Saturday, March 06, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
On Cognitive Empowerment
“Coming to understand a painting or a symphony in an unfamiliar style, to recognize the work of an artist or school, to see or hear in new ways, is as cognitive an achievement as learning to read or write or add.”
Nelson Goodman
The Muslim Indian community is today plagued with various maladies, including poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, and political insecurity. Perhaps M. A. Jinnah had foreseen and prophesied this state of the Muslim Indian community, and had vehemently demanded the partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Jinnah may or may not have been justified in his demand for a separate state; however, the reality stands to witness that partition has in no way solved these problems; neither in India nor in Pakistan. At the same time, it is cognitively absurd at this juncture to divulge, introspect, and resent on a historical rhetoric beyond our control. We might always be tempted to depart from the metaphorical and embellished thought process of conferring Partition as the root of our present maladies. However, our mental cerebration would almost always stop us from extricating the effect of Partition and its emotional implications on the sorry state we cut today. Why is any thought of the future so hauntingly dismayed by the past? Why cannot our thought process be alienated from this rhetoric impediment? The primary reason is that we acutely lack cognitive empowerment; and love to mix emotions and thinking [aka mixing drinking and driving??].
Cognitive empowerment might be a heavy and loaded term for many; however, it needs a high level of consideration. Before we define it, let’s take a look at the background of cognition – or the thought process. And even before we talk of cognition, let’s talk about the different types of learning and thought processes. Benjamin Bloom, a noted scientist in the field of learning psychology, has laid down three domains of learning in the taxonomy that he has developed:
- Cognitive: Deals with intellectual learning abilities
- Affective: Deals with emotions and behavioral skills
- Psychomotor: Deals physical movements, coordination, and use of motor skills
The irony with the Muslim Indian community today is that we precariously allow the affective domain to dominate in our thought process and decision making skills. This has a direct bearing of the environment that we are generally exposed to. Err; please allow me to call it ghetto, not environment!! We have been brought up in a ghetto that constantly reminds us that learning starts and ends with literacy – the ability to read and write. Unfortunately, learning starts much beyond simple literacy. Unfortunate in its sense because the intellectuals and frontrunners of the Community have never delved in this surprising verity – and we are often too happy and content with our efforts towards making the Community literate; maybe with a few degrees and certificates – nothing beyond that.
It is this ghetto that compels us to argue for reservations and other leverages; perceiving them as means to an end. Unfortunately again, these are ends in themselves, barriers that prevent us from moving any further. What we do with reservations and similar leverages is elevate ourselves on the same platform of abjection and wretchedness; when we should have actually thought of moving forward, not staying at the present location on an elevated platform. It is this ghetto that surreptitiously tempts us towards the coziness and security of being enclosed within a self-defined boundary of progress; bravely negating the external veracity. [For example, we clap and congratulate when a few students of AMU are selected by a few companies; but fail to compare with where the students of other universities stand in terms of placements.] We are belittled by the same ghetto to view engineering, medicine; maybe management and mass communication these days, as the conviction to success, while pompously ignoring any other unconventional but promising career. This ghetto gets more intense and innate in our generations with every level of lack of cognitive empowerment, because lack of empowerment has an overbearing genetic effect.
Cognitive empowerment can be developed with a sincere will combined with the ability to retrospect and question. Questioning leads to arguments, debates, and inductive and deductive reasoning. It has also been encouraged in our religion. The glorious Islamic history is witness to the birth, development, and implementation of this cognitive empowerment and reasoning; which might have obligated Allama Iqbal to proclaim that “the birth of Islam is the birth of inductive reasoning; an intellectual revolt against the speculative philosophy of the Greeks”. However, we have perhaps misplaced it somewhere. We need to search and reconstruct this intellectual revolt against the contemporary, and recognize, see, hear, and induce the reality in new ways. Let’s make this effort to understand a painting and a symphony detached from our conventional thought process. It would mark a renaissance to break open our ghetto thought process and regain our lost cognitive empowerment – not seemingly similar to gaining our lost glory, as per some think tanks. Till then, we have miles to go before we sleep…
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Outliving the Personality Cult
"An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry."
- George Eliot
I recollect sitting and discussing the political scenario with a few friends of mine way back in 1996, when the BJP had come to power for the first time. As obvious, BJP’s coming to power was being observed as a disheartening and depressing episode. “What would happen now?” I asked one of the most acclaimed friends in the group. “Nothing; we will get a very virtuous and competent Prime Minister in the rank of Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee!!” The group slithered with utter disbelief, shock, and silence for a while; and we called off the discussion. It’s almost 12 years since then, and I still recollect how true that friend was in stating about Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee – can we ever deny his competency as the Prime Minister of the largest democracy in the world? Before moving any further, let me clarify that I have been a stalwart opponent of the Saffron Brigade, and I still continue to be the same. Nevertheless, I somehow strongly believe in what my friend had said about Mr. Vajpayee, in spite of this.
It is not simple personal preferences or penchants that I wish to maintain here. Our country possesses numerous able and competent leaders like Mr. Vajpayee; irrespective of the political party they belong to. In addition, the country has a plethora of political parties with sarcastically, and sometimes sardonically, separated political views, an ever increasing and never ending phenomenon. The complex mix of individualism, sometimes combined and sometimes separated from the political philosophy, has always tickled the average Indian voter. It would have been really easy to ascertain our choice of the preferred leader(s) if we had to look at individuals separated from the political parties they belonged to. To elaborate – even if we assume that the BJP is communal (a simple assumption, without getting into any niceties), can we say Mr. Vajpyee is communal too? However, voting for the BJP just because one wants Mr. Vajpayee to be the Prime Minister does not appear logical either. The dilemma is that we can neither endorse an individual candidate separated from his/her political party, nor endorse a political party separated from its members. Therefore, even if I strongly endorse an individual political leader, I might not be able to actually vote for him/her because I do not agree with the political views of his/her political party. Any respite?
There was a time when the Indian populace was ascetically driven by the personality cult of the Indian National Congress. Prime Ministers were almost a tradition of royal legacy; from Nehru to Indira to Rajeev. Would it be too harsh to say that the Nehru family is still reckoned as the Royal Political Family of India? We might have Manmohan Singhs and I K Gujrals, but isn’t it self-revealing where the rein of thoughts and actions actually rests? It was believed by almost all average Muslim Indians that Congress was the ONLY benefactor for them (for reasons pretty incomprehensible to me); a belief that has surreptitiously eroded with time. Unfortunately, Congress has probably never been able to rise beyond the personality cult that it was so stitched to even before India got independence. At times, it is so appallingly nauseating to recollect: Though all political parties perform their bit in terms of uplifting the nation, BJP represents nothing but the Saffron Brigade; Congress tersely represents nothing but the festering Nehru legacy…
Remember when Rajeev Gandhi had been elected as the Prime Minister? Public sympathy over the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi was perhaps one of the most prominent motivations for people to vote in favor of the Congress during those times. How logical [or emotional] that decision was is a matter of open debate. India did see a young, energetic, and effervescent India during the tenure of Rajeev Gandhi. In fact, the Prime Ministership of late P.V. Narsimha Rao was probably seen as a respite to Nehru legacy; which was probably too ephemeral to yield results. Evidently, Congress could never gain an absolute majority after that, due to seemingly categorical reasons. This regime also witnessed a dramatic shift in the voting pattern of the Indian Voters; when emotional judgment saw a significant mount in deciding the voting patterns. I would say that the Congress has been a good player of the emotional card, albeit the fact that this emotional [read religious] card might be more vociferously visible in case of communal fronts such as the Saffron Brigade. [Scrutinize the “Jai Ho” television ad of the Indian National Congress as a proof of this statement!!]
The emotional voting pattern was actually induced by the Indian National Congress itself; at occasions when it did not have enough substance to reinforce any logical agenda for elections. The other important weaponry adopted by the Congress was the sponsorship of the Nehru Family as the legal progenies for Prime Ministership. Specifically Nehru Family members who were known to be in agreement with the erstwhile Prime Ministers; others like Sanjay or Maneka Gandhi were probably not deserving because they had the nerve to differ. [I am a politically neural person when it comes to endorsing one between the Congress and BJP; therefore please do not decipher this statement in support of Maneka Gandhi.] This proclivity towards the personality cult was so prohibitive, even in the Pre-Independence era, that perhaps it cost us the division of the nation. This can be further maintained by the fact that Maulana Azad had endorsed the May 16, 1946 proposal of the Cabinet Mission to constitute a federal government with greater autonomy for the provinces. Evidently, Maulana Azad had envisaged that this would subdue Jinnah’s demand for a separate nation. However, unfortunately, the stance was ingeniously hijacked by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru because a weak center would imply a weak position of Prime Ministership (Nehru Family descendants??). Maulana Azad was perhaps very right in mentioning in his book, “India Wins Freedom”, that if this situation had not been monopolized by the Indian National Congress, perhaps we would not have witnessed the eternally blemishing Partition.
Returning to the personality cult postulate, when the BJP and the likes espoused on religious sentiments to generate their vote bank, it was only a more erudite and bespoke implementation of the Congress stratagem. Perceptibly, the Congress has been brazened out by its own weapon now. What it had adopted to entice the Minorities has now been evidently; and unfortunately, more adequately worn out by the Saffron Brigade to commandeer the Majority vote bank [my apologies, an assumed Majority vote bank]! If things continue the way they appear, we should not expect an absolute majority of any party in at least the next 25 years perhaps. What next?
A coalition government is highly susceptible to what I love calling “leg pulling cricket”. Obviously, a coalition has its own benefits in terms of better accountability; but most of the times, accountability is hijacked in favor of vested interests. Do we see a respite? As responsible citizens of the largest democracy, we ought to handle this fact with care. In addition, we need to ensure that we decide our vote based on cognition and acumen, not pure sentiments or emotions. The BJP might appear communal; let’s not vote for the Congress ONLY because of this. The Congress may pledge evasion from communalism [though temporary and doubtful]; let’s not vote for the Congress ONLY for this reason. To emanate my point, let’s not shy away from rethinking and amending our political predilections from scratch. Let’s do a more effective cost-benefit analysis before deciding our vote. We would also be required to read between the lines of media endorsements and not be swayed by their speculations or exit polls [it is evidently proved that exit polls are a strong means to influence voting patterns]. The media also needs to be neutral and impartial in its true sense to ensure that we get a government “of the people”, not of the “politicians and tacticians”. Let’s use the personality cult in OUR favor, not in the favor of the vested interests.
Long Live India, Long Live Indian Democracy!!
Friday, March 20, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Myopia of Rational Thinking
“Thus, a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself, but he still remains a pillar of the community as long as he performs ritual namaz, goes on Haj and abstains from pork. A Hindu may do likewise, but as long as he donates to temples, goes on pilgrimage, does not eat beef and holds bovine life more sacred than human, he will pass muster.”
So holds Lalit Mohan, in his article, “Understanding Terror, Religion Link,” published by Hindustan Times on January 13, 2009. [Read this article here]
It is nauseating to read and recollect how Mr. Mohan obnoxiously argues and tries to prove the point that terrorism is spelt by religion. It really failed and baffled my acumen to accept how such a myopic view can be held and published by a National Daily like the Hindustan Times. The article contains everything except substance and grounded logic. The article not only speaks of the indigent knowledge of Mr. Mohan about the religions but also narrates his poor logic. Terrorism is a vast issue, and a myopic view such as this would only hamper in our efforts to counter it.
Arguably, Mr. Mohan has adopted a quite inhibited view of terrorism. To elaborate, he hastily bellows on the terrorism that takes the form of conflicting religious interests, be it Kashmir, Ayodhya, Godhra, or Mumbai. What about the terrorism delineated in the form of LTTE, ULFA, Naxalism, and the likes? Which religion would Mr. Mohan ascribe to explain LTTE-based terrorism? What kind of religious convergence do the ULFA have? Or does he want to contend that these are no instances of terrorism? Surely, if he does so, it would defiantly stand against the national sentiments, since the Government of India has banned most of these terror organizations.
“If there was no religious divide, terrorists from across the border would not have come to ravage Mumbai because there would have been no border to cross between two regions that were once one India.” How does Mr. Mohan defend this thesis of his when it comes to LTTE, ULFA, and Naxalites? “So after ‘Islamic terrorism’ there is now ‘Hindu terrorism’, just as we once had ‘Sikh terrorism’ and Christian terrorism in Ireland.” By holding this estimation, Mr. Mohan is doing no good to any of the religions. One might agree to Mr. Mohan (just for the sake of argument) that maybe Islam promotes terrorism. So by saying that we have Hindu terrorism as we had Sikh terrorism and Christian terrorism, does Mr. Mohan want to portray that Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity, all promote terrorism? More than three-fourth of the world follows one religion or the other. So, does that mean three-fourth world population comes under the brand of terrorism?
To take a flip-side view, the term terrorism is actually contextual. Do we not recall how Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were branded terrorists by the British Government, but were heroes in the eyes of every patriotic Indian? Can we afford to doubt the intent of the great Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his role in India’s struggle for independence? Still, Netaji was never held in high regards, was in fact branded a terrorist by the British rulers. Similarly, LTTE is a hero organization for the Tamil Tigers, in spite of the fact that it’s declared a banned terror outfit in India. To ensure that I am not misconstrued, I would vehemently proclaim that I do not stand to justify or defend terrorism. The point that I want to set right is that the brand terrorists is contextual in most cases. Whatever said, no logic would ever be able to justify the atrocities and killings inflicted on innocents by any means.
Let me now give a rational religious point of view to this argument; taking the example from the great epic Ramayana. We know that Great Hanuman had dignified powers compared to others in his rank. However, he temporarily forgot his powers because he misused them. He was able to recall his powers when he set out with a virtuous intention to help Lord Ram. This applies to all religions as well. Every religion bestows great powers to its followers, but no religion teaches its followers to torture and kill innocents. Yes, religions do teach us to stand for justice; enforce by power if possible, stand for justice by way of words, and stand for justice by considering a wrong as a wrong. If; however, this power of enforcing justice and renouncing injustice is misused by few people, can we say that the roots terrorism lie with religions? “Terror is not a by-product of religion”; however, our myopic way of looking at religions is. What we need to fight is not religion, but the misuse of religion for vested interests, which is a vulnerable coerce with any religion. “This is the evil we must fight. Denial will not get us anywhere”.
Just to add for the information of Mr. Mohan, if a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself for an unjust cause, it is not condoned in Islam. For the Holy Quran states that if a person slays another person without any just reason [which has further been defined and elaborated in the Quran], it is as if he has killed the entire humankind; and if he resuscitates the life of another person, it is as if he has saved the entire humankind.
So holds Lalit Mohan, in his article, “Understanding Terror, Religion Link,” published by Hindustan Times on January 13, 2009. [Read this article here]
It is nauseating to read and recollect how Mr. Mohan obnoxiously argues and tries to prove the point that terrorism is spelt by religion. It really failed and baffled my acumen to accept how such a myopic view can be held and published by a National Daily like the Hindustan Times. The article contains everything except substance and grounded logic. The article not only speaks of the indigent knowledge of Mr. Mohan about the religions but also narrates his poor logic. Terrorism is a vast issue, and a myopic view such as this would only hamper in our efforts to counter it.
Arguably, Mr. Mohan has adopted a quite inhibited view of terrorism. To elaborate, he hastily bellows on the terrorism that takes the form of conflicting religious interests, be it Kashmir, Ayodhya, Godhra, or Mumbai. What about the terrorism delineated in the form of LTTE, ULFA, Naxalism, and the likes? Which religion would Mr. Mohan ascribe to explain LTTE-based terrorism? What kind of religious convergence do the ULFA have? Or does he want to contend that these are no instances of terrorism? Surely, if he does so, it would defiantly stand against the national sentiments, since the Government of India has banned most of these terror organizations.
“If there was no religious divide, terrorists from across the border would not have come to ravage Mumbai because there would have been no border to cross between two regions that were once one India.” How does Mr. Mohan defend this thesis of his when it comes to LTTE, ULFA, and Naxalites? “So after ‘Islamic terrorism’ there is now ‘Hindu terrorism’, just as we once had ‘Sikh terrorism’ and Christian terrorism in Ireland.” By holding this estimation, Mr. Mohan is doing no good to any of the religions. One might agree to Mr. Mohan (just for the sake of argument) that maybe Islam promotes terrorism. So by saying that we have Hindu terrorism as we had Sikh terrorism and Christian terrorism, does Mr. Mohan want to portray that Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity, all promote terrorism? More than three-fourth of the world follows one religion or the other. So, does that mean three-fourth world population comes under the brand of terrorism?
To take a flip-side view, the term terrorism is actually contextual. Do we not recall how Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were branded terrorists by the British Government, but were heroes in the eyes of every patriotic Indian? Can we afford to doubt the intent of the great Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his role in India’s struggle for independence? Still, Netaji was never held in high regards, was in fact branded a terrorist by the British rulers. Similarly, LTTE is a hero organization for the Tamil Tigers, in spite of the fact that it’s declared a banned terror outfit in India. To ensure that I am not misconstrued, I would vehemently proclaim that I do not stand to justify or defend terrorism. The point that I want to set right is that the brand terrorists is contextual in most cases. Whatever said, no logic would ever be able to justify the atrocities and killings inflicted on innocents by any means.
Let me now give a rational religious point of view to this argument; taking the example from the great epic Ramayana. We know that Great Hanuman had dignified powers compared to others in his rank. However, he temporarily forgot his powers because he misused them. He was able to recall his powers when he set out with a virtuous intention to help Lord Ram. This applies to all religions as well. Every religion bestows great powers to its followers, but no religion teaches its followers to torture and kill innocents. Yes, religions do teach us to stand for justice; enforce by power if possible, stand for justice by way of words, and stand for justice by considering a wrong as a wrong. If; however, this power of enforcing justice and renouncing injustice is misused by few people, can we say that the roots terrorism lie with religions? “Terror is not a by-product of religion”; however, our myopic way of looking at religions is. What we need to fight is not religion, but the misuse of religion for vested interests, which is a vulnerable coerce with any religion. “This is the evil we must fight. Denial will not get us anywhere”.
Just to add for the information of Mr. Mohan, if a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself for an unjust cause, it is not condoned in Islam. For the Holy Quran states that if a person slays another person without any just reason [which has further been defined and elaborated in the Quran], it is as if he has killed the entire humankind; and if he resuscitates the life of another person, it is as if he has saved the entire humankind.
Monday, February 16, 2009
That Sense of Insecurity…
“I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have inherited Islam's glorious tradition of the last fourteen hundred years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. ... I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total makeup, without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete.”
Arguably, the answer to the above question should be, YES. Muslim Indians are insecure because we face threats from all nooks and corners. We face insecurity in terms of employment, we face insecurity in terms of civil rights and codes, we face insecurity in terms of our beliefs and the edifice of our beliefs, we face insecurity in terms of our material possessions, and we face insecurity in terms of existence. So much so that we have all developed a fear psychosis that has stripped us from exploring and evaluating the de facto. The insecurity of existence becomes the gravest when we hear of the consistent thumping of the media regarding the relationship between terrorism and Muslims, and Islam. It apparently feels strenuous to revere about anything else when we face this momentous insecurity of existence. We have lived, and continue to live in this abject fear of insecurity. However, have we ever contemplated that this is exactly what the adversaries actually want us to believe?
Cogitating the historical despoilment of the Great Partition of 1947, I am reminded of a popular informal saying that almost all Muslim Indians would have been worse than bonded labors in Independent India, had it not been for the efforts of Late Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aligarh Muslim University. [We do realize the fact how Independent India had been stripped off the elite and intellectual Muslims, our inspiration and think-tank, majority of whom had migrated to Pakistan in lure of greener pastures?] During those overcast days, AMU had emerged as the single source for dispensing distinction and virtuosity to Muslim Indians (and I should not be incorrect to say that perhaps it still continues to be so). Were Muslim Indians secure during those days? Perhaps not. How then, were we able to carve out a niche for ourselves during those days of insecurity – considering the fact that the magnitude of insecurity of existence was the highest during those days?
One prime and important reason that occurs to me is that Muslim Indians were definitely insecure in terms of existence; however, were not insecure in terms of their IDENTITY. Things are probably not much different today – we are in minority today as well, we do face prejudice and biasness today as well, and we do face the same threat to our property and lives today as well. The difference is that we did not face identity insecurity then, which we so deficiently face today. To exemplify – how comfortable do we feel talking about Islam and Muslim Indians in public? How comfortable are we in discussing our rituals and beliefs? Most important of all, how comfortable are we in expressing ourselves as Muslim Indians (not Indian Muslims)? We ensure that we do not talk about the problems being faced by average Muslim Indians because we might be termed intolerant. We avoid expressing our rituals and beliefs because we fear becoming outcasts compared to the Majority. We fear (yes, FEAR) in expressing ourselves as Muslim Indians because we might be branded NON-SECULAR. This, the insecurity of IDENTITY, is the gravest concern that we are evidently faced with today.
The adversaries thrive on our insecurity of identity because they are aware and confident of the fact that this insecurity has all the aptitude to sojourn our rational thinking. And once we are stripped of rational thinking, everything starts slickly falling into their platter! Consider this revised sense of insecurity under the influence of stripped rational – We need to co-EXIST with a Majority. Therefore, we need to live at their disposal. We need to abide by their rules of existence. If we cannot exist, how would we be able to proceed with our subsistence? Everything else (including education, employment, economy, empowerment, disposition, and social recognition and actualization) can wait; first we need to survive, EXIST. This is how things appear, and this is what and how the adversaries want us to believe!
The way out is easier said than done. It all is a vicious circle (something similar to the chakravyuh), the never-ending spiral formation of abjection, which needs to be broken; broken from various fronts simultaneously. The first front that we need to strike is our attitude and thought process, rational thinking, to be more precise. Let’s inspect the conditions a little more objectively, with a more rationale line of thought. Muslim Indians constitute more than 13% of the total Indian populace. What percentage of Muslim representation do we have at various levels of national, social, political, economic, educational, and corporate governance? If we do not have adequate representation, how do we plan to wash out this enduring sense of insecurity? How do we ensure adequate representation if we are not adequately educated and consummate? One may argue that to be educated and consummate, one needs to be secure in terms of existence.
To address the previous concern, let’s appraise Article 29 of the Constitution of India, which states, “(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.” So, if we are not educated and consummate, how can we expect to discern and implement this provision provided to us by our Constitution?
Having realized the importance of educational deficiency, we need to work on it manifolds. First, we need to collectively shun the premise of insecurity to existence being the highest level of our concern. Rather, we need to look at educational deficiency among Muslim Indians as the gravest of all concerns. We need to reconstruct our educational edifice so that our children get impartial education and excel in both religious and contemporary domains. At the same time, we need to hunt down the disgrace and de-branding of Muslim Indians in terms of insecurity of our IDENTITY. This calls for a revolution in its true sense – working on war footing to pull off both these ends simultaneously. We need colossal efforts, sweat, toil, maybe blood, to uplift ourselves out of this sense of insecurity. That is the only way we can candidly and profoundly say that we are not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy (being a Muslim) and we are equally proud of the fact that we are Muslim Indians, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, without which our noble edifice will remain incomplete.
- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
A recent public opinion poll on a popular Muslim Indian e-magazine tries to ascertain the most important issue that is plaguing Muslim Indians this year. The issues discussed are many, ranging from economy and employment, to security and spiritually. Interestingly, majority of the respondents felt economy as the biggest area of concern (almost 37%), followed by security (20%). What appears even more alarming is the fact that the readership of this e-magazine includes majority of elite and educated Muslim Indians (most of whom are NRIs in various parts of the world, including the Americas). The alarming percentage of our elite population that acknowledges insecurity is a disturbing fact. [Maybe, economy has been recorded as the most important issue in this poll as a temporary but important issue, because of the persistent world economic slump underway.] Are we, Muslim Indians, insecure; to the extent that 20% of our elite class believes it to be the prime concern?
Arguably, the answer to the above question should be, YES. Muslim Indians are insecure because we face threats from all nooks and corners. We face insecurity in terms of employment, we face insecurity in terms of civil rights and codes, we face insecurity in terms of our beliefs and the edifice of our beliefs, we face insecurity in terms of our material possessions, and we face insecurity in terms of existence. So much so that we have all developed a fear psychosis that has stripped us from exploring and evaluating the de facto. The insecurity of existence becomes the gravest when we hear of the consistent thumping of the media regarding the relationship between terrorism and Muslims, and Islam. It apparently feels strenuous to revere about anything else when we face this momentous insecurity of existence. We have lived, and continue to live in this abject fear of insecurity. However, have we ever contemplated that this is exactly what the adversaries actually want us to believe?
Cogitating the historical despoilment of the Great Partition of 1947, I am reminded of a popular informal saying that almost all Muslim Indians would have been worse than bonded labors in Independent India, had it not been for the efforts of Late Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aligarh Muslim University. [We do realize the fact how Independent India had been stripped off the elite and intellectual Muslims, our inspiration and think-tank, majority of whom had migrated to Pakistan in lure of greener pastures?] During those overcast days, AMU had emerged as the single source for dispensing distinction and virtuosity to Muslim Indians (and I should not be incorrect to say that perhaps it still continues to be so). Were Muslim Indians secure during those days? Perhaps not. How then, were we able to carve out a niche for ourselves during those days of insecurity – considering the fact that the magnitude of insecurity of existence was the highest during those days?
One prime and important reason that occurs to me is that Muslim Indians were definitely insecure in terms of existence; however, were not insecure in terms of their IDENTITY. Things are probably not much different today – we are in minority today as well, we do face prejudice and biasness today as well, and we do face the same threat to our property and lives today as well. The difference is that we did not face identity insecurity then, which we so deficiently face today. To exemplify – how comfortable do we feel talking about Islam and Muslim Indians in public? How comfortable are we in discussing our rituals and beliefs? Most important of all, how comfortable are we in expressing ourselves as Muslim Indians (not Indian Muslims)? We ensure that we do not talk about the problems being faced by average Muslim Indians because we might be termed intolerant. We avoid expressing our rituals and beliefs because we fear becoming outcasts compared to the Majority. We fear (yes, FEAR) in expressing ourselves as Muslim Indians because we might be branded NON-SECULAR. This, the insecurity of IDENTITY, is the gravest concern that we are evidently faced with today.
The adversaries thrive on our insecurity of identity because they are aware and confident of the fact that this insecurity has all the aptitude to sojourn our rational thinking. And once we are stripped of rational thinking, everything starts slickly falling into their platter! Consider this revised sense of insecurity under the influence of stripped rational – We need to co-EXIST with a Majority. Therefore, we need to live at their disposal. We need to abide by their rules of existence. If we cannot exist, how would we be able to proceed with our subsistence? Everything else (including education, employment, economy, empowerment, disposition, and social recognition and actualization) can wait; first we need to survive, EXIST. This is how things appear, and this is what and how the adversaries want us to believe!
The way out is easier said than done. It all is a vicious circle (something similar to the chakravyuh), the never-ending spiral formation of abjection, which needs to be broken; broken from various fronts simultaneously. The first front that we need to strike is our attitude and thought process, rational thinking, to be more precise. Let’s inspect the conditions a little more objectively, with a more rationale line of thought. Muslim Indians constitute more than 13% of the total Indian populace. What percentage of Muslim representation do we have at various levels of national, social, political, economic, educational, and corporate governance? If we do not have adequate representation, how do we plan to wash out this enduring sense of insecurity? How do we ensure adequate representation if we are not adequately educated and consummate? One may argue that to be educated and consummate, one needs to be secure in terms of existence.
To address the previous concern, let’s appraise Article 29 of the Constitution of India, which states, “(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.” So, if we are not educated and consummate, how can we expect to discern and implement this provision provided to us by our Constitution?
Having realized the importance of educational deficiency, we need to work on it manifolds. First, we need to collectively shun the premise of insecurity to existence being the highest level of our concern. Rather, we need to look at educational deficiency among Muslim Indians as the gravest of all concerns. We need to reconstruct our educational edifice so that our children get impartial education and excel in both religious and contemporary domains. At the same time, we need to hunt down the disgrace and de-branding of Muslim Indians in terms of insecurity of our IDENTITY. This calls for a revolution in its true sense – working on war footing to pull off both these ends simultaneously. We need colossal efforts, sweat, toil, maybe blood, to uplift ourselves out of this sense of insecurity. That is the only way we can candidly and profoundly say that we are not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy (being a Muslim) and we are equally proud of the fact that we are Muslim Indians, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, without which our noble edifice will remain incomplete.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
The Farce of Fatwa
What does Fatwa mean? Who are eligible to pronounce Fatwa? How far is it binding upon the Muslims? Pretty common and simple questions with equally simple answers. However, recent unfoldings have not left these questions as simple as they appear to be.
For instance, I was literally confused by the Imrana case. I have always believed (as every Muslim should believe) that every Islamic doctrine has some logical appeal within it. However, this issue had shaken me completely as the resulting fatwas making the marriage null and void had me thinking for long. I was not ready to accept (still not accepting this) that Islam can be so illogical and detached towards the rights of a woman. Well, to my knowledge, having illicit relationship with one's father-in-law - WITH CONSENT - might well result in the disolution of marriage (no objections to this). However, rape is surely different, leading to a different set of concequences, which should be taken care of while giving such fatwas.
This situation was very tricky and could well be sabotaged by anti-Islamic people who state that Islam is against the rights of women. And they would not be wrong in assuming or conceiving this perception, looking at the way this situation was handled - the woman was a victim of a horrendous crime and at the same time was also denied the right of a lawful marriage??!!
I found this article by Asif Jalal, which also appeared in the Sahara newspaper. I am reproducing it here with his permission.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Farce of Fatwa
The sting operation carried out by a television channel airing footage of muftis at prestigious seminary in Delhi, Deoband and Meerut taking bribe for issuing fatwa is a symptom of deeper malaise that afflict the business of issuing fatwa in India.
This came soon after the controversial fatwa in Imrana case and the fatwa prohibiting Muslims from reciting Vande Mataram. Not far back, in order to facilitate the marriage of an aged Arab to two teenage girls simultaneously, a mufti from Hyderabad issued a fatwa that a man can marry two wives at one go. Another mufti also from Hyderabad issued a fatwa declaring the way Sania Mirza dress to be un-Islamic as that 'leaves nothing to imagination'. If you can recount, there is no end to such scandalous fatwa.
All these lead us to some very significant conclusions. First, the moral fabric of our ulema associated with even the best of the institutions like Darul Uloom Deoband is corruptible and tenuous as that of the rest of the society; they are not immune to the worldly allurements and temptations as we assume them to be. Therefore, we cannot rely solely on them for our guidance and leadership.
Secondly, as per one the conditions for issuing fatwa, it should be proclaimed only by someone who is having a comprehensive knowledge and erudition in the religious and secular knowledge. By this standard, not many muftis are competent to issue fatwa as they thoroughly lack the understanding of the situation and the case. Today our muftis simply open the rule-book which accounts for situations hundreds of years old and pronounce fatwa like a decree. But even the Islamic scholars of the stature of Imams Abu Hanifa and Imam Hanbal issued fatwa only after making a serious study of the situation and taking all aspects of the matter into consideration. However, the contemporary muftis issue fatwa at the drop of the hat without any understanding and due care.
Moreover, one of the basic facts about a fatwa is that it is mere an opinion of a cleric on an issue supposedly from Islamic perspective; and opinion on any issue of concern may be more than one, even contradictory and all of them may be correct. For example, in the Imrana case, as per Hanafi School, the lady was declared illegal to her husband as after the rape she became the mother of her husband. But as per Shafi School she was lawful to her husband. In fact, even within one school the founders of the Islamic laws had no arrogance about the finality of truth.
And what is more important is that a fatwa is not binding or obligatory to comply with, though we treat it as if it is a decree from Allah and its violation is the surest way to hell. The ignorance of this point among the common Muslims is one single biggest hurdle in their socio-economic and educational development, as their single step forward is blocked by plethora of mindless fatwa, and the Muslims think that acting contrary to the fatwa they will anger God. And the non-Muslims think that a fatwa, even if it is contrary to the demand of time and the spirit of the age, is obeyed by all the Muslims necessarily.
Thirdly, as the concern of issuing fatwa is associated with ulema's project to maintain hegemony over Muslim's private sphere and to keep themselves relevant in modern times, it would not be out of place to mention that ulema's deep distaste for the modern education frustrates their power ambition. The principal prerequisite for the position of leadership is knowledge, the religious as well as secular knowledge, the one which they look condescendingly and think as evil and unimportant. For their ambition they would do better if they also possess knowledge of sociology, psychology, political science, modern philosophy etc. That will not only strengthen their hold over the Muslim community, something which they want desperately, but would also serve a community which is basically disorganized, backward and leaderless.
Fourthly, the whole episode also provides an opportunity to the common Muslims to know what goes in making of a fatwa, something which we treat so sacredly. We think that it is the pure feeling, the fear of God and the spirit of service of the people which inspire the ulema to deliver fatwa. Therefore, we take it seriously and endeavour to comply it with all our sincerity. However, a fatwa is a queer combination of the lust for power, greed for wealth and, on the top of it, total ignorance. Therefore, when the Muslims seek a fatwa or come to know about a fatwa on a matter they should give a second thought to it before observing it; they should reject it summarily if they find it to be against reason, human values and the spirit of Islam.
It is also the duty of the Muslim intelligentsia, activists, and leaders to come forward and condemn archaic and retrogressive pronouncements as they create a caricature of Islam and put Muslims to shame. Sometimes they also lead to communal tension.
It should also be realized that Islam is the only religion of the world which does not provide for a priestly class, though the ulema have started acting exactly like that. In Islam, God is accessible and his religion is understandable by anybody who is interested and sincere. That is, anybody having knowledge and interest can apply his knowledge and reason to the problem with which we go to the ulema who more often than not misguide us.
And finally, the media should not give publicity to such bunkum. What may go unnoticed and without controversy is made the central issue of debate and the whole Muslim community get entrapped in that. There are saner people and much worthy things performed by mass of the Muslim population and this aspect of the community should make the core of media concern.
For instance, I was literally confused by the Imrana case. I have always believed (as every Muslim should believe) that every Islamic doctrine has some logical appeal within it. However, this issue had shaken me completely as the resulting fatwas making the marriage null and void had me thinking for long. I was not ready to accept (still not accepting this) that Islam can be so illogical and detached towards the rights of a woman. Well, to my knowledge, having illicit relationship with one's father-in-law - WITH CONSENT - might well result in the disolution of marriage (no objections to this). However, rape is surely different, leading to a different set of concequences, which should be taken care of while giving such fatwas.
This situation was very tricky and could well be sabotaged by anti-Islamic people who state that Islam is against the rights of women. And they would not be wrong in assuming or conceiving this perception, looking at the way this situation was handled - the woman was a victim of a horrendous crime and at the same time was also denied the right of a lawful marriage??!!
I found this article by Asif Jalal, which also appeared in the Sahara newspaper. I am reproducing it here with his permission.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Farce of Fatwa
- By Asif Jalal
The sting operation carried out by a television channel airing footage of muftis at prestigious seminary in Delhi, Deoband and Meerut taking bribe for issuing fatwa is a symptom of deeper malaise that afflict the business of issuing fatwa in India.
This came soon after the controversial fatwa in Imrana case and the fatwa prohibiting Muslims from reciting Vande Mataram. Not far back, in order to facilitate the marriage of an aged Arab to two teenage girls simultaneously, a mufti from Hyderabad issued a fatwa that a man can marry two wives at one go. Another mufti also from Hyderabad issued a fatwa declaring the way Sania Mirza dress to be un-Islamic as that 'leaves nothing to imagination'. If you can recount, there is no end to such scandalous fatwa.
All these lead us to some very significant conclusions. First, the moral fabric of our ulema associated with even the best of the institutions like Darul Uloom Deoband is corruptible and tenuous as that of the rest of the society; they are not immune to the worldly allurements and temptations as we assume them to be. Therefore, we cannot rely solely on them for our guidance and leadership.
Secondly, as per one the conditions for issuing fatwa, it should be proclaimed only by someone who is having a comprehensive knowledge and erudition in the religious and secular knowledge. By this standard, not many muftis are competent to issue fatwa as they thoroughly lack the understanding of the situation and the case. Today our muftis simply open the rule-book which accounts for situations hundreds of years old and pronounce fatwa like a decree. But even the Islamic scholars of the stature of Imams Abu Hanifa and Imam Hanbal issued fatwa only after making a serious study of the situation and taking all aspects of the matter into consideration. However, the contemporary muftis issue fatwa at the drop of the hat without any understanding and due care.
Moreover, one of the basic facts about a fatwa is that it is mere an opinion of a cleric on an issue supposedly from Islamic perspective; and opinion on any issue of concern may be more than one, even contradictory and all of them may be correct. For example, in the Imrana case, as per Hanafi School, the lady was declared illegal to her husband as after the rape she became the mother of her husband. But as per Shafi School she was lawful to her husband. In fact, even within one school the founders of the Islamic laws had no arrogance about the finality of truth.
And what is more important is that a fatwa is not binding or obligatory to comply with, though we treat it as if it is a decree from Allah and its violation is the surest way to hell. The ignorance of this point among the common Muslims is one single biggest hurdle in their socio-economic and educational development, as their single step forward is blocked by plethora of mindless fatwa, and the Muslims think that acting contrary to the fatwa they will anger God. And the non-Muslims think that a fatwa, even if it is contrary to the demand of time and the spirit of the age, is obeyed by all the Muslims necessarily.
Thirdly, as the concern of issuing fatwa is associated with ulema's project to maintain hegemony over Muslim's private sphere and to keep themselves relevant in modern times, it would not be out of place to mention that ulema's deep distaste for the modern education frustrates their power ambition. The principal prerequisite for the position of leadership is knowledge, the religious as well as secular knowledge, the one which they look condescendingly and think as evil and unimportant. For their ambition they would do better if they also possess knowledge of sociology, psychology, political science, modern philosophy etc. That will not only strengthen their hold over the Muslim community, something which they want desperately, but would also serve a community which is basically disorganized, backward and leaderless.
Fourthly, the whole episode also provides an opportunity to the common Muslims to know what goes in making of a fatwa, something which we treat so sacredly. We think that it is the pure feeling, the fear of God and the spirit of service of the people which inspire the ulema to deliver fatwa. Therefore, we take it seriously and endeavour to comply it with all our sincerity. However, a fatwa is a queer combination of the lust for power, greed for wealth and, on the top of it, total ignorance. Therefore, when the Muslims seek a fatwa or come to know about a fatwa on a matter they should give a second thought to it before observing it; they should reject it summarily if they find it to be against reason, human values and the spirit of Islam.
It is also the duty of the Muslim intelligentsia, activists, and leaders to come forward and condemn archaic and retrogressive pronouncements as they create a caricature of Islam and put Muslims to shame. Sometimes they also lead to communal tension.
It should also be realized that Islam is the only religion of the world which does not provide for a priestly class, though the ulema have started acting exactly like that. In Islam, God is accessible and his religion is understandable by anybody who is interested and sincere. That is, anybody having knowledge and interest can apply his knowledge and reason to the problem with which we go to the ulema who more often than not misguide us.
And finally, the media should not give publicity to such bunkum. What may go unnoticed and without controversy is made the central issue of debate and the whole Muslim community get entrapped in that. There are saner people and much worthy things performed by mass of the Muslim population and this aspect of the community should make the core of media concern.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Is Terrorism Synonymous to Jihad?
“Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And if anyone of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh (the Qur'ân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.”
- Al Quran, Surah Taubah, Verses # 5 and 6
The first verse is perhaps the most cynical and reviled of all the verses in Al Quran. Some go to the extent of citing these as the ground to preserve that Islam breeds terrorism. I try to analyze - not by emotions but by the virtue of logic – how true the concoction really is.
To start with, let us try to understand the perspective behind the verses. These verses were revealed when the nonbelievers of Mecca abandoned the truce agreement between them and the Muslims. So, the first verse talks about obliterating the nonbelievers not because they are nonbelievers but because they have invalidated the peace treaty, have failed to comply with the commitment that they had made with the Muslims. Doesn’t logic and today’s upright professionalism tell us to be committed to what we commit?? How does one look upon a person who defies a commitment? What if the breach of commitment leads to undue and unwanted loss of human lives? Well, ask the President of the US, and he has the answer: the annexation of Iraq and the proposed embargo on Iran. Reason? Breach of agreement by the two countries with respect to nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction. It is a different story whether the breach of agreement in this case was, or should, ever be authenticated. And obviously, it’s not at all logical or reasonable to deliberate that the US is the first, and the only country to have used nuclear weapons till date!! Oops! I thought of saying - Look, who is talking....
And if anyone of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allâh (the Qur'ân), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.”
- Al Quran, Surah Taubah, Verses # 5 and 6
The first verse is perhaps the most cynical and reviled of all the verses in Al Quran. Some go to the extent of citing these as the ground to preserve that Islam breeds terrorism. I try to analyze - not by emotions but by the virtue of logic – how true the concoction really is.
To start with, let us try to understand the perspective behind the verses. These verses were revealed when the nonbelievers of Mecca abandoned the truce agreement between them and the Muslims. So, the first verse talks about obliterating the nonbelievers not because they are nonbelievers but because they have invalidated the peace treaty, have failed to comply with the commitment that they had made with the Muslims. Doesn’t logic and today’s upright professionalism tell us to be committed to what we commit?? How does one look upon a person who defies a commitment? What if the breach of commitment leads to undue and unwanted loss of human lives? Well, ask the President of the US, and he has the answer: the annexation of Iraq and the proposed embargo on Iran. Reason? Breach of agreement by the two countries with respect to nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction. It is a different story whether the breach of agreement in this case was, or should, ever be authenticated. And obviously, it’s not at all logical or reasonable to deliberate that the US is the first, and the only country to have used nuclear weapons till date!! Oops! I thought of saying - Look, who is talking....
Allah says, however, that even if they (nonbelievers) have committed a breach of contract, spare them if they repent. And not only spare them – the next verse talks about escorting them to a secure place. Islam convenes surrendering before the Most Merciful and Forgiving Allah; and He is Oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful in spite of the wrong doings… Saddam Hussain will perhaps never be pardoned - beyond logic and doubts – even if he repents, but Islam does have the room for forgetting and forgiving. The irony is that Islam is considered the groundbreaker for terrorism and intolerance. Is President Bush listening?
Some introspection into the annals of history to ponder further:
The first Jihad was launched against the nonbelievers when the nonbelievers had attacked the newly converted handful of Muslims; and the existence of the Muslims was at stake. To elaborate, it was in defense, not offence. Should self-defense be defined as a form of terrorism?
- The greatest of all the Islamic battles or Jihad, known as Fateh Mecca, ended in the glorious victory of the Muslims; and not a single drop of blood was shed in this battle.
The two world wars combined have resulted in the torturing and murdering of thousands of human beings; a figure many time greater than the lives lost in all the Islamic Jihads taken together.
- Most of the prisoners of war in Islamic Jihad were set free with minimal or no harm being done to them, but today what is reckoned as a “civilized and justified war against terrorism,” has genteel and chivalrous offshoots such as Abu Gharib!!
If you still believe 9-11 and the likes as offshoots of Islam or Jihad, think again.
“A disempowered people is reminded of its own weaknesses. In the West a common response is to sink into the routines that dominate everyday life. Elsewhere in the world people become flustered, feel more and more helpless and nervous. Anger, frustration and despair multiply. They can no longer rely on the state for help. The laws favor the rich. So the more desperate among them, in search for a more meaningful existence, or simply to break the monotony, begin to live by their own laws." - Tariq Ali (Clash of Fundamentalism)
Stop desecrating Islam, else we might have more offshoots of the “war against terrorism,” living by their own laws.
Is Life Bothering You??
Monday, March 20, 2006
Fifth Columnist in Naipaul’s Islamic Journey
by Sharjeel Ahmad
"Contemporary Islamic fundamentalism is the child of imperialist fundamentalism, for by reducing the process of democracy to a farce, imperialism has created an environment which nurtures irrationalisms of every sort. A major cause of religious revivalism is the fact that all the other exit routes have been sealed off by the mother of all fundamentalism: American imperialism."-Tariq Ali (Clash of Fundamentalism)
Political unfolding in the recent past has often sparked fervent debates and hesitancy about Islam and Muslims. The instant simulacrum of Islam and the Muslims – as spelt by the media – is of a concept and community infested with hatred, aversion, and of course – "fundamentalism." V.S. Naipaul, the Nobel Laureate in literature, had also viewed the same semblance about this community while he had embarked on the journey to Iran and other Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia. The consummation of this journey is earnestly dispensed in Naipaul’s marvel, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey.
Naipaul admits in his book that he has had a proclivity towards Muslims, and eventually, the book is unquestionably a literary masterpiece; but has failed to disembogue the bias against the community or religion. He must have taken great pains to compose the papyrus, and perhaps the upshot would not have been so exasperating for the Muslim community, had he taken equal pain to endorse the veracity of his marvel. I am not a literary critique, and neither do I question the literary edifice of the book, however, here I will try to ensemble and emend certain delusions of Naipaul, specifically focusing my discussion on his recount of the journey to Iran.
My focus on Iran has some justifications – first that I have had an opportunity of a direct encountering with the country’s culture (as my father is in Iran, and has acquired the citizenship of the country recently). Second that what appends to the Muslims of Iran has an involuntary extension to the entire community across the globe. I have a few confessions to make, that commenting on a personage having the stature of Naipaul requires germane acumen as well as space, and I have a paucity of both; and that it might not appear the right time to discuss the inspection of this grandeur. I am, however, contended, more so because Naipaul has tried to examine the advent of fundamental contiguity among the Muslims, and this impression has emerged more vehemently in the recent past.
Naipaul asserts in his book that fundamentalism among Muslims owes its personification to the imperialistic character of Islam. "Islam, almost from the start, had been an imperialism as well as a religion,…"
One can accept this imperialist character going by the exemplification offered by Naipaul. Islamic history has been bottled with conquests, bloodshed and revolutions. What makes it different from the imperialistic doctrine is the objective. Imperialism commands subversion to a political and economic power, and subversion itself surreptitiously comprehends bloodshed. Islam, on the other hand, comprehends "brotherhood, honesty, the will to work, and proper recompense for labour," – an incarnate subversion not to a political system, but to a Divine Power.
Naipaul has engagingly questioned these four components of Islam as a respite to a political impasse, but has recoiled from recognizing these as the footing for any political aerie. "Brotherhood" connotes unity; which holds the ignition to the success of a populace. "Honesty" simulates justice and rule of law; the assured obligation for development and evolution of a political system. "Will to Work" is the prelude to political and social accountability, and "proper recompense for labour" is the motif of any human society. [Proper recompense for labour departs from equality of labour; which draws the line of contention between Islam and Communism, and I will cautiously elude this discussion as of now.] Anarchy spells unrest; unrest instituted on either or all of these four components.
How Islam endeavors to combat anarchy is evident in Islamic history. Its radiant in the number of times the Prophet (peace be upon him) has ordered the acquittal of prisoners of war; and evenhanded treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. Justice, in an Islamic state is invariant for believers (read Muslims) and non-believers (non-Muslims), and Aurangzeb, the cruelest acclaimed Muslim ruler of India, is still regarded as the apostle of justice. [An anecdote verbalizes that Aurangzeb had personally penalized a Muslim army commander trying to forcefully marry a non-Muslim girl.]
Naipaul himself has impressively endorsed two of these tenets – brotherhood and proper recompense for labour – but has still divorced from recognizing them as the curator of political bliss. It has been an indeed angelic recount of Naipaul when he extols the sharing of watermelon between Behzad and the lur taxi driver – does it not symbolize brotherhood and doting between different social classes? At the end of his visit to the holy city of Qom, what else other than proper recompense of labour had indoctrinated Naipaul not to altercate with the taxi driver for increased fair? Interpreting Naipaul’s sedate acceptance to the taxi driver’s supplication for increased fair itself connotes that proper recompense is the preamble to upright labour governance and political structure.
Like justice, this doctrine – let me say with intonation – does not discriminate between believers and non-believers in transiting it. Comparison of Islam with imperialism, however, resonates around the divergence of ideology between believers and non-believers in Naipaul’s synthesis, and the confused fabrication of this resonance in his script is exposed throughout the novel.
"Indeed there is nothing in Islam and in Muslim practices that is fundamentally opposed to democracy – justice, freedom, fairness, equality or tolerance. They (Muslims) reject democracy only because they reject the West" – M. A. Muqtedar Khan. [Remember this quote, it will lead to another exegesis in Iranian context.] I do not hesitate to accept that "Muslims are a bad minority," but will let history itself outline that they have proved to be a virtuous majority.
History shelters exegesis to all poignancy that transcends beyond human comprehension. It holds testimony of imperialism, the outrider of many afflictions of humanity that have questioned its own congruence. Imperialism, that was adopted as a means to extend economic vista and foreign markets by the industrialized and economically strong nations. It phonates blatantly on the pith of colonization; the ravaging of human accent in the name of nations and man made frontiers; the subversion of rectitude in the name of patriotism and nationalism. Imperialism has the tendency of not only an inherent servitude of the weak, but also of disconcerting the interests of its own vanguards. Isn’t it interesting to discern that the bitterest enemies of the U.S. today (Afghanistan, Iraq) had once been its intimate allies! A farther history solemnizes the clash of imperialistic interests that had detonated fierily into two World Wars; which have garnered more bloodshed and human carnage to their distinction than all Islamic Jihad or holy wars put together.
U.S. has been the most vivid aquanaut of imperialism. Kareem M. Kamel, the Egyptian freelancer, congregates this very elegantly, with particular reference to the U.S. and Iraq war, "The proposed war (Operation Dessert Storm) has very little to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is part of an ongoing U.S. effort to redraw the map of the Middle East, with an eye on controlling the flow of oil on more favorable terms, ensuring Israel’s continued military supremacy, and destroying the remnants of Iraq’s potential for regional leadership." The recent resignation of David Kay is an exceptional apposite to what Kareem has related about the U.S. imperialism. Iraq had to be taken to war, but Saudi Arabia tendered a voluntary resignation to the U.S. It had been instituted long back, but was audited with the landing of the U.S. troops in the Kingdom prior to the Gulf War.
When "a fierce enough," "flared up" woman "with her chador-encircled face" had castigated the Saudi government, it was not "a sectarian point," as comprehended by Naipaul. It manifested the malediction of an indeed un-Islamic government, which had willingly failed to repeal an attack on the identity of Islamic leadership that has been affiliated with the Kingdom. This is not a wishful statement, and a majority of Sunni Muslims (including me) would support, and do support what the Shia Muslim woman from Iran had reported. Kamel’s another citation, "One has only to remember it was mostly Saudis that carried out the September 11 attacks, in revenge for contamination of Islamic lands and holy places by U.S. bases," further ratifies my claim.
Naipaul has claimed that Muharram, as observed by Muslims, is actually affiliated to Shia faith. In essence, Muharram is an anamnesis of the struggle of Shaheed Imam Hussain against an unmerited succession to Khilafah, an event in Islamic history that stands momentous beyond any questions for both Shia and Sunni Muslims. Sunnis and Shias both observe the incident with invariant ardor, what differs is the way of reminiscing. The event solemnizes the struggle for the censure of a self-proclaimed Islamic government, as documented by these Saudis in Kamel’s reference. [Please pardon me if I am sounding in support of the Saudi terrorists – yes, I do favor them, not for what they did to the U.S., but for their assertion against their domestic government in Saudi Arabia.] Had September 11 happened earlier, Naipaul, with all respect to his cognizance, would not have been so engrossed in the relishing Shia-Sunni divide.
And while the U.S. was etching its strategies on combating the oilfields, it had also planned to maintain its influence in the region through a neo-imperialistic strategy in Iran and everywhere else – of cultural imperialism. It did more harms than strategic military imperialism – it disempowered people in their own homeland. Tariq Ali notes in his book Clash of Fundamentalism, "A disempowered people is reminded of its own weaknesses. In the West a common response is to sink into the routines that dominate everyday life. Elsewhere in the world people become flustered, feel more and more helpless and nervous. Anger, frustration and despair multiply. They can no longer rely on the state for help. The laws favor the rich. So the more desperate among them, in search for a more meaningful existence, or simply to break the monotony, begin to live by their own laws."
The earnestly of these words in condensing the entire scenario behind Talibans, Al Qaeda, and – without being influenced by the relishing sectarian divide – the fundamentalist zeal of Iran that culminated into the Islamic revolution, should not be a misgiving.
I have not quoted Tariq Ali off reason, and will be quoting more of him here. My cognition behind this is to furnish the comprehension of two identical personas on a similar issue. Tariq Ali offers an important perspicacity for this issue as he confesses in the beginning of his book that he is predominantly an atheist, and seeks no religious affliction. Just the same way as Naipaul has described himself as a seeker at the beginning of his book.
I once again acknowledge Naipaul’s bold and encouraging confessions of Islamic benevolence. I am sad, though, that his understanding of the culture has not extended to its spirit. "Rule of Ali" has held a significant connotation in Iran even for communists like Behzad. Its spirit of "getting women back into veil and getting them off television" is something that has always been debated about Islam. Arguments are plenty, and all revolve around the centrifuge of women’s rights, dignity and status, as spelt in Islam. It was a sorry state that the "Shia man from Bombay" could not comprehend the apologue of this status and dignity offered to women in Islam.
This, however, does not rescind the plethora of resourceful arguments that have been, and will be forwarded to connote the regal iconed women in Islam. "Facelessness" might assimilate to privation of feminism in arcane thought, which in spirit stands in equipoise with liberation for Muslim women. Perhaps a woman, Saraji Al Muslima, a political researcher, would more convincingly uplift what I wish to state – "The worst part of this arrogant philosophy … is the assumption that Muslim/Afghani woman wants nothing else than what they (West) have deemed as civilized. In this way, they have oppressed her as surely as anyone else ever has, by removing from her the idea that she has intelligence, free will, and rational thought."
It is this divorce of spirit, spurred so frequently in Naipaul, that views facelessness of Iranian women with despise. In continuum, it designates same liberation for Iranians as sexual freedom in the West. The rejection of technology evidenced in Iran also forms a moiety of this same cultural imperialism; rejection in its spirit epitomizing the same rejection of the West as connoted by Muqtedar Khan earlier.
It would be a grave injustice to Naipaul as well as to my sanity if I flinch from accepting that his recount presents a plenary confession of state of affairs in Muslim countries. I can accept his affiliation of fundamentalism with political commotion, but what appalls me is Naipaul’s fancy to translate Islam for ferreting out the causes of fundamentalism. Even if accepted, what stands beyond my cognition is the suffrage conferred to a non-believer (Behzad) to translate Iran and Islam. It’s not that I question Naipaul’s selection of a translator, obviously it had been based on Behzad’s ardent grimace and expression, coupled with happenstance. He should have, however, realized the anomalies of translating Islam and the believers with the ascendancy of a non-believer.
The other consequential oversight on his part was to audit Islam with respect to geographies. Islam could at best be the fifth column for one nation or region, for one force or doctrine, for one faith or cognition, had it been restricted to peripheries of nation. Islam, on the contrary, has been confirmed as the fifth columnist internationally, which makes me accept otherwise. Following congruous locutions by Tariq Ali, "Tragedies are always discussed as if they took place in void, but actually each tragedy is conditioned by its settings, local and global. … Acts of violence depend neither on the will of an individual leader, however, charismatic, nor on the structure of a single organization, the existence of one country or the fanaticism of a sinister religion, its beliefs fuelled by the visions of a glorious afterlife," immaculate my stance.
What happened in Iran in 1970s was a prelude and exordium of historical tributary of U.S. imperialism – Afghanistan, Gulf War, September 11, Iraq… What had happened in Iran could happen anywhere, and is happening everywhere. This might well be the epilogue to another series of portents – Iraq, Pakistan… Do not impute Islam for writing this epilogue, it will only "DISEMPOWER," making it still difficult to contain the believers (fundamentalists) from living by their own laws.
"Contemporary Islamic fundamentalism is the child of imperialist fundamentalism, for by reducing the process of democracy to a farce, imperialism has created an environment which nurtures irrationalisms of every sort. A major cause of religious revivalism is the fact that all the other exit routes have been sealed off by the mother of all fundamentalism: American imperialism."-Tariq Ali (Clash of Fundamentalism)
Political unfolding in the recent past has often sparked fervent debates and hesitancy about Islam and Muslims. The instant simulacrum of Islam and the Muslims – as spelt by the media – is of a concept and community infested with hatred, aversion, and of course – "fundamentalism." V.S. Naipaul, the Nobel Laureate in literature, had also viewed the same semblance about this community while he had embarked on the journey to Iran and other Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia. The consummation of this journey is earnestly dispensed in Naipaul’s marvel, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey.
Naipaul admits in his book that he has had a proclivity towards Muslims, and eventually, the book is unquestionably a literary masterpiece; but has failed to disembogue the bias against the community or religion. He must have taken great pains to compose the papyrus, and perhaps the upshot would not have been so exasperating for the Muslim community, had he taken equal pain to endorse the veracity of his marvel. I am not a literary critique, and neither do I question the literary edifice of the book, however, here I will try to ensemble and emend certain delusions of Naipaul, specifically focusing my discussion on his recount of the journey to Iran.
My focus on Iran has some justifications – first that I have had an opportunity of a direct encountering with the country’s culture (as my father is in Iran, and has acquired the citizenship of the country recently). Second that what appends to the Muslims of Iran has an involuntary extension to the entire community across the globe. I have a few confessions to make, that commenting on a personage having the stature of Naipaul requires germane acumen as well as space, and I have a paucity of both; and that it might not appear the right time to discuss the inspection of this grandeur. I am, however, contended, more so because Naipaul has tried to examine the advent of fundamental contiguity among the Muslims, and this impression has emerged more vehemently in the recent past.
Naipaul asserts in his book that fundamentalism among Muslims owes its personification to the imperialistic character of Islam. "Islam, almost from the start, had been an imperialism as well as a religion,…"
One can accept this imperialist character going by the exemplification offered by Naipaul. Islamic history has been bottled with conquests, bloodshed and revolutions. What makes it different from the imperialistic doctrine is the objective. Imperialism commands subversion to a political and economic power, and subversion itself surreptitiously comprehends bloodshed. Islam, on the other hand, comprehends "brotherhood, honesty, the will to work, and proper recompense for labour," – an incarnate subversion not to a political system, but to a Divine Power.
Naipaul has engagingly questioned these four components of Islam as a respite to a political impasse, but has recoiled from recognizing these as the footing for any political aerie. "Brotherhood" connotes unity; which holds the ignition to the success of a populace. "Honesty" simulates justice and rule of law; the assured obligation for development and evolution of a political system. "Will to Work" is the prelude to political and social accountability, and "proper recompense for labour" is the motif of any human society. [Proper recompense for labour departs from equality of labour; which draws the line of contention between Islam and Communism, and I will cautiously elude this discussion as of now.] Anarchy spells unrest; unrest instituted on either or all of these four components.
How Islam endeavors to combat anarchy is evident in Islamic history. Its radiant in the number of times the Prophet (peace be upon him) has ordered the acquittal of prisoners of war; and evenhanded treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. Justice, in an Islamic state is invariant for believers (read Muslims) and non-believers (non-Muslims), and Aurangzeb, the cruelest acclaimed Muslim ruler of India, is still regarded as the apostle of justice. [An anecdote verbalizes that Aurangzeb had personally penalized a Muslim army commander trying to forcefully marry a non-Muslim girl.]
Naipaul himself has impressively endorsed two of these tenets – brotherhood and proper recompense for labour – but has still divorced from recognizing them as the curator of political bliss. It has been an indeed angelic recount of Naipaul when he extols the sharing of watermelon between Behzad and the lur taxi driver – does it not symbolize brotherhood and doting between different social classes? At the end of his visit to the holy city of Qom, what else other than proper recompense of labour had indoctrinated Naipaul not to altercate with the taxi driver for increased fair? Interpreting Naipaul’s sedate acceptance to the taxi driver’s supplication for increased fair itself connotes that proper recompense is the preamble to upright labour governance and political structure.
Like justice, this doctrine – let me say with intonation – does not discriminate between believers and non-believers in transiting it. Comparison of Islam with imperialism, however, resonates around the divergence of ideology between believers and non-believers in Naipaul’s synthesis, and the confused fabrication of this resonance in his script is exposed throughout the novel.
"Indeed there is nothing in Islam and in Muslim practices that is fundamentally opposed to democracy – justice, freedom, fairness, equality or tolerance. They (Muslims) reject democracy only because they reject the West" – M. A. Muqtedar Khan. [Remember this quote, it will lead to another exegesis in Iranian context.] I do not hesitate to accept that "Muslims are a bad minority," but will let history itself outline that they have proved to be a virtuous majority.
History shelters exegesis to all poignancy that transcends beyond human comprehension. It holds testimony of imperialism, the outrider of many afflictions of humanity that have questioned its own congruence. Imperialism, that was adopted as a means to extend economic vista and foreign markets by the industrialized and economically strong nations. It phonates blatantly on the pith of colonization; the ravaging of human accent in the name of nations and man made frontiers; the subversion of rectitude in the name of patriotism and nationalism. Imperialism has the tendency of not only an inherent servitude of the weak, but also of disconcerting the interests of its own vanguards. Isn’t it interesting to discern that the bitterest enemies of the U.S. today (Afghanistan, Iraq) had once been its intimate allies! A farther history solemnizes the clash of imperialistic interests that had detonated fierily into two World Wars; which have garnered more bloodshed and human carnage to their distinction than all Islamic Jihad or holy wars put together.
U.S. has been the most vivid aquanaut of imperialism. Kareem M. Kamel, the Egyptian freelancer, congregates this very elegantly, with particular reference to the U.S. and Iraq war, "The proposed war (Operation Dessert Storm) has very little to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is part of an ongoing U.S. effort to redraw the map of the Middle East, with an eye on controlling the flow of oil on more favorable terms, ensuring Israel’s continued military supremacy, and destroying the remnants of Iraq’s potential for regional leadership." The recent resignation of David Kay is an exceptional apposite to what Kareem has related about the U.S. imperialism. Iraq had to be taken to war, but Saudi Arabia tendered a voluntary resignation to the U.S. It had been instituted long back, but was audited with the landing of the U.S. troops in the Kingdom prior to the Gulf War.
When "a fierce enough," "flared up" woman "with her chador-encircled face" had castigated the Saudi government, it was not "a sectarian point," as comprehended by Naipaul. It manifested the malediction of an indeed un-Islamic government, which had willingly failed to repeal an attack on the identity of Islamic leadership that has been affiliated with the Kingdom. This is not a wishful statement, and a majority of Sunni Muslims (including me) would support, and do support what the Shia Muslim woman from Iran had reported. Kamel’s another citation, "One has only to remember it was mostly Saudis that carried out the September 11 attacks, in revenge for contamination of Islamic lands and holy places by U.S. bases," further ratifies my claim.
Naipaul has claimed that Muharram, as observed by Muslims, is actually affiliated to Shia faith. In essence, Muharram is an anamnesis of the struggle of Shaheed Imam Hussain against an unmerited succession to Khilafah, an event in Islamic history that stands momentous beyond any questions for both Shia and Sunni Muslims. Sunnis and Shias both observe the incident with invariant ardor, what differs is the way of reminiscing. The event solemnizes the struggle for the censure of a self-proclaimed Islamic government, as documented by these Saudis in Kamel’s reference. [Please pardon me if I am sounding in support of the Saudi terrorists – yes, I do favor them, not for what they did to the U.S., but for their assertion against their domestic government in Saudi Arabia.] Had September 11 happened earlier, Naipaul, with all respect to his cognizance, would not have been so engrossed in the relishing Shia-Sunni divide.
And while the U.S. was etching its strategies on combating the oilfields, it had also planned to maintain its influence in the region through a neo-imperialistic strategy in Iran and everywhere else – of cultural imperialism. It did more harms than strategic military imperialism – it disempowered people in their own homeland. Tariq Ali notes in his book Clash of Fundamentalism, "A disempowered people is reminded of its own weaknesses. In the West a common response is to sink into the routines that dominate everyday life. Elsewhere in the world people become flustered, feel more and more helpless and nervous. Anger, frustration and despair multiply. They can no longer rely on the state for help. The laws favor the rich. So the more desperate among them, in search for a more meaningful existence, or simply to break the monotony, begin to live by their own laws."
The earnestly of these words in condensing the entire scenario behind Talibans, Al Qaeda, and – without being influenced by the relishing sectarian divide – the fundamentalist zeal of Iran that culminated into the Islamic revolution, should not be a misgiving.
I have not quoted Tariq Ali off reason, and will be quoting more of him here. My cognition behind this is to furnish the comprehension of two identical personas on a similar issue. Tariq Ali offers an important perspicacity for this issue as he confesses in the beginning of his book that he is predominantly an atheist, and seeks no religious affliction. Just the same way as Naipaul has described himself as a seeker at the beginning of his book.
I once again acknowledge Naipaul’s bold and encouraging confessions of Islamic benevolence. I am sad, though, that his understanding of the culture has not extended to its spirit. "Rule of Ali" has held a significant connotation in Iran even for communists like Behzad. Its spirit of "getting women back into veil and getting them off television" is something that has always been debated about Islam. Arguments are plenty, and all revolve around the centrifuge of women’s rights, dignity and status, as spelt in Islam. It was a sorry state that the "Shia man from Bombay" could not comprehend the apologue of this status and dignity offered to women in Islam.
This, however, does not rescind the plethora of resourceful arguments that have been, and will be forwarded to connote the regal iconed women in Islam. "Facelessness" might assimilate to privation of feminism in arcane thought, which in spirit stands in equipoise with liberation for Muslim women. Perhaps a woman, Saraji Al Muslima, a political researcher, would more convincingly uplift what I wish to state – "The worst part of this arrogant philosophy … is the assumption that Muslim/Afghani woman wants nothing else than what they (West) have deemed as civilized. In this way, they have oppressed her as surely as anyone else ever has, by removing from her the idea that she has intelligence, free will, and rational thought."
It is this divorce of spirit, spurred so frequently in Naipaul, that views facelessness of Iranian women with despise. In continuum, it designates same liberation for Iranians as sexual freedom in the West. The rejection of technology evidenced in Iran also forms a moiety of this same cultural imperialism; rejection in its spirit epitomizing the same rejection of the West as connoted by Muqtedar Khan earlier.
It would be a grave injustice to Naipaul as well as to my sanity if I flinch from accepting that his recount presents a plenary confession of state of affairs in Muslim countries. I can accept his affiliation of fundamentalism with political commotion, but what appalls me is Naipaul’s fancy to translate Islam for ferreting out the causes of fundamentalism. Even if accepted, what stands beyond my cognition is the suffrage conferred to a non-believer (Behzad) to translate Iran and Islam. It’s not that I question Naipaul’s selection of a translator, obviously it had been based on Behzad’s ardent grimace and expression, coupled with happenstance. He should have, however, realized the anomalies of translating Islam and the believers with the ascendancy of a non-believer.
The other consequential oversight on his part was to audit Islam with respect to geographies. Islam could at best be the fifth column for one nation or region, for one force or doctrine, for one faith or cognition, had it been restricted to peripheries of nation. Islam, on the contrary, has been confirmed as the fifth columnist internationally, which makes me accept otherwise. Following congruous locutions by Tariq Ali, "Tragedies are always discussed as if they took place in void, but actually each tragedy is conditioned by its settings, local and global. … Acts of violence depend neither on the will of an individual leader, however, charismatic, nor on the structure of a single organization, the existence of one country or the fanaticism of a sinister religion, its beliefs fuelled by the visions of a glorious afterlife," immaculate my stance.
What happened in Iran in 1970s was a prelude and exordium of historical tributary of U.S. imperialism – Afghanistan, Gulf War, September 11, Iraq… What had happened in Iran could happen anywhere, and is happening everywhere. This might well be the epilogue to another series of portents – Iraq, Pakistan… Do not impute Islam for writing this epilogue, it will only "DISEMPOWER," making it still difficult to contain the believers (fundamentalists) from living by their own laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
