The Eid namaaz had just been offered. The maulvis at the Dargah Ala Hazrat in Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh issued a fatwa: say no burial prayers for terrorists and their sympathisers.
Mufti Mohammed Salim Noori, general secretary of the Tahreek-e-Tahaffuz Sunniat, said:
"On the pious occasion of Eid, the Sunni Barelvi Markaz send a strong message that no maulana, mufti or other religious leader will read the 'namaz-e-janaza' for anyone associated with terrorism in any form. By this, we want to lodge a strong protest against terrorism."
It is not surprising that this will be hailed among some sections of the intelligentsia, because this segment loves varnish. Also, it cares not for details.
Clerics are not germane to Islam; they are middlemen that have capitalised on the vulnerabilities of the devout. A Muslim does not need a religious leader to recite any prayers; it can be done by anybody — relatives, friends or wayfarers. The maulvis are pushing their own agenda, as they have always done to keep themselves relevant.
If they are so concerned about all that is good, why don't they issue fatwas against those who do not use medical assistance due to superstition? Because this will hit their business of exorcism and other trickery. Will a Sunni or a Shia maulvi issue a fatwa to the faithful not to discriminate on the basis of sect?
While terrorism is a huge problem, it also helps empty rhetoric to sideline more urgent terrors of daily living. The Times of India report spoke about other good fatwas by the seminary quite forgetting its own report of April this year when this same cleric had objected to a survey finding in which Muslim women wanted equal property rights.
Those who laud 'progressive' edicts should be protesting against the dragging of religion in what is a political matter. They too put the onus on Muslims to deal with terrorism, and ironically the pulpit that is often blamed for provoking violence is the one that gets away for ostensibly sending a message of peace.
How is the general public to recognise a terrorist when the police seem to have difficulty identifying them? Is that not why there are so many undertrial prisoners rounded up on mere suspicion because of their names or what they look like? What if a good Samaritan follows the good cleric's orders and implicates somebody as a terrorist supporter only because of a personal grudge?
Occasionally, the cleric is also a terrorist. If not for real, then by the sheer tactics he uses to promote himself. As for political terrorists, they aren't exactly roaming around in the cities and towns to recruit people who might offer the namaaz upon their death.
This is the man who has issued a fatwa against photography. You can see that he has no qualms about striking a pose.
I am really tired of saying that a fatwa means zilch. Yet, every other day — often in reply to a question — there is an edict. It is not binding on anyone.
Only the media seems to take the Darul Uloom Deoband seriously, and always refers to it as "India's leading Islamic seminary".
Quite naturally, a bizarre fatwa grabs attention. Some Muslims consult the seminary for general information. An engineer wanted to know if he could pursue his passion for photography. I am assuming he did so because of Islam's stand regarding iconography. He was told that photography is a sin.
This is ridiculous. How and why did it transform into a fatwa? The media tends to follow the Deoband's advise columns, and what it posts on the website. When push comes to shove, the organisation is more than ready to show muscle. A fatwa materialises as the last word. Newspapers and TV channels get excited.
The reporter is soon on the phone talking with the vice chancellor, Mufti Abdul Qasim Nomani, who says:
"Photography is un-Islamic. Muslims are not allowed to get their photos clicked unless it is for an identity card or for making a passport."
The reporter goes all Wahabi on him, mentioning how Saudi Arabia "that aspires to return to the earliest fundamental sources of Islam" (duh) permits it and even telecasts the Haj live. To which the Maulana replies:
"Let them do it. We do not allow it. Not everything they do is correct."
I like the last bit.
At any other time, the media would have used this to scream with joy about how Indian Muslims are under no threat of being Saudi-ised, and everybody can breathe free. But now is not the time. Now we have to prevent Indian Muslims from being denied their Nikons and Canons and dual camera phones. They need to be 'brought into the mainstream', and saved from such backward fatwas.
Really, take a chill pill. Most Muslims in India don't give a rat's ass about the Deoband and don't even know where it is, who runs the show, and what stuff they smoke.
Next on the reporter's itinerary is the All India Muslim Law Personal Board. One Mufti Abul Irfan Qadri Razzaqi agrees with the fatwa:
"Islam forbids photographing of humans and animals. Whoever does that will be answerable to God."
Reporter is on a mission. He "reminds" him about Saudi Arabia. To which the gentleman says:
"Just because they are richer than us doesn't mean they are also correct. If they are allowing photography they will be answerable on the Day of Judgement in the court of God."
See. You can do all you want, fatwas be damned, till you are alive. You may even perform the pilgrimage to Mecca in the horrid land that permits photography. You will finally be judged by a 'non-human' who, alas, cannot be photographed.
End note: I've used this picture before, but is it halal?
Everyone is singing the Kashmir tune. An all
girl-band has been banned. Most of us outside, and many in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, had never heard about them until this happened. The problem is
not that one should refrain from opposing such censorship, but how the
arguments are reduced to basics.
Most engagement with social issues is increasingly
becoming one of transaction. This conscience barter is extremely populist and
the agenda is clearly not to topple political correctness. Those who profess
freedom of expression do not entertain even a devil’s advocate stance, which
only reveals how close-minded and muzzling such ostensible independent thinking
is. If we want to permit all kinds of thought, why do we seek to curb what in
our opinion is regressive?
Three high school students – Farah Deeba, Aneeqa
Khalid and Noma Nazir – formed a rock band.
Pragaash (First Light) has performed only one concert. Mufti Bashiruddin
Ahmad, Kashmir’s state-appointed grand cleric, issued a fatwa asking them to “stop
from these activities and not to get influenced by the support of political
leadership”.
Odes are being sung to their talent, their courage.
The right to expression does not need a quality certificate and those who back
them could well be ignorant of their music. It is about not being allowed to do
what they like.
I agree with this, but having lived all my life in
Mumbai, the pivot of modern India, I can cite several instances where parents
have objected to their teenage children participating in cultural activities,
let alone taking an initiative to independently perform. This information is
crucial because we use the convenient subterfuge of censorship to camouflage
our own dissonant private behaviour. When we speak about Pragaash we are
already dealing with young women who have not been stifled, have been exposed
to world music, managed to train, buy equipment, and market themselves in a
state that is considered repressive. It is rather unfortunate that even though
they are way ahead than many of their well-wishers, they are now the object of
sympathy.
Those fighting for their freedom are essentially
offering condolences. After saying, “We are with you”, has support for the band
gone beyond disingenuous analogy?
***
Pragaash’s manager and teacher Adnan Matoo, quoted
in The Washington
Post, said:
“They feel terribly scared and want an immediate
end to this controversy once for all. First, the girls had decided to quit live
performance due to an online hate campaign and concentrate on making an album.
But after an edict by the government’s own cleric, these girls are saying
goodbye to music.”
As it did not start with the cleric, but an online
hate campaign, it would fall under cyber law. Unfortunately, in India the
hyperactive media ensures people are drugged and religion takes centrestage in
almost every argument. Is the Grand Mufti’s fatwa the final word?
Mr. Mattoo follows the pattern set by the mainstream:
“I know it from my last eight years’ experience that we could have easily dealt
with the online abuse. We were failed by the government-run mufti, who asked us
to forget our music and declared our band against the religion.”
While Indians have been arguing for long about the
separation of state and religion, it is not possible in a country where building
of a temple is the main agenda of the largest opposition party and the ruling
party panders to all manner of minority votes. There is also talk about the
Islamisation of Kashmir. Part of it may be attributed to the influx of jihadi
elements in the separatist movement. However, intellectual discourse too harps
on this aspect and uses ‘progressive’ quotes from scriptures, forgetting that
much of what we call contemporary culture did not exist in the time of prophets
and messiahs.
Why did it take a month for the Mufti to issue a
diktat? Was he under political pressure, too? This might seem like a shocking
query, but his mosque comes under the government’s purview. J&K isn’t
really a rocking state. Since the
concert was for the paramilitary forces, there is a likelihood of intense anger
among the locals. Stories of abuse of women by the security forces are a
constant refrain in the troubled area. Why did the hate campaign against the
girls not address this and instead choose to harp on their ‘un-Islamic’
vocation?
Pragaash band members
One reason is that the moment they criticise the
‘saviours’, they’d be dubbed militants. Anonymity might imbue them with
temporary courage, but even in their unknown status there is a need for
self-recognition. This is as much of an identity need as the cultural space for
freedom. It is their azaadi (freedom) call versus the azaadi of what they
perceive to be the copped-out coddled lot. A more nuanced reading would be that
Islam, with its broad brush-stroke possibility of what is haraam (heathen), can
factor in their ire and keep it alive. Politicians wake up. Pontiffs wake up.
Separatist organisations wake up.
This is not to imply that there have been no
strictures on modes of dressing, education and cultural activities. But these
certainly do not happen in Kashmir alone.
It does not make them right. However, should there be no room for more
than simplistic ideas of right and wrong?
The chief minister, Omar Abdullah, was applauded for
standing by the band members:
“I hope these talented young girls will not let a
handful of morons silence them. Shame on those who claim freedom of speech via
social media and then use that freedom to threaten girls who have the right to
choose to sing.”
However, on Headlines Today he said he had not asked
them to sing so he cannot ask them to continue to do so. He would be willing to
provide security for them, though.
The BJP only needed this to further its anti-Islamic
position. Its party president in the state said:
“It is an attempt towards
'Talibanisation' of the society by certain fundamentalist groups who are
uncomfortable with the return of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.”
The BJP ought not to speak out of turn. Its record
in giving women liberty is abominable. The rightwing does not permit even the celebration
of Valentine’s Day, using the same argument that the Mufti has used – it is
western culture. Besides, the BJP has earlier had an alliance with the current
party, the National Conference. Did they reach normalcy?
***
One cannot wish away politicisation. In fact, pop
culture is political, in that it attempts to convey popular consumerist
sentiment as retail therapy. Does this exclude political theism?
Mehbooba Mufti, president of People's Democratic
Party (PDP), was being intimidated on a TV debate. Despite it, she made a most
reasonable comment by saying that as a believer although she would not abuse a
religious leader, she could well disagree with his views. Did this get any
attention? It does not suit the archetype.
As happens with anything to do with Islam, when in
doubt bring in the Sufi. The prevalence of Sufi music is mentioned as an
example of the existence of such open expression in the Valley. People do not
realise that it is deeply rooted in religion. It may not be seen as theological,
but the fact is that it almost always addresses the Higher Being and seeks to
drown the identity of the singer into the pool of devotion. The reason Sufi
music is now being given a wider platform is because it falls well and truly
into the ‘music bazaar’ as a commercial product.
Is this what drives liberalism? Asiya Andrabi,
leader of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, has had some amazing achievements to her
credit – blackening the faces of women, shutting down beauty parlours. But,
then, her political affiliations do not lie with India, as she openly states.
For a moment, let us stand aside and check whether what she says and what some
feminists do is much different. She believes that women are objectified;
feminists think so too when they discuss certain advertisements where women
expose their bodies. How do we decide to accept one version and not the other?
***
If this is indeed a larger issue about artistic
license, then why did the Pragaash supporters have objections to rapper Honey
Singh soon after the Delhi gangrape? His song, “Main balatkari hoon” (I am a
rapist) was not new. It was obvious that this was not about concern, but a need
to be acceptable and part of a trending movement. Among the many voices was one
of senior journalist Vir Sanghvi, who used the social network to say:
“For
God's sake, Bristol Hotel. Cancel the Honey Singh show. Are you guys in the
rape business or the hotel business? If the Bristol does not cancel the Honey
Singh show then I would urge every decent Indian to boycott the hotel.”
No one seemed to have realised that the terminology,
“rape business”, itself was offensive. Besides, how does one define decency?
The moral spine of the amoral and unconstrained tends to be willing to bend as
the occasion demands. Had there been no immediate ‘case’, there would be no
such importance given to the singer or his lyrics. If we understand that art
does have freedom – in films, paintings, music – then it follows that there
ought not to be conditions that curtail it. Why is one boycott legitimate and
another not? Why are the words of liberal sages acceptable and the concerns of
the socially-conservative reprehensible?
MC Kash
Omar Abdullah too raised the question about local
rapperMC Kash, wondering why he has not been banned for his obscene lyrics.
This is telling and not surprising, for the singer questions the authorities
and the security forces:
“You sit your ass down & don't make a sound/you
take off that Pheran, you Mother Fucking clown - Words said by Indian Forces
durin' a crackdown.”
Is such obscenity not proactive rebellion?
The online campaign referred to the girls as “sluts”
and “prostitutes”. These words are used by supposedly reasonable people in the
social media for what they look down upon, be it the item girls in Bollywood
films or the increasingly brash young women who do not consider nudity to be an
issue. One rarely hears any applause for them. Therefore, who really is in a
position to take a high moral ground?
Kashmiri dancers for video albums
Perhaps we’d like to consider this story
about dancers and singers in Kashmiri music albums. One of them, Sweety, said:
“My mom accompanies me to the bus stop when I have to go to Srinagar. My
profession annoys my maternal uncles, neighbours talk (bad things) about me.”
A
choreographer explains:
“Most of them join to support their families after the
death of their father. It comes as a handy option because they come from
uneducated families and here they do not need any educational qualification. I
request them either do something else or to be careful.”
This is a universal concern, more so when people
cannot do “what they like” even in their daily routine because death is not too
far away. Because singing and dancing are not about the luxury of freedom, but the
last resort of orphaned hopes.
Leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has issued a fatwa against manufacturing and sale of firecrackers, saying that it is against the Sharia law.
Manufacturing and selling of firecrackers is against the Sharia law, and firing crackers is a gross misuse of money, the fatwa said. It also said that that men who misuse money are the ‘brothers of devil’. The Islamic seminary issued fatwa on a query from a man involved in the business of manufacturing firecrackers. The news holds significance given that a large number of Muslims are involved in the manufacturing and sale of firecrackers across the country.
I just cannot understand this. Why would a person who is already involved in the business want to consult the seminary?
If firing crackers amounts to misuse of money, then so is placing flowers over tombstones at dargahs.
If those who indulge in this are ‘brothers of the devil’, are women permitted to play with phuljhadis?
Is there any evidence of the devil misusing funds? Did he not inherit hell, or should he be pulled up for spending a fortune on adding all those satanic thingies in there?
I do not see how there can be any mention of firecrackers in the Sharia. Did some of the Prophet’s opponents light up anaars on the desert sands?
If the Darul Uloom is so concerned, it should seek justice for children who work in these factories and are exposed to risks of extreme levels of pollution. Get over this fatwa obsession and do something that matters.
- - -
Gays threaten Hinduism?
An artist holding an exhibition in the capital on the theme of homosexuality was on Thursday attacked and abused by an unidentified assailant, who also damaged one of the paintings on display. Balbir Krishan said the attacker entered the solo exhibition space at Lalit Kala Akademi with his face covered by a handkerchief. He pushed and kicked Krishan, a double amputee who has lost both his legs, while hurling insults all the while.
He has been receiving threatening calls saying: “Tuney Hindu dharam ko bigarne ka theka laga rakha hai (You are determined to ruin Hinduism).”
Someone should take these guys on a yatra where temple sculptures clearly show all kinds of sexual activities, including homosexuality. Will they dare to deface those? Will they dare insult the deities?
I am not suggesting that art should be irresponsible. In this case, he was only exhibiting works, giving expression to his thoughts and personal experiences. He was not indulging in criminal activities like paedophilia, for which a few good godmen have been caught. Why do these assaulters not land up in those ashrams and use their fists. Well, to beat up those holy folks...
No dharam can be spoilt. It is not perishable food.
Baba Ramdev walks out of the aircraft and is followed by four ministers of the central government of India on the tarmac. He commands one of the minions, “Phone George Bush.”
“Baba, it is very late there. Shall I call up Barack Obama instead?”
“Won’t it be late for him?”
“No, Sir, he is watching the Osama video, he does it every night to get good sleep.”
“This is not Obama’s territory. I need Bush.”
Now the minion is scared. Yet, he hesitantly asks, “Can you tell me why it is so urgent?”
“I want his fire helmet.”
Watching the man’s face, Baba Ramdev taps him lightly on the head, “Murkh, you fool, we are at the Ramleela Maidan, everyone is going to perform and must look the part.”
“What role are you playing?”
“George Bush.”
“But Bush was not in the Ramayana.”
“Neither was Anna Hazare. I am portraying Bush because the media has referred to this place we are making pavitra (pure) as Ground Zero and you remember how Bush had reached his Ground Zero with that yellow helmet.”
“It won’t match with your saffron robes, pitashri.”
“There is no match-making here. You think those Congress leaders are agreeing with me? The RSS and BJP is agreeing? That Anna Hazare who till the other day was on his own trip now wants to join me.”
“Haan, why?”
“Simple. Mallika Sherawat.”
“No, no, you are mistaking. He is Gandhian.”
“Exactly. For him this is test in all areas. Why he did not sit in fast in Ralegaon Siddhi?”
“Maybe there is no corruption there.”
“Paagal ho gaye ho (are you mad)? No one is fighting corruption. You don’t read the papers? There are 1000 toilets built here.”
“So you want the papers for that?”
“Nahin, don’t forget we are Indians first…”
“Okay, I found the papers. There will be 50 litres of water used for each day of the rally.”
“That is for drinking.”
“But you are on hunger strike.”
“Yes, but technically hunger and thirst are different. Also this will be good publicity for my yoga, to show how with asanas we can control the body. Lot of bodies will be controlled there.”
Ground Zero being made up
“Your rally is bigger than Anna’s. There is a 2.5-lakh sq ft waterproof tent, four platforms, 1,000 ceiling fans, and an event management company. Jai ho. But why do you have 50 ambulances and an ICU at the venue?”
“There will be so many celebrities, and people are complaining that they are not clean, they are earning crores in cash so how can they not be corrupt. Government is fighting political war, so just for some shoo-sha they could arrest some people, like at airport they caught Bipasha Basu for bringing shoes only because she did not throw one at Chidambaram.”
“Was that the reason?”
“This is the inside story no one talks about. The amount of shoes thrown at ministers shows their power.”
“So what is the strategy?”
“When they come to arrest, the celebrities can complain of chest pain, diabetes, liver problem, kidney failure, piles, anything and we can immediately put them in ICU or take them in ambulances to the hospitals. That way our message will go beyond the grounds.”
“But lakhs of people are expected and not all are celebrities…I hear the Mumbai dabbawallas are also supporting you.”
“These dabbawallas are celebrities. They go to IIT for lectures and were invited to Buckingham Palace.”
“Shahrukh Khan has said you have a political agenda.”
“And he does not? He is talking for that Amul baby, Rahul. Also, now Salman’s film is ready so he wants attention.”
“Wah, you are so intelligent. You don’t need that George Bush helmet.”
“We want the world to see our Ground Zero.”
“But these media people are wrong. Ground Zero means an epicentre of some disaster.”
“Aisa kya (is that so)? Then arrange some disaster.”
“G.R.Khairnar is coming. You want him to bring bulldozer?”
“Tchah, he is small man dealing with jhuggi-jhonpdi (hutments). Can you get some SIMI or Hizbul-Isabgol group? We will pay them to buy some firecrackers and make some noise. These days unless there is some Islamic mention it does not make international headlines.”
“I got an idea, sirji. Why not we say we are fighting jihad against corruption and issuing fatwa against those who have stashed millions?”
Baba Ramdev smiles: “Tathastu!” …So be it…
-
(c) Farzana Versey
- - -
A backgrounder: Yoga guru/godman Baba Ramdev has planned this massive rally from tomorrow, June 4, at Delhi's Ramleela grounds to fight corruption. He was received at the airport by Congress Party ministers, celebrities will be there, other details mentioned are all true, including Hazare and former Municipal Commissioner Khairnar, known to demolish slums, and the dabbawallas joining him. As for the rest, it's a fast....I mean farce.
And before I am branded as not Muslim enough, if at all, then let me assure you I am closely acquainted with Muslims who practise their faith religiously.
I understand that by quoting the Darul Uloom Deoband I am furthering their cause, but if newspapers continue to publish their latest fatwa, as though it is the newest trend, we will have to speak up. The seminary purports to represent the faith and the Quran; it also ends its fatwas with “Allah knows best”. Therefore, I wonder why people ask them questions at all.
Here is the query on travel:
“Is a married woman permitted to travel to another country with her female sibling?”
The Darul Uloom reply:
“She cannot travel without a ‘mehram’. It’s mentioned in the Hadees that a woman should not travel for more than 48 miles except in the company of a ‘mehram’ relative.”
A 'mehram' is an immediate relative, with whom having sex would amount to incest, or the husband.
I would like to know whether implicit in the reply is that women travel for sex or that there is always the possibility of them being sexually exploited. The latter does pose a danger, but wasn’t it the Deoband that issued a fatwa on a raped woman who was asked to marry her father-in-law, the rapist? Where was she travelling to?
There are several aspects in religion that had validity at one point in time; it is important to seek the essence and not the superficals. And I am not sure about the verity of the Deoband pronouncements. In respect of removal of hair in private parts, for example, it talks about tweezers for women. Were there tweezers in the Prophet’s time? Or depilatory creams? Anyhow, all these were for reasons of hygiene and not because it interfered with people’s belief in god.
Now back to their travel advice. Quite a few of my relatives are religious and the women travel alone and are professionally qualified. Some also wear the hijaab and drive the fastest and take holidays without their male relatives.
The Deoband's extreme position will work against itself. A woman asking the query obviously wishes to or needs to travel. She may not know how far her destination exactly is in miles or kilometres. She might need to use transport and the driver need not be a woman. Then what? Okay, she will be in full hijaab and all that. Then? What if she takes a break every 48 miles and then resumes for another 48 – will that be halal?
In the same state of Uttar Pradesh some miles away from the Deoband in Lucknow women in Varanasi are running madrassas. They have had regular education and are inculcating these values in their students. They are showing the community, the country and the world that madrassas are not only about religious teachings. It is not to justify the existence of such madrassas or to whitewash a bad image, but to fight ignorance and empower themselves.
I should hope they travel far, beyond the 48 miles, because in their minds they have already traversed way ahead of the clerics.
I find the phrase “diplomatic offensive” rather amusing. So, one such offensive took place yesterday when Pakistani singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan was not arrested despite being caught with $142,000. He was not being harassed; this is customary procedure. I know there are people who will shoot back about transactions worth crores that get past. They do but they must not. It is as simple as that.
It is appalling that a report in the TOI can flaunt how he could get away with this:
The decision not to arrest the singer was influenced by the fresh peace process between India and Pakistan that started only a week ago.
At risk would be the PM’s latest effort to mend fences with Pakistan, because Rahat is not only a popular Bollywood singer, in many ways, he is also the voice of all attempts to foster India-Pakistan peace.
Great. It follows that we should not probe into other issues – whether it is Hafeez Saeed or Dawood Ibrahim – because we are talking peace. There was diplomatic pressure from Pakistan and there would be because he was a celebrity. The same prompt action is not taken when fishermen are caught only because of the tides that push them into each other’s territories.
And how does he become the voice of peace? We have had people like Mehdi Hassan and Reshma years ago, but there was no attempt to project this ‘aman ki asha’ commercial enterprise. Let us not say there was no need. Our relations with Pakistan have always been strained. If he is a Pakistani icon then I wish he’d get more singing assignments there. He is a marvellous singer, but it isn’t that we don’t have any of our own. I have repeatedly said that the import of performers is limited to the safe bets and those who will increase the TRPs. There is not sufficient reciprocity, though.
Regarding the practical issue, why was he carrying this much foreign currency? It is common practice for performers, Indians included, to be paid in cash, though they do show a percentage of their earnings on paper. Therefore, this is ridiculous:
Documents revealed that Khan sang in Hindi films for free as “a goodwill gesture”. However, DRI officials don’t buy it and suspect that the singer was paid Rs 15 lakh per song through a different manner, which they are investigating.
We have had cases of high-profile Indians who have been detained. There was the wife of an industrialist who was carrying undeclared jewellery; she had to put up with the investigations although she was known to wear a lot of these baubles.
More recently, the Income Tax raided the houses of Priyanka Chopra and Katrina Kaif. They are famous and ‘icons’, for whatever it is worth. I am quite certain they could and probably did use their contacts to hurry up the matter, but did the government put pressure?
The media is making it out to be a case of Indo-Pak relations and mentioning the cases of Adnan Sami and comedian Shakeel who was sent threatening messages by Raj Thackeray’s MNS. We know that this party threatens and roughs up Indians from other states as well. As for Adnan Sami, his property was attached because his wife has filed a suit against him.
Why does not anyone talk about peace initiative in this case?
- - -
Salman Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri has been indicted, but on Valentine’s day students and other fans sent him roses.
Now, wasn’t he supposed to be a hardcore Islamist and doing his bit for the religion? Then why are the clerics not flogging his supporters? Some Maulvi Ibrahim had threatened to flog anyone who was spotted selling or buying red roses. He said:
“Islam condemns Valentine’s Day and boys presenting flowers to young girls is vulgar and goes against the norms of Islam.”
If Islam follows the sharia, is there any hadith that actually mentions Valentine’s Day? Who is this man kidding? Is there mention of flowers, roses or lilies or even cacti, mentioned in any religious scripture of Islam and their role in corrupting morals? What is so vulgar about it?
Anyway, this is some mullah who has nothing better to do. He should be sent off to Syria, a nice Muslim country, where women wear the most enticing lingerie that have feathers and flowers. Some of these are gifts from their husbands.
Which makes me wonder: Is it okay in Islam if a man gives his spouse roses on V day? Or will he have to consult a maulvi about this impious act? And does placing flowers on graves of persons of the opposite sex also go against culture? Just asking…
- - -
In India the Darul Uloom Deoband has come up with its latest fatwa:
“If a holy Muslim doctor advises that a woman is unable to bear birth pangs, then a less than three months old pregnancy can be terminated but if it is more than three months old, the abortion is absolutely unlawful.”
Medical practitioners already know that it is inadvisable to terminate a pregnancy later than three months. But how will this holy Muslim doctor know whether a woman can bear birth pangs six months in advance? Is he that holy? I assume this doctor is a male, so is it okay by the Deoband that a woman would be examined by him? Or will he only check her pulse and get a brainwave?
I think these guys should just take their business on the roads and get parrots to pick out cards to give ‘advice’.
- - -
A man has been granted divorce due to mental cruelty. No, his wife was not tormenting him to perform well or nagging him or asking him for roses everyday. She just wore revealing clothes.
The courts thought he had a point:
Cruelty includes not only physical but mental cruelty as well. Ostensibly, she (wife) has indulged in bloating falsehood beyond proportions, additional district judge Manmohan Sharma ruled, accepting the husbands plea that he suffered mental agony as his wife regularly wore vulgar dresses. The court allowed the divorce plea saying mere living under one roof without the necessary ingredients of love and faith, which are the hallmark of a fruitful matrimonial relationship, is nothing but animal existence. The man contended that his wife wore vulgar clothes during their honeymoon. She dressed herself in a very vulgar manner and asked to change she retorted that she wanted to be noticed by at least 50 people.
Fine, it is possible for a man to feel disturbed and insecure. But there are instances when men like the idea of their wives being noticed. It is a huge ego boost. In this case, did she love him less? Did he lose interest in her? Was she unfaithful?
Let us flip this: If he wore lungis or tight-fitting jeans, would the court accept a divorce plea from her on grounds of mental cruelty?
These are indeed personal choices and the partners need to have some understanding, but it is unfair to undermine individuality. Men get attracted to women who are all sexed up but once they get married those very clothes, that foxy look and aggro attitude become a problem.
Stick to inflatable dolls. I think there is nothing in any religion's scriptures against this.
Before you raise your eyebrows, do see things beyond the obvious. The new Darul Uloom vice-chancellor, Maulana Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi, has given his stamp of approval to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. Shocked? Don’t be. They both essentially perpetuate the same schema of religion as the subterranean text. Both have worked wonderfully at brainwashing people – one with the carrot of ‘Gujarati pride’, the other with the stick of fatwas that make faith into some watertight compartment.
Maulana Vastanvi is from Surat and an educated man. It has been reported that he introduced modern subjects like medicine and engineering in the local Darul-run institutions. One does not quite understand how these subjects become modern when even madrassas use technology these days. This is the superficial aspect that draws attention, quite forgetting how several religions steeped in rituals and superstitions do not permit true scientific inquiry and even resist certain medical intrusion. This includes the Darul Uloom.
Let us not forget its disgusting record of fatwas in the Imrana case or objecting to women working or the clothes people wear. The latest in the list is a fatwa issued this month that prohibits the practice of prophecy by Muslims. It cites the Shariah and warns that if a follower of the faith indulges in soothsaying, his prayers for 40 days become unacceptable.
Will the Deoband then ban all the caretakers at various shrines who after the prayers have been said, offering made and money deposited in the donation box swoosh a peacock feather over the devotee’s head and prophesise that all wishes will be fulfilled? What about the various pirs who advertise their powers to predict the future and the past? What about Islamic scholars that give their interpretations of Islam and further divide the community? What about the Deoband itself that issues these edicts? It may now say that it is only advice based on queries raised, but that is precisely what soothsayers do.
If they genuinely believe that the Quran is the last word, then they should refer the questioner to the Holy Book. Why is the Deoband permitting itself to act as a go-between?
This brings us to the modernisation by Maulana Vastanvi. It is relegated to the well-off. According to him there is “no discrimination against the minorities in the state as far as development is concerned…Development has taken place in Gujarat and we hope it will continue. I ask Muslims to study well. The government is ready to offer jobs (to them), but for that, they need good education.”
While education is always a desirable goal, why are there only government jobs on offer? Is this some autocratic system where the state decides even what employment opportunities are available to the minorities in the private sector? What is the educated population of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs? Who will fill up the Class IV government quota? I am not in any way suggesting that menial jobs should be an aspiration, but these too qualify as work. There are professions that require unskilled workers – what about those? The sword of education is made to hang on the necks of people precisely to demolish their self-esteem. Literacy does not guarantee the ability to fight for your rights. The system will not permit it.
Narendra Modi has streamlined the system so well that it is made to seem like the final destination, when education is a journey. How educated were the rioters of 2002? What degrees did the cops who went on a rampage hold? Were all the victims uneducated? In fact, some were educated rather well and had to pay the price for the possibility that they would not keep silent.
The Maulana does not see this. He is speaking the language of the elite, and an institution like the Darul Uloom is elitist, in that it lives within its cocoon and every once in a while comes out to pronounce edicts in a rather feudal manner. One does not want the Deoband or any group to take over the task of bringing a politician or a political establishment to book, but when a person takes over such an organisation he has to be responsible. Maulana Vastanvi says, instead, “The issue is almost eight years old now and we should move forward. Rioting anywhere – in Gujarat or in any other part of the world – is bad for humanity and should never happen. The Gujarat riots were a blemish for India and all culprits should be punished.”
The riots were not a blemish for India but for its bigoted politician who is the hero of this same modern India that the cleric is endorsing. He has gone to the extent of saying, “There are not as many problems in Gujarat as has been projected…As far as relief work for the riots is concerned, it has been carried out very well by the government and people of Gujarat.”
He seems oblivious to the cries of people still seeking justice…justice based on evidence. So, who is the uneducated one here?
Maulana Vastanvi and Narendra Modi may want Muslims to move on, and a few have because they could afford to. There are many who cannot. Some do not wish to because if they let their voices be muffled, then together with those few hundred bodies their souls too will get buried. One can be reasonably certain that a mall mausoleum will be built over it. Modi will flash it as one more victory for economic progress and the Maulana will flaunt a shadow puppet modern Muslim. He might like to check out what the Deoband has to say about malls, though.
“You cannot represent Islam,” I was told by a Muslim friend. It isn’t the first time and it pushes me into an uncomfortable position.
I am also not a ‘communist’ who appears regularly on TV to call the ulema “mad and insane”, for which Javed Akhtar gets into trouble, though the nature of the trouble is not known. So, I don’t get brownie points from non-Muslims.
I have not done research into madrassas to understand the working of the minds of mullahs nor am I a convert to Islam that I can pretend to give a ‘balanced’ picture. No espionage here. So, I am not terribly smart.
I am not a trained religious acrobat who has done time with the faith.
Then why am I a Muslim and why do I now state that I can speak for some of us? Because I was born one; I am secure in my ability to not follow any rules unthinkingly. And I can speak on behalf of my kind of Muslims because I do not feel the need to appease any group.
Hence, I feel quite disappointed to read letters to the mullahs that are an apology for the faith as well as a desperate attempt to sound like the ‘nice Muslims’ that non-Muslims wish to see us as. It is offensive to women who have had to fight several odds to read the “sister-in-Islam”, Nigar Ataulla, write an open letter to the fatwa-makers wherein she states that besides giving a large part of her zakat to the madrassas she is not a “a radical feminist out to attack you out of blind prejudice”. Is one to suppose that radical feminism is about blind prejudice? When any person who believes in an ideology takes a position there is embedded in it a prejudice against the contrarian position. It is done with open eyes and a questioning mind.
While there is some attempt at sarcasm, it does not flip the coin but furthers the stereotype:
“While some of you have issued fatwas declaring watching television (including even Islamic programmes) as wholly haram, I do turn on the TV once in a while, but only to watch my favourite cartoon show ‘Tom and Jerry’ (It’s about a cat and a mouse chasing each other and having loads of fun. You can also watch it, its clean stuff!). For my job as a writer, I have to interact and interview people, and not just women. Given all this, perhaps I do not fit your description of what the ideal Muslimah is.”
Perhaps the writer might have added Discovery Channel where animals mate. Islam has never said anything against cohabitation. The problem with the cat and mouse game is that the positions can get changed. Even in Islamic countries that have a strict code there are programmes that show women in strong positions.
I take exception to a comment like:
“What I wish to convey to you as a Muslim working woman is that your fatwa sends out wrong signals to not just us Muslims but to non-Muslims as well.”
I had already stated in my piece Subjugating the Muslim woman (that led to an interesting discussion on this blog here) that women do earn and contribute. However, it does not mean a non-working woman does not have access to similar rights in other spheres of life. A letter such as this sends out even worse signals. It strives too hard to please. Take this example:
“I sometimes wonder how religious scholars from other communities, such as Hindus Christians, Buddhists, and Sikhs, interact with the common folk among their co-religionists. Frankly, sometimes I really envy them. Non-Muslim women can freely ask questions to their priests, gurus and so on and discuss religious matters with them. I simply cannot, for the life of me, fathom why Muslim women cannot have a healthy and positive dialogue with the ulema. Is it because of some deep-rooted fear on both sides? Is it because of a totally unwarranted hierarchy that seems to prevail between the ulema and the common folk, paralleling that between medieval kings and their subjects? I don’t need to explain who the ‘kings’ and the ‘subjects’ here are, for surely you will understand.”
This is a most ridiculous argument. This fatwa was issued because there was a specific question asked. Therefore, some woman felt the need to discuss it with a maulvi. How many women from the other communities mentioned consult their religious heads? The Confession in churches is not about a religious discourse. Ashrams do not encourage inconvenient queries and are essentially a spiritual salve.
Which woman will have the courage to question any of these holy men about the patriarchal nature of all religions? There is also the aspect about who truly represents the priesthood. There are several sects in all faiths and they have their own cushy set-up. Women as well as men, when they do become a part of the active believer fraternity, end up as slaves to religion and therefore the priests running the establishment. Such slavery can be emotional or physical, as we have seen from some recent reports.
If fatwas have to be opposed, as some of us have done, then it must not become a mandate for everyone else to jump on one community. There is no need to show Muslim women wearing slit-eye veils in the media, when there are very few such women in this country. If we oppose the fatwa, we must be actively involved in opposing the state machinery too that uses these same organisations when it comes to garnering votes or to appease the community. Why is there no anger when the liberals go out to claim that we are not terrorists and use the mullahs for their rallies? Why are the voices silent then?
When there is anger against the Deoband, which the writer has not mentioned by name, then there must be no need for a dialogue. I am not interested in having a chat with the mullahs just as I am not interested in a chat with any establishment figure.
They can refuse to accept me as a Muslim. My friends can say that I do not represent the community. It does not bother me. I work, I wear what I want, and I do represent myself and those who identity with me. I won’t play into the hands of the mullahs or those who watch from the sidelines tittering, “Look, Islam is such a problem”. It is. And so is every religion that seeks to interfere in the public domain that is outside its periphery.
I do occasionally put up feedback received and my replies, if any, here. Many of them are those that disagree. This is not to say there have been no positive responses; it is just that these give a glimpse into a more varied mindset. Positive and negative are anyway relative terms.
The following did not deserve a personal response and came from someone trying to sound like an organisation.
Youre a hateful writer. I was so disappointed to read your disturbing diatribe against muslims and their community leaders. so hateful, so drirty. Shame on you. Who pay you to produce this kind of text?
Damn. If only I knew where to get the monies from…Well, all I know is that Swami Ramdev will get lots of business from the Muslim fraternity for learning how to blow their noses.
As for the “community leaders”, here is a report from today’s papers:
Six days after the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind passed a resolution asking Muslims not to sing Vande Mataram on the grounds that it was “un-Islamic’’, the community’s clerics have reportedly softened their stand. The change of heart came after spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar visited Deoband on November 8 and met Jamiat leaders.
After the meet, the ulema said they did not have any objection to the national song and had left it to the conscience of Muslims who could decide for themselves whether they wanted to sing the song or not.
So ask these hypocrites, Mr. Letter Writer, who is paying them.
- - -
Sometimes, correspondence is really worth it and makes one feel that what one is doing isn’t so bad. Not for me, at least!
The next was unexpected, although I have indeed corresponded with quite a few academicians. It is from someone who knows Structuralism enough to hate it. We have had a bit of an exchange and here it is without naming the name.
Farzana, you are much too kind to Levi-Strauss's incomprehensible fog.
Marvin Harris was a scientific anthropologist & Levi-Strauss's greatest critic.
Harris takes the Gallic charlatan's know nothing structuralism to the woodshed for a thorough thrashing in Cultural Materialism (chap. 7).
There are thousands of academics still pretentiously spouting the rancid bullshit of structuralism.
Reply:
I am kind and do believe that all fog does not denote winter, so one must meander through the mist.
There are anti-Structuralists as there anti Freudians or anti anything, and there ought to be. I was, in my own little non-academic way, trying to question some theories...it was part tongue-in-cheek.
- - -
Structuralism turns anthropology into a delight for literary poseurs. Try Marvin Haris's expose.
Reply:
I delight in exposes. According to your theory, anything construed as a delight is anathema, or logically ought to be from your perspective on poseurs. Whether it is Levi-Strauss or Harris, they are taking a position which might be deemed as a posture for one critiquing it, which would in turn be seen as posturing. It is a clique of charmed intellectuals, and for an outsider, whose primary interest lies in the human as animal, social creature and sublime wannabe, anthropological analysis can come from the toenail of an ape and I’d be happy. Or, delighted?
I only wish you had noticed that I used the Structuralists paradigm to explore the mundane. Not too many academicians are interested in it, but it might surprise you to know that many of us live it.
Having said this, I appreciate your position and almost proselytising fervour. Harris is a lucky god!
Mine is more like Margaret Mead’s:
“Anthropology demands the open-mindedness with which one must look and listen, record in astonishment and wonder that which one would not have been able to guess.”
My article on ‘The Farce of Fatwas’ below did not mention one quote by P. Chidambaram because the subject would have got diverted. But here it is:
“We have no hesitation in speaking for the rights of Muslims at a time when Tamils were denied their rights in Sri Lanka and Indian students were attacked in Australia.”
This is utterly stupid. What does he mean by having no hesitation? Is it being done under duress? Or, do Indian Muslims who have lived here all along need an alibi in the form of Tamils in Sri Lanka, which is Sri Lanka’s problem and therefore India's concern, and Indian students in Australia, which is an immigrant issue that has to do with racism?
When Mr Chidambaram speaks about Indian Muslims as a minority, he must not forget that we are naturalised Indians and not part of any secessionist movement (a section of Kashmir being the exception for complicated reasons). And this minority would not be considered a minority anywhere in the world given the numbers. It is pretty immature to speak in such a manner. Time for him to come to grips and address the Muslims in a non-religious environment.
- - -
As for the maulvis, I suppose hobnobbing with an idol-worshipping godman who performed pranayam while another Hindu priest recited vedic hymns at the congregation is completely in keeping with monotheism. These same guys made a noise when actor Salman Khan visited a Ganesh pandal.
So, what is Maulana Mahmood Madani doing with Baba Ramdev?
A thrill ran down my spine. I had got what would have been called a fatwa. I am not sure whether there was prize money offered for my head or something else but it sure sounded like an edict. It came from Blogger, which gave it international appeal and made me feel like I had crossed all barriers. As some of you might be aware, I have a special affinity towards this fatwa thingie.
At first I thought it was fake but the fatwa-hungry part of me took it seriously. I awaited the time when I’d be martyred. Salman Rushdie would pen The Boor’s Last Sigh; Taslima Nasreen would finally discover a Bengali ghetto in Sweden and live happily ever after in that free country. No one would care about those drawing Danish cartoons or doing things to holy books. All the world’s attention would be on me and my rantings about holes in ceilings and skies with feelings. My poems would be deconstructed even as it is known that they were never constructed in the first place.
Media houses would have debates on the freedom to express sexual desires towards oneself. I’d have mikes thrust near my mouth to emphasise the point just made.
The mullahs, sadhus, priests and transvestites would come on one forum to agree. Some literary giants would join in the chants because I was assaulting their idea of prosaic prosody and had transformed the iambic pentameter into an octometer only because I like things big.
Blogger was going to make me big. Next day I looked suitably rebellious and ready for e-martyrdom. The dashboard had a few lines written in red (I think. Yes, dammit, sometimes I do.) It said, “Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your readers will see a warning page during this time. After we receive your request, we'll review your blog and unlock it within two business days.”
Business days? Readers? They knew I had readers? I did? It gave me other details which are not suitable for people planning families. Isn’t stuff that is unsuitable that goes into Spam? I wanted to cry my heart out and give a little speech about how I had given my blood (A+), toil (never mind), sweat (with expensive unisex deodorant), tears (the real McCoy and not crocodile) to this little space.
This could not be happening to me. I had not reproduced salacious pictures, and I cannot help it if Modigliani and company did nudes. I had not written anything that adults under 30 have not experienced and those over that age might desire. I did write about politics, but who does not? I wrote about religion, but everyone prays. I even exposed my soul because our culture talks of the atman/rooh as though it is something tangible. I did it without any expectations or benefit to self.
I have suffered, uff, I have! Yet, I put on a brave face and sallied forth, thinking that those few people who Blogger assumes read me would take me for what I am.
Those words in red stared at me as though I were a common criminal. And, mind you, the red was ordinary font, not even embossed or engraved. I smiled the shaheed smile, the one which looks like you are carrying cyanide pellets in your head. I would be in hiding and imagined being exiled in some country where the temperature dips to an inelegant low; how would I look in faux fur and mannequin mink? And why should I not alliterate, after all it would be F’s Fatwa? I started thinking about the bodyguards who would one day pen a book about what all I did not do.
It must have taken 15 minutes of my useless time for such cogitations. By then I had read all the dos and don’ts of the Blogger Das Kapital, and nothing that I had written crossed any limits.
Yes, do what you want, I muttered. I did a cocky head nod and my mouth curled into a sneer. I was mid-way into my ‘hah’ when my test post went through. I had entered the den as a tigress and ended up chasing a ball of wool. I clicked on request to unlock. Okay, it was 20 days away before I was told to clean up and move the hell out. Then I checked the dashboard and those red words had disappeared. Did they do their checking already? Was it some Ku Klux Klan doing its underground research and waiting for me to bite the bait? Or did they believe that I wasn’t worth the fatwa spewed from the mouths of greater believers?
I knew it. This fatwa desire shall remain unfulfilled. It is entirely possible that in this holy month, it is god’s idea of doing zakat towards me.
So, friends, desperate housewives, gigolos and whoever else I have offended, do remember to keep up the vigil and all. Meanwhile, I am assuming this may just fizzle out. But if you see a note that does not let you access this blog and you really want to access it, then remember to write a nice little obit.
In my next birth I will be a blog.
PS: My other blogs here have no writing in red. Yet.
As we all know, the mullahs in India have become very hip and happening; they talk about voting, democracy and even liberals like Ms. Sham are praising them for not burying Pakistani terrorists and walking all the way with other liberals in peace marches.
I have already mentioned the fatwa for elections in response to queries from Muslims.
Here are a few queries I too have about how Muslims must react to the swine flu and other porcine issues:
Does contracting the swine flu make a person less of a Muslim?
If someone refers to a Muslim house that is not neat as a 'pig sty', can the owner forgive the person or must s/he attempt to cleanse that person’s mouth?
Does listening to film dialogues with terms like “sooar ki aulad” (offspring of swine) make one haraam?
What about phrases like “eat like a pig”, “ride piggy-back”…are they legitimate and acceptable?
Can Muslim children put their small change in piggy banks? If yes, does the same rule apply also to Eidi (monetary gift on Eid)?
These are questions of importance and it would be nice if some maulvi took time off and explained. I am dying to get involved in this fatwa business and I don’t care if I have to be called a swine for it.
Can I vote for a drunkard? No, that's not my query. I'd be happy to recommend at least a nice after dinner liquer to erase the taste of kebabs from the palate.
This important question, among others regarding how to cast your vote that won't go against the Shariah, was apparently asked by some Muslims. I do not know how true it must be for one has never heard of such a thing before. But the Darul ul Uloom got its opportunity to issue one more fatwa.
This time it is to vote and for democracy. Which is such a dictatorial thing to do. Getting that ink dot is "as important as a testimony or a witness is in Islam", they said.
Then, the faithful are told that they cannot judge Indian democracy according to Quranic or Hadith principles.
Now, this is wonderful except that by issuing this edict and other past ones they are, and have been, going against their own sage advice.
It has got them brownie points and people will go, "Oh, this is the much-needed reform Muslim society needs." The Darul ul Uloom fellows will be seen as 'leaders'. One more joke.
Who knows this fatwa must have been prompted by some candidate who likes to wash down his rogan josh with Scotch?
I'd say lage raho miyan bhai, but please leave the ordinary Muslim alone to decide whether they want a drunkard, a womaniser or a Sufi high on hash.
These are disparate thoughts based on current events. The best way is to address them to the people concerned. Although they are meant to convey a serious purpose, the tenor might not be so.
To the Mumbai Police Commissioner
Sir:
I understand that the lone terrorist you have in your custody has been given his last name by your department. You have made him talk about other things – even their psychological training where they make sure the terrorists have no emotional ties. You insist he refused to give out any name. So, you called him Kasab or Kasav. Reports say it means butcher. In which language, sir?
I remember as a child accompanying my mother to one of those mohallas where the zariwalla worked…they had this golden coil-like thread. It was called kasab, and embroidered on dupattas or any other clothing.
As far as I know a butcher is a Kasai. On behalf of these professionals I think it is unfair to use such a term. Butchers slaughter animals that are consumed by people who pay for it; there is a market for the meat. You take away the butchers and most people will wonder what to do with the ghaas-puss. Look, everyone is not into this organic lifestyle. At the most, the style divas will have their meat lightly cooked with healthy herbs. And let me remind you that except for three states in – Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan – the rest of India happily allows kasai-khanas. Even in these states, meat is available.
Therefore, I urge you to kindly rename Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab. Please choose a shuddh Hindi name. How about Julmi? Nah, not zulmi…it has to be Julmi; the recordings crackle with the mispronunciation.
I hope you understand that I am an ordinary citizen and I represent bakras, that too kishtoun pe.
Your shubh chintak
To Muslims at peace rallies
Salam alaikum dear fellowmen and women:
Firstly, stop signing off notes with ‘your brother in Islam’ unless you mean it quite literally. I am a literal person. Besides, to be my brother you need certain qualifications, so just go slow on this, okay?
Now tell me what did you get by walking from CST to the sea-face outside Oberoi-Trident? What did you do? Stand there and shout slogans like “killers of innocents were enemies of Islam’’ and the “enemies of India were enemies of Muslims too’’.
You lifted your hands in prayer. Right? The cameras captured you looking like good Mussalmans, just the way they like it. It looks like you are all out for Eid ki namaaz.
Did any of you insist that the celebrities come dressed like that? Why not? If this is to be seen as standard Islamic dress then why did Javed Akhtar, who was screaming “enough is enough” on the Indian Idol show and then giggling about love-struck stories, not wear the skull cap and join his hands in prayer and ask Allah’s blessings?
Had you even heard about Alyque Padamsee before he decided to start his fatwa nautanki? You sat there and quietly listened as this man started on his nonsense:
“Terrorists are fake Muslims while peace-loving tolerant Muslims are the real Muslims. 99.9% of Indian Muslims believe the Quran, which says the killing of innocents is wrong. Those who don’t believe it are ‘nakli (fake)’ Muslims. Committing suicide is a sin in Islam, so how can a suicide bomber believe he will go to ‘jannat (paradise)’?’’
See, he sat with some maulana in a nice room, had badaam doodh and learned two-three lines which everyone knows. Gosh, even Mr. Advani can say these things. Has anyone ever talked about fake Hindus, fake Christians, fake Jews? Now you have to put up with this item number…he says it is a sin to commit suicide in Islam. You should have hit back with, “It is illegal to commit suicide according to the Indian Constitution.”
That would show him his place and make you rise above this Muslims-are-not-bad trip that you are forced to take.
I know that as per your idea of religion I am not a good Muslim. I agree; if you call me naqli, I will say, to an extent I am. That is the difference. I accept it.
I don’t lecture you on Islam or ask you to join these rallies and herd you like sheep to the kasai-khana where these people hang their consciences.
Your ‘sees’-tah
To myself
Dear FV:
I wish to tell you that you are right about these things, but I want to share with the readers a part from one of the letters I have received. It has shaken me up.
The person has a Hindu name, but the contents seem to reveal deep knowledge about Islam; the tone is of a true secularist. He wrote:
“Please don't make statements like – ‘They are irritated because I do not quote anything from the Quran, but can bring up Shakespeare and Neruda and revel in Urdu poets like Faiz and Faraz.’ So, my question is why are Muslims so defensive about their religion. You really don't have to quote Shakespeare and Neruda - you can go ahead and quote The Holy Quran.
You write in paper and you are a public face (I am not sure whether you are Muslim. Please forgive if it is not the case). Why do you make such apologetic statements?”
If I don’t expose myself now or how I am viewed, I won’t be true to anything. This person is right. In some ways I do sound apologetic to a person who does not know that I really cannot quote from the Quran because of lack of knowledge. I also feel that in a secular democracy religion should be in the private domain. I was taunting those who want me to fall into a set style; I truly don’t. However, I can see how it can be perceived.
I just had to say it here and come clean. I hope the mirror does not crack.
Your shadow…and light…
End note:
CNN-IBN had a show last night commemorating many of those dead. Rajdeep Sardesai was at St. Xavier's College; young people were voicing their views. Rajdeep came up with a shocker of a last line: "So this is the Obama generation saying we want change".
Obama is twice their age. And change, whether somoene asks for it or not, will happen. Like Rajiv Gandhi talked about taking us into the 21st century. It had to happen.
Let us stop bringing the West and America into this. At least learn to have some self-respect and use our own models to get the spine we are now flaunting.
