| |
|
Joining issue with the UK-based charity that was reported by the Indian Express to have issued an ultimatum to the Muslims it had helped rehabilitate to follow the Shariah rules, Javed Anand takes on all those who have converted faith into a totalitarian ideology:
But beware of the dangers of the malevolent, modern-day messiahs. Unlike the poor maulvi sahib from a Muslim mohalla, this seemingly sophisticated lot comes draped in suit and tie, speaks fluent English, swears faith in “reason and logic”, quotes from the Vedas and the Bible as comfortably as from the Quran, oozes cash and promotes disharmony and discord in the name of peace. Don’t take them lightly for many among the new generation of otherwise well-educated but theologically ignorant Muslims assume this out-of-date medievalism to mean ‘Modern Islam’.
Read the full piece at the Indian Express: A Conditional Charity
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Nov 19, 2009 AT 00:34 IST
Apart from pointing out that a fatwa is only binding on its author, Aijaz Ilmi comes to the heart of the matter:
I wish resolutions at Deoband had addressed the following questions: Why do Indian Muslims have the highest levels of illiteracy, both male and female, in the country? Why do we have the highest number of school drop-outs? Why do we have the lowest representation in both the public and the private sector? What steps are we taking to stop pernicious recruiters who lure young impressionable minds towards terror ideologies? A failure to tackle the rapid socio-economic slide will push the faithful instead towards being the last amongst the least. With the Shiv Sena and the VHP joining in, the zealots will raise this needless debate to a crescendo overshadowing real issues.
Read the full piece at the Indian Express
On the same subject, in DNA, Anil Dharker says:
Not the west, not the United States of America, not Jews, not extremist Hindus.... Islam's worst enemies are Muslims.
And Sultan Shahin is characteristically blunt and says:
"Jamiat's burkha is slipping and the veneer of broadmindedness is wearing off"
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Nov 11, 2009 AT 01:37 IST
So Vande Mataram is once again in the news, with one of the 25 resolutions passed by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind at its 30th general session in the presence of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, affirming that
"The [2006] fatwa of Darul Uloom (opposing recitation of Vande Mataram) is correct."
Here's a link to the full FAQ on the 2006 controversy, along with a link to the Congress Working Committee, in Calcutta on October 26, 1937, under the presidentship of Jawaharlal Nehru which provides a historical perspective.
And here's the full coverage from the Outlook Archives
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Nov 03, 2009 AT 20:13 IST
Lisa Miller in the Newsweek on " a secret religious group in Washington populated by some of the most powerful people in America":
There is a secret organization of powerful Christians in Washington... the Fellowship had a problem in the person of a journalist named Jeff Sharlet, who, six years earlier, had spent some time undercover as an acolyte at one of its conference centers in suburban Virginia and in 2008 published a book about his experience there. His book—The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power—argues that what the Fellowship really wants to do is consolidate power among global leaders in the name of Jesus. It paints a creepy, even cultish picture of clean-cut young men and women who enlist to serve (that is, cook, clean, mow, mop) at the facilities where powerful lawmakers meet with each other and foreign leaders to talk about Jesus. Though Sharlet raises real questions about the Fellowship's methods and mission, his book's tone, overall, is alarmist: it confirms all the darkest fears of the secular left. See, Sharlet seemed to be saying, there really is a Christian conspiracy to take over the world...
Read the full article at the Newsweek
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Sep 08, 2009 AT 23:01 IST
In his valedictory address delivered at the Silver Jubilee celebration of the Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras, K.N. Panikkar quoted Jurgen Habermas to argue that “the secularist certainty that religion will disappear worldwide in the course of modernisation is losing ground":
A national survey conducted by the Centre for Developing Societies, New Delhi, testifies to the growing influence of religion in Indian society. According to this survey, four out of 10 people are very religious and five out of 10 are religious. That is to say that 90 per cent of the respondents claimed to be religious — performing rituals, visiting places of worship and undertaking pilgrimages. Among them, 30 per cent claimed to have become more religious during the last five years. An increase in the number of religious institutions is also an indication of the greater hold of religion on society. Enlightenment and modernity in India have not led to the decline of the influence of religiosity. If anything, it has only increased.
Of course, the key word here is 'claimed' - 'claimed to be religious'. But, as he argues:
...Religion remains a powerful force in civil society. Secondly, the use of religion for political ends has substantially increased during the last few decades. Such a development has serious implications for a secular state and society. Retrieving the secular character of the public sphere is therefore imperative; otherwise its religious character is likely to impinge upon the functions of the state.
Read the extracts at the Hindu
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Sep 08, 2009 AT 01:48 IST
Writing in the Indian Express recently, Javed Anand questioned why the Law Commission of India has failed to recommend the introduction of similar reforms into Muslim Personal Law in India as have been introduced in country after country. Tahir Mahmood responds:
...on the question of perpetuating their ‘sacrosanct’ personal law — howsoever repugnant to the spirit of Islam its present practice may be — the community can disown even their most trusted well-wishers.
As in many family-law matters, Muslims are being inexplicably governed by outdated local customs repugnant to Islamic law, a report was drafted to recommend that — on the pattern of the scope of all other community-specific family laws of India — all Muslims everywhere in the country should, in family-law matters, be governed by Muslim law. The innocuous move was shouted down by religious leaders as a “conspiracy to pave the way for a uniform civil code.” The report had to be shelved.
Read the full article at the Indian Express
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Sep 07, 2009 AT 23:20 IST
The latest Newsweek takes it upon itself to tell us 22 unexpected truths that it says we need to know. One of which is this, as Lisa Miller puts it:
America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in American history). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.
Read more on this and other 22 counter-intuitive, interesting and fascinating findings here
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Aug 16, 2009 AT 00:46 IST
Chand-Fiza did exactly what two specific Supreme Court rulings forbid -- bigamy by non-Muslims under the cover of embracing Islam. The Law Commission has merely recommend that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and other statutory marriage laws of India should incorporate the SC-held position of the law. Tahir Mahmood, member of the Law Commission writes in the TOI:
Conscious of the religious sensitivities of Muslim society in respect of personal law, the commission did not touch upon misuse of the Islamic law on bigamy by born Muslims themselves, which is not unknown. Ignorant of the limited scope of its report, the Law Commission is being uncharitably criticised in Muslim religious circles. Members of these circles naively believe that their personal law, despite being distorted and misused in practice, is outside the powers and functions of all constitutional organs and advisory bodies of the state.
Seeing it as an inseparable part of Islam, they want all such organs and bodies to perpetually keep away from it. They are yet to appreciate the true position of Muslim personal law under the Constitution of India and its real place in the legal and judicial systems of the country. It will be in their own interest to acquaint themselves with the proper legal position in this regard. Till this day all constitutional and statutory bodies in India have spoken of Islamic law with respect and done their best to accommodate the religious sensitivities of the community. Persistently alienating these bodies through irresponsible criticism is an act of short-sightedness.
Read the full article in the TOI
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Aug 12, 2009 AT 04:51 IST
Hitch too isn't too thrilled with Obama's Cairo speech ("some of what he said was well-intentioned if ill-informed"):
Take the single case in which our president touched upon the best-known fact about the Islamic "world": its tendency to make women second-class citizens. He mentioned this only to say that "Western countries" were discriminating against Muslim women! And how is this discrimination imposed? By limiting the wearing of the head scarf or hijab.... The clear implication was an attack on the French law that prohibits the display of religious garb or symbols in state schools.
He goes on to quote "from an excellent commentary by an Algerian-American visiting professor at the University of Michigan Law School, Karima Bennoune who says:
I have just published research conducted among the many people of Muslim, Arab and North African descent in France who support that country's 2004 law banning religious symbols in public schools which they see as a necessary deployment of the "law of the republic" to counter the "law of the Brothers," an informal rule imposed undemocratically on many women and girls in neighborhoods and at home and by fundamentalists.
More here
Also See: on the same speech: B. Raman ! Arif Mohammed Khan ! Noam Chomsky
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Jun 12, 2009 AT 22:27 IST
BBC reports:
A Catholic church in Malaysia which prays to Allah has prompted a court case over who can use the word.
Muslim leaders say Islam should be the only faith to use it, saying its use in other faiths could lead to confusion and conversions.
Watch the video at BBC
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON May 25, 2009 AT 00:58 IST
Aijaz Ilmi in the Indian Express argues that "pushed into a corner, and treated either as a vote-bank or a punching bag, the Indian Muslim voted uniformly along similar lines as the rest of the country":
...in Kerala, speculations that controversial cleric Madani would help the LDF were wrong; the community comprehensively stuck with the Congress-led alliance, not wishing to be identified with a cleric of shady background.
...even in his Raigad bastion, Minister for Minority Affairs A.R. Antulay lost; his penchant for polarisation failed to cut any ice.
...The leader of the anti-nuclear hype, the BSP’s Shahid Sidiqui, lost in Bijnore — which has a 67 per cent Muslim-Dalit population
Full article: Speaking out, finally
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON May 22, 2009 AT 03:52 IST
Aijaz Ilmi, the chairman of the editorial board at the Kanpur-based Urdu newspaper Daily Siyasat Jadid in the Indian Express:
...Dar-ul Ifta, the fatwa-giving arm of Deoband’s Dar-ul Uloom spoke of the value of “neutral” voting in the elections. The spokesperson said that Indian Muslims must vote not on religious lines but as citizens of a secular democracy...Steeped in a volatile mix of anger and destitution, subject to being “suspect” for far too long, Indian Muslim communities are finally showing signs of fighting back against preconceived prejudices. When respected Ulemas start to speak out about secular traditions and democratic structures, a strategic shift based on community feedback is apparent. Whether this wave of positivity will turn into a tsunami of inter-cultural bonding is yet to be assessed.
More here
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON May 07, 2009 AT 04:43 IST
The author of the God Delusion responds to Tony Blair's article on faith in last week's New Statesman:
“The Blair Foundation will work to leverage mutual respect and understanding between seemingly incompatible faith traditions”
After all, despite our differences, we do have one important thing in common: all of us in the faith communities hold firm beliefs in the total absence of evidence, which leaves us free to believe anything we like. So, at the very least, we can be united in claiming a privileged role for all these private beliefs in the formulation of public policy.
I hope this letter will have shown you some of the reasons why you might consider supporting Tony’s Foundation. Because hey, let’s face it, a world without religion doesn’t have a prayer. With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?
More here
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Apr 10, 2009 AT 20:07 IST
Two almost simultaneous discoveries: this and this.
Am really kicking myself that it did not occur to me to check who had decided a moustache case that had provided much mirth in our office.
And to think that it was decided, or at least reported, just a day after the controversial beard case, by the same SC bench with presumably the same Justice Katju acting as the spokesperson.
Totally escaped me. Here it is. At least, the judges are consistent in their rulings:
"If it is your family custom, keep it within the family. But when you have joined an organisation you have to to follow ," a bench of Justices RV Raveendran and Markandeya Katju quipped, dismissing Victor De's petition challenging his termination by the public sector airlines authorities.
...The apex court rejected counsel Sanjiv Sen's argument that Victor De cannot be discriminated against by the national carrier as the operation manuals of the Aircraft Act 1953 permitted the members of the Sikh community to sport beards and moustache.
"For the Sikhs sporting a moustache or beard is an indispensable part of his religion. But not for you," the bench observed.
The bench said that the airline has every right to insist that the flight crew follow certain etiquette and dress code for presenting a smart appearance before the passengers in the aircraft.
According to the apex court, even hostesses are not permitted to leave open their plait lest hair find their way into the food and beverages served to passengers. "There is nothing wrong in such rules otherwise some hair might even fall on the food served to the passengers," the bench said.
The apex court also said sporting a long moustache could intimidate children travelling in the aircraft. "There is also a feeling of children being apprehensive of the person," the apex court said.
See here: A Moustache Can Cost You Your Job
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Apr 05, 2009 AT 03:46 IST
I Background 1.1. Is it true that a 'restriction has been imposed on beard and burqa' because of the SC ruling it as a sign of the Taliban?
No such restriction has been imposed or even suggested. There is a controversy because of certain reported remarks of a Supreme Court judge that are not part of any iudgement or ruling. But even those remarks (a)do not imply the above and (b) whatever the judge is reported to have said is not part of any court record and we only have sketchy PTI reports to go on [See here and here] about what the judge said and in what context.
Also See: After The Beard, Came The Moustache...
Full Post
|
| TAGS:
Beard
,
Beards
,
Education
,
FAQ
,
Judiciary
,
Markandey Katju
,
Muslims
,
Religious Affairs
,
Schools
,
Secularism
,
Sikhs
,
Supreme Court
,
talibanisation
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Apr 04, 2009 AT 02:48 IST
Johann Hari in the Huffington Post on l'affaire The Statesman:
... Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth -- especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.
...The protesters said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal -- but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.
...The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he 'know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been 'asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim.
The solution to the problems of free speech -- that sometimes people will say terrible things -- are always and irreducibly more free speech. If you don't like what a person says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it. I recently interviewed the pseudo-historian David Irving, and simply quoting his crazy arguments did far more harm to him than any Austrian jail sentence for Holocaust Denial.
More of this must-read piece here
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Feb 17, 2009 AT 19:00 IST
Are bans, deportations, arrests etc the answer to perceived slurs on religion and revered figures? When does sharp criticsm become "incitement to racial/religious hatred"?
If we thought it is only in India that something like the outrage in Kolkata involving the Statesman editor and publisher's arrest and bail could take place only in India, here's a reminder from Bitain where "acontroversial Dutch politician has been sent back to Holland after trying to enter Britain to show his anti-Muslim film in the House of Lords," as the Telegraph, UK reports:
Geert Wilders had been invited to Westminster to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a "fascist book", by a member of the House of Lords.
But on Tuesday Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary refused Mr Wilders entry because his opinions "would threaten community security and therefore public security" in the UK.
Mr Wilders went ahead with his trip anyway, and flew from Amsterdam to London on a British Midland flight.
When he arrived at Heathrow airport he was met by two plain clothed officers from the UK Border Agency.
As he was being led away, Mr Wilders said: "I am not nervous but is this how Great Britain welcomes a democrat?"
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Feb 14, 2009 AT 00:31 IST
Richard Owen in The Times
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.
A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.
More Here
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Feb 11, 2009 AT 19:08 IST
Michael Brooks in New Scientist
It turns out that human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.
...One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. In this view, shared religious belief helped our ancestors form tightly knit groups that cooperated in hunting, foraging and childcare, enabling these groups to outcompete others. In this way, the theory goes, religion was selected for by evolution, and eventually permeated every human society
...An alternative being put forward by Atran and others is that religion emerges as a natural by-product of the way the human mind works.
...That's not to say that the human brain has a "god module" in the same way that it has a language module that evolved specifically for acquiring language. Rather, some of the unique cognitive capacities that have made us so successful as a species also work together to create a tendency for supernatural thinking. "There's now a lot of evidence that some of the foundations for our religious beliefs are hard-wired," says Bloom.
More Here
Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep ON Feb 11, 2009 AT 18:41 IST
|
|
|
|
blogs
|
|
|
|
Religious Affairs
|
|
|
|
|
BLOGGERS
K.V. Bapa Rao
Sundeep Dougal
|
|
|
RECENT TAGS
1984
26/11: Terror In Mumbai
Corruption
Elections
Faiz Ahmed Faiz
Media
poetry
Scams/Frauds/Rackets
Terror in India
Tributes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go |
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|
| | | | | | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | | 29 | 30 | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|