clad Muslim was enthusiastic enough to blame the West and especially the US for all the problems. A Hindu gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge that if Muslim start following the Quran in its true spirits, there will be peace all around.
I was, however, most pissed off not my the remarks of Sandhya Jain of The Pioneer (who was toeing the all to familiar line of Muslim introspection and reformation), or one Mr. Singh (someone from the Police who was candid enough to say that most of the terrorist activities carried out the world over are perpetuated by Muslims), or Mr. Asad Owaisi (MIM MP from Hyderabad who would just not answer the question of liberal vs. fanatic Islam) but from a lady in the audience.
This dacoit-style-veil (one which reveals only eyes) clad lady, for some reason, mentioned that Shahrukh Khan is not a true Muslim because he doesn't follow Islam. Now I am sure, we do need some reformation! Who are we judge who's Muslim and who's not? Why can't we leave that to Allah alone? Will anyone tell the lady that the way she's donning the veil is NOT prescribed by the Quran. In fact, the Quran doesn't even mandate a lady to cover her head (although doing it isn't a sin, either).
Finally, one of the panelist, a jeans clad actress Heeba Shah, was asked a very pathetic "Indian First or a Muslim First" question to which she gave a politically correct "Indian First" as an answer. I hate when anyone is asked such a stupid and frigging question. Why can't I simply be an "Indian Muslim"? My country's constitution gives me the liberty to follow Islam and be a Muslim, and my religion allows me to live in harmony within the fold of the Indian constitution. Isn't this as simple as that? Why should I be made to choose one before the other? My mother tongue is Urdu (or Bengali, Malayalam, Kutchi, or Tamil, etc) and NOT Arabic because I am an Indian Muslim. I eat kosher meat, generally avoid beef, and have never eaten camel meat because I am an "Indian Muslim". Though I am allowed, but would seldom take more than one wife, because I am an Indian Muslim. I have a relatively unique identity whose ingredients are both Islamic and Indian. Shouldn't this world and the great skeptics acknowledge this fact and knock out the nonsensical debate of Indian first of Muslim first! Fidel Khan 7/12/2006 After Rains, Mumbai BleedsThere is something peculiar about Mumbai; the showbiz city of India; well, some would still prefer to call it the Financial Capital or New York of India!!! Some days back, Mumbai was in news with rains flooding the city from one end to the other. Somehow, the city manages to be in the limelight always. However, yesterday’s event (catastrophe?! Tragedy?! Calamity?!) was certainly more astounding, abhorrent, detestable, sordid, heartbreaking … (?! no adjective or adverb would suffice enough) than anything else. Seven serial bomb blasts rocked the entire Western Railway local train route in a span of almost 15 minutes; and Mumbai was bleeding. However, as always, the Mumbaikars (as they proudly call themselves) once again demonstrated their featured and unparalleled unity and fraternity while facing the challenge. Hats off to the Mumbaikars; I feel proud too, I have been a Mumbaikar for almost three months!!
Who did it, and why, is a separate question, and I will try not to be politically correct in discussing it. Media instantly has some favorite first-hand names for lamenting the responsible for such acts of violence (should I add “as always”??), such as LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India). Whoever it be, I am not concerned; and I do not want to know. What I know is the intolerable and excruciating video clips of the tragedy that were being flashed on the various news channels; and what I wanted to know was the whereabouts and welfare of my friends in Mumbai. Amit should be fine, I knew, he never took a local to work; normally walked down or rented an auto. I called Shariq bhai, and the call was received by his wife, who asked me to pray for him in a shaky voice, as Shariq bhai had still not returned from office. Shariq bhai called back after half an hour and confirmed that he has reached home safely, after an ordeal of 5 hours. Slowly, thanks to Allah, I started getting the welfare news of all of my friends at Mumbai, but still had no news of Ahmad bhai; and his mobile was not reachable. It was almost 2.30 in the night when I got the welfare sms from Ahmad bhai and felt somewhat comfortable and at ease.
The emotional strain of the tragedy will probably take some time to recede, but violence is not always about emotions. Of course, politics has a lot to do about it at the backdrop. And when we talk of politics, can religion be far behind (specifically looking at the present unfolding)?? So, media says it is LeT and SIMI. The same old stuff: terrorism, religious extremism, fundamentalism, “Jihad,” holy war, Islam… For one thing, it cannot be Islam for sure. Quran says: “… if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” Al Quran:: Surah Al-Maidah:: Verse # 32. Whatever people say about instances in Quran regarding violence has some context, and cannot and should not be interpreted on standalone basis, stripped off the context. Doesn’t make sense?? I will quote Prof. Mohamed Elmasry, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Waterloo and national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress:
"You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." (7: 16)
"... All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour." (20:12)
"... You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town -- all its spoil -- and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you." (20:14-15)
"... You shall not let a soul remain alive." (20:17)
All these quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called the Torah (Deuteronomy), a scripture that is holy to both Jews and Christians. But very few people would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretation and contextual assumptions. So why there is a wide perception that the Qur'an sanctions violence?”
Reference: http://www.mediamonitors.net/elmasry31.html
Another resourceful reference that I got is of Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, a member of the Fiqh Council, and adjunct professor of comparative religion at California State University - Fullerton:
“Nowhere do these verses [of the Holy Qur’an] give general permission to kill any one. They were revealed to Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him] at the time when the nonbelievers were attacking Makkah's Muslims and threatening those in Madinah. In contemporary jargon, we may say that as the Muslims were subject to constant terrorist attacks on Madinah, Allah allowed them to defend themselves. These verses do not allow Muslims to engage in terrorism; rather, they are warnings against terrorism, but they also contain clear calls for restraint and care.
Religious texts, if not read within their proper textual and historical contexts, are easily manipulated and distorted.”
Reference: http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html
This topic is highly subjective and requires much space, time, and understanding. However, I believe I have made the point that I wanted to by these quotations. [Would suggest following the two hyperlinks to study their full research on this subject for better understanding.] Let us now focus at making some daring acknowledgements and corrective actions. If the “Black Tuesday” at Mumbai was indeed caused by LeT or SIMI, let me state vehemently, with full vigor, without any regrets and doubts, that WHAT THEY DID IS UNISLAMIC, INHUMAN, INSENSATE, ABHORRENT, HEINOUS, SHAMEFUL, SCORNFUL… (?! no adjective or adverb would suffice enough; once again). Whoever it be, the feelings remain unchanged; but a universal appeal to the people of the World: Please, do not add another appalling tinge to the tragedy by associating it with fundamentalism or Islam. Its time to reconstruct, restore, and rebuild. Another serious confession: believe me, history is witness to the sheer fact that processes of reconstruction have always been opposed by asocial souls, irrespective of any political or religious inclination. Let us pledge not to fall prey to these forces in this case, and in future. Being humans, at least we can do this bit of charity towards ourselves and towards the society.
Blast victims need blood, please donate: (Courtesy: Pravs World)
5/19/2006 Interactive Session with British Delegation Led by Lord Adam PatelAfter a long time, I had the opportunity to attend an intellectual discourse yesterday – the last one probably being way back around 1990s, when I was still a student at AMU. The Forum for Equity and Justice, under the chairmanship of Bashiruddin Babukhan, had convened an interactive session with a delegation of British Muslims at Hotel Viceroy, Hyderabad. The delegation was lead by Lord Adam Patel, Peer, House of Lords, United Kingdom. It was actually exulting to discover the wealth of intellectual talent at Hyderabad; more so since I came to this city only a few months back. The elite audience ruminated over various pertaining issues, such as UK’s participation in the war on Iraq, status of Muslims in the UK, influence of Muslim media in UK’s political ambience, and the role of Muslim student organizations. The responses from the delegation were equally edifying and commendable. Some excerpts of the session, which I could not omit, are summarized here in the form of questions and answers. Have tried to retain the original wordings as far as possible.
A: There are different Muslim student organizations that perform specific tasks. For example, some organizations look into the aspects of arranging for the stay of new students, make arrangements for special needs during Ramzaan and Halal food, etc. Still other organizations seek to represent the generic or specific needs of the student community before the Parliament. As far as their effect on national politics is concerned, they had two choices; to form a closed circuit and seclude themselves from the mainstream, or to be assertive and yet mingle with the mainstream. They have adopted the second option, and have ensured that they are as much a part of the mainstream as any other community/group.
A: Muslims have been secluded from the mainstream due to various reasons… We have to believe and practice alike. For example, we need to condemn any type of violence directed against innocent killings. We should be equivocal in condemning 9-11 and 7-7. First of all, we need to consider who we are: are we Muslims, Christians, Jews, Budhdhists, Sikhs… We all are descendants of one; Hazarat Adam. And no religion in the world appreciates or encourages killing of innocent people. So, when we condemn acts of violence, we should not surreptitiously and within our minds uphold that it happened for good; they deserved it. We should understand that people and Parliament are different entities. The power of people is more than the power of the Parliament. In UK, as in the US, majority of people (non-Muslims alike) were opposed to the war on Iraq; and we should uphold the fact. When we criticize the killings of innocent Iraqi people, we should also acknowledge the fact that Saddam was not a just and righteous ruler. When we criticize the US nuclear attack on Japan, or the Israeli maneuvers against the Palestinians, we should also condemn 9-11. And we should condemn these with force and vigor.
A: UK upholds freedom of speech, and Muslim media has an avid influence. The foreign policies of England might be obscure, but internally, it is still a distinguished democracy. Minorities and their rights are respected. We might not agree with the foreign policies of the country, but we have to accept the democratic freedom accorded to the minorities. However, it is still not a mainstream media, something which has to be acknowledged and accepted. |
|
|
