Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
INDIAN JUSTICE FOR AN INDIAN MUSLIM - " Court acquits 4. So who killed Adnan Patrawala? - Rebecca Samervel - The Times of India, Mumbai, India
INDIAN JUSTICE FOR AN INDIAN MUSLIM
http://timesofindia.
----------http://timesofindia.
Days after Adnan Patrawala was murdered, three policemen were transferred from the Oshiwara police station, where the teen's parents had filed a case, to the low-profile Local Arms division. It was claimed that the officers were reassigned because of the mishandling of the Patrawala case, though the police officially denied it then.
Adnan's parents were first contacted on phone by their son's kidnappers on the morning of August 19, 2007, immediately after which they approached the Oshiwara police. The police advised the Patrawalas to negotiate with the abductors. In the meanwhile, though, the news of the kidnapping was leaked-reportedly by some policemen-to TV news channels, which promptly put it on air. The abductors, it is believed, panicked at watching the news and killed Adnan in a bid to get rid of the evidence. His body was recovered from a marsh near Palm Beach Road, Nerul, on August 20.
Less than a week later, assistant police inspector Ashok Ratnaparikh, and sub inspectors Vilas More and Jameel Shaikh were transferred out of Oshiwara police station. Ratnaparikh and More were handling the Patrawala case. Yet, then deputy commissioner of police (Zone 9), Vinay Chaube, had insisted that the transfers were carried out on administrative grounds. Simultaneously, then Mumbai police commissioner D N Jadhav had promised that a probe he had set up would find out "if any police officer had irresponsibly leaked information which resulted in Patrawala's killing".
http://timesofindia.
Mumbai
3 cops were moved out for 'botch-up'
TNN | Jan 31, 2012, 03.44AM ISTDays after Adnan Patrawala was murdered, three policemen were transferred from the Oshiwara police station, where the teen's parents had filed a case, to the low-profile Local Arms division. It was claimed that the officers were reassigned because of the mishandling of the Patrawala case, though the police officially denied it then.
Adnan's parents were first contacted on phone by their son's kidnappers on the morning of August 19, 2007, immediately after which they approached the Oshiwara police. The police advised the Patrawalas to negotiate with the abductors. In the meanwhile, though, the news of the kidnapping was leaked-reportedly by some policemen-to TV news channels, which promptly put it on air. The abductors, it is believed, panicked at watching the news and killed Adnan in a bid to get rid of the evidence. His body was recovered from a marsh near Palm Beach Road, Nerul, on August 20.
Less than a week later, assistant police inspector Ashok Ratnaparikh, and sub inspectors Vilas More and Jameel Shaikh were transferred out of Oshiwara police station. Ratnaparikh and More were handling the Patrawala case. Yet, then deputy commissioner of police (Zone 9), Vinay Chaube, had insisted that the transfers were carried out on administrative grounds. Simultaneously, then Mumbai police commissioner D N Jadhav had promised that a probe he had set up would find out "if any police officer had irresponsibly leaked information which resulted in Patrawala's killing".
Friday, January 27, 2012
Write, wrong - By Shahid Siddiqui - The Indian Express, Mumbai
http://www.indianexpress.com/
By Shahid Siddiqui : Sat Jan 28 2012, 03:29 hrs
Here is a fundamental question to friends and supporters of Salman Rushdie: Is the right to speech and expression absolute, without any restrictions, in any democratic society? The right to freedom of expression is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of this right carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “for respect of the rights or reputation of others, or for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals”. Under democratic constitutions, this right is commonly subject to limitations, such as libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit violence or a crime. Hate speech against any group, community, race, religion or colour is a crime in any free and democratic society of the world.
Those who supported Rushdie said that the book, The Satanic Verses, was banned but not the writer. The writer has committed the crime of hate and abusive speech but his freedom of movement cannot be restricted. Did Rushdie and his friends who are questioning Indian democracy, raise their voice when the Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik was banned from entering Britain in June 2010 and later banned by the US? The British home secretary then said “coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK”. This is not an isolated case, hundreds of people with valid documents are stopped from entering these great democracies, and their right to free speech and movement are curtailed without any reason, based on the whims and fancies of some bigoted bureaucrats. Islamophobia has become so prevalent in these Western democracies that sometimes mere name is reason enough to stop individuals from entering these countries .
There are hundreds of books critical of Islam, the Holy Prophet or the Quran. Some of these writings are offensive and full of misleading or distorted facts. But there has never been any global public outcry against these books. One can always reply to criticism by writing another book to counter such propaganda, but how do you reply to pure abusive and vulgar writing and imagery?
According to Islamic studies scholar Anthony McRoy, what Muslims find blasphemous is the name “Mahound”, a derogatory term for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used during the Crusades and which means the lowest creature from the depth of hell. In fact, the most offensive parts of the book are the abusive words in Hindi (gaali), freely used against Mahound by Gabriel Farishta, who is a Bollywood film star turned into an angel. A brothel is staffed by prostitutes who take the names of the Prophet’s wives, with Hazrat Omar, the close companion, as the brothel keeper. Saladin, the great Egyptian ruler, who defeated the Crusaders, is depicted as a devil or shaitan. Even the crusaders had nothing but praise for Saladin. Rushdie’s writings are so offensive that they cannot be quoted in any responsible and respectable magazine or newspaper. The result is that not only those who oppose him, but even those who support him, have either not read or understood the context in which Rushdie is creating his magic realism and its not-so-fictitious characters.
I was one of those few persons who was offered the manuscript of The Satanic Verses before its publication by Penguin India to offer my comments, as the publishers themselves were doubtful of the impact the book would create in India. I recommended to the publishers that the book should not come to India as the communal situation at that point (1988) was not conducive to such writings due to the Babri Masjid controversy. Emotions were already inflamed and the book could be used by communalists on both sides of the divide to exploit passions and sentiments. The book was banned quietly by the government, avoiding much controversy or protests from Indian Muslims. It is the fatwa by the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini which led to global protest and the larger controversy. Even then, the majority of Muslims opposed the fatwa. Indian Muslims at no point supported it.
However the Western world, which was desperately looking for a convenient target after the decline of Soviet Union, picked up the chant to protect Rushdie and demonise Islam, Muslims and their governments. They spent millions of dollars not only for the sake of “right to freedom of expression” but to use this issue to garner political support to isolate Iran and justify their Islamophobia. Is it a coincidence that The Satanic Verses unleashed the anti-Islam propaganda, which has led to many unjustified wars, killing of millions of innocent people and demonising a whole religion and its 1,500 million believers around the world.
Salman Rushdie and his publishers took no time in apologising to Indira Gandhi and editing the offensive portions from Midnight’s Children. At that point he and his publishers did not take the moral high ground of absolute, unrestricted right to creative freedom. Is it because her lawyers had filed a libel case in British courts and they might have had to pay a huge amount for this offence? The same people made huge amount of money from the Satanic Verses controversy and turned the abusive writer into a hero, celebrity and millionaire. Many British writers and a section of the media at that time alleged that the publishers stoked the fires of anguish and anger to exploit the controversy.
If Rushdie had written against Jesus Christ what he wrote against the Prophet he would have been prosecuted under the British blasphemy law, which was partisan in nature and under it the maximum punishment was the death sentence. The law was abandoned by the British parliament in May 2008. However, at the time of the controversy in 1988, Rushdie took refuge in England to save himself from prosecution by arguing that he had not offended Jesus Christ, Bible or the basic tenets of Christianity and therefore blasphemy law was not applicable to him.
Denying or questioning the Holocaust is a crime in most European democracies. Many countries have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial. Michael Whine argues that Holocaust denial can inspire violence. Many writers such as Raul Hilberg, Richard J. Evans, Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and Christopher Hitchens have regarded these laws as limiting the freedom to investigate, research and write.
I don’t deny the right of people to eulogies Rushdie and regard his writings as the litmus test for the protection of right to speech. In India, believers of all faiths have lived together for thousands of years. In the thousand years of Muslims presence in India we do not come across any writing abusive of Hindu gods and religious figures by any prominent writer or poet. We do read the poems of Ras Khan in Brijbhasha eulogising Lord Krishna, or Abdul Rahim Khankhana translating Ramayana and Mahabharata into Persian. A book can well be written on the contribution of Muslim scholars and poets in propagating and appreciating Hindu gods, goddesses and religious books. In India there is hardly any example of writings by Hindu or Sikh writers critical of the Prophet or the tenets of Islam.
I would, therefore, request the supporters of Rushdie not to impose their idea of freedom on Indian society. If they are for absolute freedom of expression, let them first fight for it in Western democracies. Indian intelligentsia will do well to ponder over these issues dispassionately and not be swayed by Rushdie-ism and votaries of unfettered freedom of expression.
The writer is editor, ‘Nai Duniya’ (Urdu), and a former MP [Member of Indian Parliament],
Sat, 28 Jan 2012
Write, wrong
By Shahid Siddiqui : Sat Jan 28 2012, 03:29 hrs
Here is a fundamental question to friends and supporters of Salman Rushdie: Is the right to speech and expression absolute, without any restrictions, in any democratic society? The right to freedom of expression is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of this right carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “for respect of the rights or reputation of others, or for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals”. Under democratic constitutions, this right is commonly subject to limitations, such as libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit violence or a crime. Hate speech against any group, community, race, religion or colour is a crime in any free and democratic society of the world.
Those who supported Rushdie said that the book, The Satanic Verses, was banned but not the writer. The writer has committed the crime of hate and abusive speech but his freedom of movement cannot be restricted. Did Rushdie and his friends who are questioning Indian democracy, raise their voice when the Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik was banned from entering Britain in June 2010 and later banned by the US? The British home secretary then said “coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK”. This is not an isolated case, hundreds of people with valid documents are stopped from entering these great democracies, and their right to free speech and movement are curtailed without any reason, based on the whims and fancies of some bigoted bureaucrats. Islamophobia has become so prevalent in these Western democracies that sometimes mere name is reason enough to stop individuals from entering these countries .
There are hundreds of books critical of Islam, the Holy Prophet or the Quran. Some of these writings are offensive and full of misleading or distorted facts. But there has never been any global public outcry against these books. One can always reply to criticism by writing another book to counter such propaganda, but how do you reply to pure abusive and vulgar writing and imagery?
According to Islamic studies scholar Anthony McRoy, what Muslims find blasphemous is the name “Mahound”, a derogatory term for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used during the Crusades and which means the lowest creature from the depth of hell. In fact, the most offensive parts of the book are the abusive words in Hindi (gaali), freely used against Mahound by Gabriel Farishta, who is a Bollywood film star turned into an angel. A brothel is staffed by prostitutes who take the names of the Prophet’s wives, with Hazrat Omar, the close companion, as the brothel keeper. Saladin, the great Egyptian ruler, who defeated the Crusaders, is depicted as a devil or shaitan. Even the crusaders had nothing but praise for Saladin. Rushdie’s writings are so offensive that they cannot be quoted in any responsible and respectable magazine or newspaper. The result is that not only those who oppose him, but even those who support him, have either not read or understood the context in which Rushdie is creating his magic realism and its not-so-fictitious characters.
I was one of those few persons who was offered the manuscript of The Satanic Verses before its publication by Penguin India to offer my comments, as the publishers themselves were doubtful of the impact the book would create in India. I recommended to the publishers that the book should not come to India as the communal situation at that point (1988) was not conducive to such writings due to the Babri Masjid controversy. Emotions were already inflamed and the book could be used by communalists on both sides of the divide to exploit passions and sentiments. The book was banned quietly by the government, avoiding much controversy or protests from Indian Muslims. It is the fatwa by the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini which led to global protest and the larger controversy. Even then, the majority of Muslims opposed the fatwa. Indian Muslims at no point supported it.
However the Western world, which was desperately looking for a convenient target after the decline of Soviet Union, picked up the chant to protect Rushdie and demonise Islam, Muslims and their governments. They spent millions of dollars not only for the sake of “right to freedom of expression” but to use this issue to garner political support to isolate Iran and justify their Islamophobia. Is it a coincidence that The Satanic Verses unleashed the anti-Islam propaganda, which has led to many unjustified wars, killing of millions of innocent people and demonising a whole religion and its 1,500 million believers around the world.
Salman Rushdie and his publishers took no time in apologising to Indira Gandhi and editing the offensive portions from Midnight’s Children. At that point he and his publishers did not take the moral high ground of absolute, unrestricted right to creative freedom. Is it because her lawyers had filed a libel case in British courts and they might have had to pay a huge amount for this offence? The same people made huge amount of money from the Satanic Verses controversy and turned the abusive writer into a hero, celebrity and millionaire. Many British writers and a section of the media at that time alleged that the publishers stoked the fires of anguish and anger to exploit the controversy.
If Rushdie had written against Jesus Christ what he wrote against the Prophet he would have been prosecuted under the British blasphemy law, which was partisan in nature and under it the maximum punishment was the death sentence. The law was abandoned by the British parliament in May 2008. However, at the time of the controversy in 1988, Rushdie took refuge in England to save himself from prosecution by arguing that he had not offended Jesus Christ, Bible or the basic tenets of Christianity and therefore blasphemy law was not applicable to him.
Denying or questioning the Holocaust is a crime in most European democracies. Many countries have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial. Michael Whine argues that Holocaust denial can inspire violence. Many writers such as Raul Hilberg, Richard J. Evans, Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer and Christopher Hitchens have regarded these laws as limiting the freedom to investigate, research and write.
I don’t deny the right of people to eulogies Rushdie and regard his writings as the litmus test for the protection of right to speech. In India, believers of all faiths have lived together for thousands of years. In the thousand years of Muslims presence in India we do not come across any writing abusive of Hindu gods and religious figures by any prominent writer or poet. We do read the poems of Ras Khan in Brijbhasha eulogising Lord Krishna, or Abdul Rahim Khankhana translating Ramayana and Mahabharata into Persian. A book can well be written on the contribution of Muslim scholars and poets in propagating and appreciating Hindu gods, goddesses and religious books. In India there is hardly any example of writings by Hindu or Sikh writers critical of the Prophet or the tenets of Islam.
I would, therefore, request the supporters of Rushdie not to impose their idea of freedom on Indian society. If they are for absolute freedom of expression, let them first fight for it in Western democracies. Indian intelligentsia will do well to ponder over these issues dispassionately and not be swayed by Rushdie-ism and votaries of unfettered freedom of expression.
The writer is editor, ‘Nai Duniya’ (Urdu), and a former MP [Member of Indian Parliament],
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Letter to India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh from Ghulam Muhammed (Mumbai)
| Dear Prime Minister, Please watch Vandana Shiva's lecture on Hegemony as a favour to the nation: http://vimeo.com/channels/ Best regards Ghulam Muhammed, (Mumbai). | from: | Ghulam Muhammed ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| to: | manmohan sigh | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| cc: | 2020@abc.com, aalamisahara@rediffmail.com, abdulruff_jnu@yahoo.com, afzal_mir@hotmail.com, aghaksaeed@yahoo.com, agnitimes@yahoo.com, agnivesh70@gmail.com, ahmadinteraction@gmail.com, aijazsyed@khaleejtimes.com, akhbarenaunews@yahoo.co.in, almaeena@arabnews.com, amahmadi@detaone.in, amana@arf-asia.org, ambassador@embassyofpakistanusa.org, amkindia@gmail.com, anwarhkhan@yahoo.com, arshad662@gmail.com, ashraf.engineer@hindustantimes.com, ashraf@idafa.com, asidd66@yahoo.com, au_asif@yahoo.co.in, ayesha.khan@expressindia.com, azim.premji@wipro.com, bagsiraj@yahoo.com, Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no, Barkha@ndtv.com, bbcworld@bbc.co.uk, chairmannmc@nic.in, cpi@vsnl.com, crmohan53@gmail.com, ctc-tribletter@tribune.com, dateline@nbc.com, desk@asianews.it, drbhandankar@sify.com, editor@chinadailyapac.com, editor@islamicamagazine.com, editor@metimes.com, editor@newageislam.com, editor@todayszaman.com, editor@usatoday.com, editpage@expressindia.com, english@palestine-info.co.uk, epw.mumbai@gmail.com, fair@fair.org, Foxreport@foxnews.com, ftn@cbsnews.com, hardball@msnbc.com, hasanshabbir@googlegroups.com, humanrights-movement@googlegroups.com, info@ap.org, info@isim.nl, info@muslimobserver.com, irenaakbar@gmail.com, ismailp@gmail.com, jadeedmarkaz@gmail.com, jameel.shaik@gmail.com, kalingatimes@gmail.com, letters@newsweek.com, letters@usnews.com, m_salam2525@yahoo.com, magazine@dawn.com, mahmood_madani@vsnl.net, manderharsh@gmail.com, manoharbiswas@yahoo.co.in, markazeislami@gmail.com, markazulmaarif@yahoogroups.com, mcbmedia@mcb.org.uk, mdshafiaga@gmail.com, mehmal@gmail.com, memehdi_jalil@yahoo.co.in, mohammed.kazim@mid-day.com, mohsinhamid@hotmail.co.uk, morning@npr.org, mssondhi@hotmail.com, mubasshir.ahmed@gmail.com, Muslims_Network@yahoogroups.com, mytimesmyvoice@timesgroup.com, nasirabid@yahoo.com, nation_world@rediffmail.com, netaudr@abc.com, news@alqamar.org, newsbureau@etemaaddaily.com, newswatchindia@gmail.com, newzmag@yahoo.com, nightly@nbc.com, np@canadianislamiccongress.com, nrindians@googlegroups.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, ombudsman@npr.org, ombudsman@washpost.com, Ontherecord@foxnews.com, Oreilly@foxnews.com, Peaceparty11@gmail.com, pervezbari@eth.net, prannoy@ndtv.com, pressforum@googlegroups.com, progressive-interactions@googlegroups.com, pti@trans.in, publisher@muslimfreepress.com, qasimsyed2008@gmail.com, qaumiawazdelhi@erdiffmail.com, qurban100@gmail.com, rahmank@hotmail.com, raja.abdulrahim@latimes.com, ramguha@vsnl.com, rao@indiatribune.com, rinaislamicnewsagency@yahoo.co.in, rizvisha4u@yahoo.com, rshabeeb@gmail.com, rush@eibnet.com, sadiyachaudhary@gmail.com, saeedhameed@yahoo.com, sager@grc.ae, sahafatdaily@yahoo.co.uk, sahildaily@hotmail.com, sajadeepti@yahoo.com, sardesai.rajdeep@gmail.com, sarind@hotmail.com, sayeed.myindia@gmail.com, secretaryhes@bol.net.in, shad.shahid@gmail.com, shadabit@yahoo.com, shakil_313@yahoo.com, shehnaz@vsnl.com, shekhargupta-q@express2.indexp.co.in, shobha.sivakumar@merinews.com, shobhaa@shobhaade.in, socialist_pakistan_news@yahoogroups.com, south@southasiaanalysis.org, Special@foxnews.com, sudheenkulkarni@gmail.com, sunandadr@yahoo.co.in, syed_waseemuddin@yahoo.com, syedsajid_aziz@yahoo.com, tanveerjafri58@gmail.com, tanveerjafriamb@gmail.com, tariqali3@btinternet.com, teestateesta@gmail.com, tharoor.assistant@gmail.com, thedailymails@yahoo.com, Tinashaikh@yahoo.com, today@nbc.com, totn@npr.org, tsajjad@hotmail.com, u_goyas@yahoo.com, UrduTalkRadio@googlegroups.com, voiceofkashmir@rediffmail.com, wahaj321@yahoo.com, waseemahmedshaikh@gmail.com, wass@spa.gov.sa, webmaster@allama-mashriqi.8m.com, webmaster@jasarat.com, webmaster@nation.com.pk, webmaster@rense.com, webmaswebmaster@asiantribune.com, writeziya@gmail.com, yaseen36@gmail.com, yawar@yawarbaig.com, yogendra.yadav@gmail.com, yusufjameel@gmail.com, zafar_agha@yahoo.co.in, zeeshan.shaikh@hindustantimes.com, Zia.Haq@hindustantimes.com, SHAHI IMAM AHAMED BUKHARI 786 <786@muslimrevival.com>, "[Offline] Mujtaba Farooq" aariz_mohammed Abdul Hafiz Lakhani Abdul Hasib Abdul Wahid Azad "abdulrahim92@hotmail.com" Abdus Sattar Ghazali "ablipi@yahoo.com" abu zafar "abuasimazmi@hotmail.com" "admin@mcb.org.uk" afternoonletters ahmed soroor "ahmedazam007@yahoo.com" "ahramdaily@ahram.org.eg" akbar hasan Akhtar Ali Khan Alan Border "aligarhnetwork@yahoogroups.com" "alihasan222@aol.com" Amanullah Khan Amaresh Misra "amirali@ilaam.net" amr_cnbc andalib akhter anees "arifiqbalubr@yahoo.co.in" arshi khan "arsna@aol.com" "ashraf4916@hotmail.com" "asif_faki@hotmail.com" aslam ghazi "atharjnu@yahoo.co.in" avnery "ayesha.jalal@tufts.edu" "ayubpathan@hotmail.com" Aziz Burney "b_qasmi@hotmail.com" Badri Raina Bashiruddin Babukhan BBC World Service "cair@cair-net.org" CARD "cdlr_massari@hotmail.com" Christophe Jaffrelot "comments@foxnews.com" "comments@truthout.org" Cowasjee Dawn Daily Millat danish reyaz Dr A R Mookhi Dr Arshad G Moh'd Dr Shahid Geo TV "Dr. M I H Farooqi" "Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam" "DR.QASIM RASOOL ILYAS" "dr_phirozp@hotmail.com" "drabdulkarimnaik@yahoo.com" "drrehmani2003@yahoo.co.in" drsalimkhan "dtletters@telegraph.co.uk" "editet@timesgroup.com" editor editor "editor@aljazeerah.info" "editor@amperspective.com" "editor@centralchronical.com" "editor@deccanherald.co.in" "editor@deccanmail.com" "editor@ibnlive.com" "editor@iexpressusa.com" "editor@medialens.org" "Editor@MediaMonitors.net" "editor@muslimedia.com" "editor@nawaiwaqt.com.pk" "editor@newsindia-times.com" "editor@nytimes.com" "editor@the-week.com" "editor@themuslimweekly.com" "editor@urdutimes.org" "editorial@indiaabroad.com" "editors@newsweek.com" ehtasham khan "expressletters@express.co.uk" "f.khan@unsw.edu.au" "faisal_amaan@hotmail.com" "faisalmugal39@gmail.com" Faizee Aleem Fariduddin Chaudhari "farrukh15@hotmail.com" "faruqui@pacbell.net" "feedback@tehelka.com" Feroze Mithiborwala "fffkochi@yahoo.com" Financial Times "fpj@vsnl.com" "FPRI@fpri.org" Friday Times "frontline@thehindu.co.in" "G. R. Siddiqui" ghaziahmed shaikh "GM.Shaikh" "gpshaikh@rediff.com" habeeb haris hanif lakdawala Hasan Shabbir haseeb "hasniessa@yahoo.com" "hina.rind@gmail.com" "hindustanexpress@yahoo.com" "hsiddiq@thestar.ca" "hsitah9@yahoo.com" "hyd1_munsif@sancharnet.in" "iahmad@nicholaspiramal.co.in" "id_nadeem@yahoo.co.in" "ideamumbai@yahoo.com" "iftikharigilani@gmail.com" "iht-letters@iht.com" "imtiyazkhaleel@gmail.com" Inayat Lalani "indermalhotra30@hotmail.com" Indian Muslim Council Indian Muslims Indian Muslims Info "info@beiruttimes.com" "info@ibn.net" "info@ihrc.org" "info@jamiat.org.za" "info@mediareviewnet.com" "info@merinews.com" "info@mpacuk.org" "info@oic-oci.org" "info@palestinechronicle.com" "info@prc.org.uk" "info@shanghaidaily.com" "info@siasat.com" "info@yvonneridley.org" "international@upi.com" "iqbalgauhar@gmail.com" "ircg_clhg@yahoo.com" Irfan Asgharali "iscrmohan@ntu.edu.sg" "islam@irf.net" "j.steele@guardian.co.uk" "jadidkhabar@rediffmail.com" "jamaat@del6.vsnl.net.in" "jamiatulama@bol.net.in" javed jamil "javedjamil@rediffmail.com" "javeed_kn@yahoo.com" "jawed@muslimsweekly.com" John Dayal "jotimes@jpf.com.jo" Junaid Juzar Bandukwala Juzer Mohammed Husain "kamalfaruqui@hotmail.com" Karamatullah Ghori Kaukab Siddique "kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa" "khabardaar@bol.net.in" Khalid Sabir "khalidali.alig@gmail.com" Khan Arif "khanziya@rediffmail.com" "khateeb63@msn.com" "khwaja1956@rediffmail.com" "kinalur@gmail.com" "korawa@hotmail.com" "ktimes@emirates.net.ae" "kuldipnayar75@yahoo.com" "letter2editor@gulfnews.com" "letter@globe.com" "letters.editor@intoday.com" "letters@arabnews.com" "letters@atimes.com" "letters@dailytimes.com.pk" "letters@dawn.com" "letters@hardnewsmedia.com" "letters@hindustantimes.com" "letters@independent.co.uk" "letters@latimes.com" "letters@msnbc.com" "letters@newint.org" "letters@newsday.com" "letters@slate.com" "letters@taipeitimes.com" "letters@theage.com.au" "letters@thehindu.co.in" "letters@thetimes.co.uk" "letters@tribuneindia.com" | Prime Minister, Please watch Vandana Shiva's lecture on Hegemony as a favour to the nation: http://vimeo.com/channels/ Best regards Ghulam Muhammed, (Mumbai). | Dear Prime Minister, Please watch Vandana Shiva's lecture on Hegemony as a favour to the nation: http://vimeo.com/channels/ Best regards Ghulam Muhammed, (Mumbai). |
Rushdie and the Demonization of Islam By Shad Shahid, The Milli Gazette
THE MILLI GAZETTE
Issues
Rushdie and the Demonization of Islam
By Shad Shahid, The Milli Gazette
Published Online: Jan 26, 2012
Print Issue: 1-15 February 2012
When the mainstream media went to town depicting the absence of Rushdie as a loss for India’s liberal traditions and democratic ethos, it was indeed a naive analysis. To properly take cognizance of this matter and deliberate on its repercussions, a dialectical inquiry is necessary to contextualize the larger historical and literary issues touching the Rushdie affair. Not only does this issue impact freedom of speech, it is also part of the overarching narrative constructed by the Western intelligentsia regarding progress and civilization. The imperative is that, despite the overwhelming noise generated by liberal activists of all hues, there was simply no alternative for Indian Muslims but to oppose the visit of an individual who indulges in reinforcing a demonization and denunciation of everything that they visualize as sacred.
First and foremost, it goes without saying that there is nothing like absolute freedom of speech. Anyone who says so is at risk of fooling himself as well as others. To illustrate, no country worth its salt can tolerate disrespect to its national symbols – even in India, despite all the talk of ancient liberal ethos embedded in Indic culture, you cannot stand up and abuse the national flag or the national anthem or the Father of the Nation. Nationalism has become sacrosanct in the modern narrative, which is often used to further jingoistic tendencies in the masses by right-wing politicians.
Next, in order to specify Rushdie’s literary genre, we have to look back at the European tradition perfected in the Middle Ages which was bent on vilifying Islam as the Dark Other — Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was often painted in this literary tradition as the Anti-Christ and a paedophile and war-monger (may God forbid!) — Dante’s Divine Comedy is a perfect example of this kind of demonization. Historians and orientalists like Margoliuth and Bernard Lewis look upon Islam as a major problem to be tackled on the intellectual level by denouncing all its traditions as pagan in origin. A concerted effort was made to prove scientifically that the (Arab) Muslims are not descendants of Abraham, that Abraham never went to the Hejaz and that the Black Stone at Makka is a pagan relic rather than established by Ibrahim and Ismail (pbut). It is another matter that sometimes these overzealous pseudo-rationalists ended up making fools of themselves like in the case of Margoliuth who denied that Jahiliya poetry even existed — when this was picked up by one of his students in Egypt, the scholars of Arabic there cried foul and the fake history of Islamic scholarship by Westerners was exposed. Malik Bennabi has done a great exposé of the same in his works where he severely critiques those depicting the Prophet as either an epileptic or while being most generous, as having copied from the Jewish scriptures. It was Edward Said, the Palestinian professor who for the first time, revealed the subtle nature of Orientalism which has its hallmark in depicting the Orient as the land to be rightfully conquered and liberated (aka civilized) by the West. For one who is well-conversant with the same tradition, it is easy to locate wherefrom Rushdie has picked up his moorings – Ziauddin Sardar makes the same point in one of his writings while critiquing Rushdie.
Culture of Muslim-bashing
It should be borne in mind here that the demonization of Islam started by first of all cutting it off from its Abrahamic source — by illustrating against all textual evidence, that the son of sacrifice is Isaac and not Ismail (pbut). This was important because only once a conclusive de-linkage of Islam with the Judaeo-Christian tradition had been established, it could become easy to wage war against the heathens who threatened to overrun Europe. This paved the way for demeaning everything Islamic ranging from the alleged promise of 72 houris in Paradise to the number of the Prophet’s own wives – sexual deviancy was the next step in depicting Muslim culture, and one can see the manifestations of the same even in current western writings about Islam. The reverse impact this had on Muslim minds cut off from the richness of their own tradition, was in thinking of Islam itself as a monolithic culture, and not appreciating how to interact with the modern world. For instance, the Quran has already told that metaphorical verses are argued and deliberated upon only by those in whose hearts is a disease, and it is these very same verses which are often used by Orientalists to emphasize their point about Islam’s incompatibility with science or reason, a fact which can never sink in one’s consciousness unless one approaches text with biased mindset.
While Muslim armies only settled down to rule wherever they went from India to Spain, the European colonizer devalued history of the land and left the natives in an empty shell. In the words of Macaulay, the aim of European education in India was “to create Western-minded individuals who would be dark in skin but European in taste”.
As if the repudiation and intellectual draining of the Muslim mind was not enough, entire disciplines were constructed around the paradigm of Western supremacy — Anthropology is a perfect example of this kind of craftsmanship — the basic premise of an anthropologist rests in the assumption that Western civilization is the apex of human culture and refinement and all other cultural traditions are studied as poor imitations of the former. Thus Arab and by extension, Muslim (including South Asian) culture was at an underdeveloped tribal stage still to shed off its primitive ethos! It is only in recent times that an effort has been made by some scholars to study anthropology from a Muslim perspective.
Another manifestation of the same historical criticism, in which many Muslims themselves got entangled, was the denunciation of all Hadith literature as Chinese whispers. Thus, with utter disregard to the scientific tradition developed by the Hadith scholars, the entire corpus was sought to be rejected as mere aphorisms. This despite the fact that the modern-day Biblical criticism has itself learnt a lot from Hadith criticism. The objective, of course, was to rework Muslim tradition to make it malleable to new notions of European sensibilities. The frank discussions of marital and even sexual issues in Muslim tradition are interpreted as being a proof of Eastern promiscuity which reflects a tribal sensuality — forgetting that Islam or religion as a way of life, has no need to brush away any sensitive issue under the carpet. Thus Rushdie and his ilk feel no shame at giving fictional prostitutes the names of the Prophet’s wives, while critiquing Muslims for indulging in harems in the tradition of their Prophet!
Faith versus Nihilism
The larger issue in this maze of liberal emancipation is that one cannot delink Rusdhie and look at him as an actor in isolation — there already exists an established tradition of degrading Islam with all its nuances and cultural manifestations. It is amazing that India’s image can be affected by catering to the sentiments of some 18% of its population, but Switzerland becomes an ideal democracy while banning minarets on the basis of a majority vote. Yes, to prevent a democracy from degenerating into a mobocracy, one has to define certain red lines which cannot be impacted by group behaviour — however, the issue here is not one of freedom of expression as was falsely portrayed by the miniscule of over-the-top shouting television anchors — the issue here was an abuse and attack on the religious identity of a very large population.
It goes without saying that irrespective of the post-modern notion of the liberated individual, large sections of populations in both the East as well as the West, think of religion as the only way of life they know. The traditions of India, whether it is in the mutts in Karnataka or the Deras in Punjab or the ziyarats in Kashmir have always been a source of strength to its citizens. Even in Europe, the holiness of the Vatican and the Church has remained undisturbed. Local pastors cater to the religious needs of their localities in the US, which is the supposed liberal paradise. The liberal minority is itself most restrictive of freedom of expression by indulging in much clamour and little understanding of what shapes and defines the lives of large sections of peoples. It would not be too far to say that the majority finds religion liberating rather than restrictive, for man is at heart a spiritual and moral being whose thirst for the same can only be satiated by faith.
The contextualization of Rushdie helps us understand why precisely he is lapped up by the West as a symbol of expressive emotion while denying the same right to Muslims in their midst – for the uninitiated, Satanic Verses as a term is not invented by Rushdie, this term was propagated by the Orientalists as proof of the Prophet (pbuh) being overtaken by Satan while reciting the Quran and thus compromising and admitting of a multitude of gods. In stark contrast to this, the Quran has already said several centuries ago that no one can interfere with Divine revelation: “When you read the Quran, seek God's protection from Satan, the rejected one” (16:98). The nature of Revelation is such that it comes from on high, which the Quran describes as being “guarded against all rebellious devils” (37:7). At other places, the Quran affirms that everything in this universe is guarded by God, whatever we do is within His grasp — it is fine if one does not believe in God himself, yet to suggest that a Prophet receiving Revelation is getting inspired by Satan is the zenith of lunacy and blasphemy. Thus, while Revelation places a great importance on guardianship both by God as well as humans, those with a Satanic bent of mind are wont to degrade everything holy and break off the sanctity which appears to them as a yoke.
The war of words witnessed here is not between Islam and any other faith, but between the God-centered view of the universe with the theory of nihilism which ends up denying one’s own existence — Rushdie belongs to the same genre which insults the Virginity of Mary, whom the Quran describes as one “who guarded her chastity”. It is another matter that today by and large it is only a section of Muslims who hold these values dear and are eager to articulate their point of view. The tragedy here is that due to the ridicule heaped on Islam, it becomes difficult for ordinary Muslims to make sense of striking the balance between tradition and modernity and they either become desacralized or withdraw into their shell.
Where is the Loony Fringe?
Finally, it would be a safe assertion to make that most of those clamouring for the side of Rushdie have either not read the book, or not understood the tradition of which he is definitely a part. To compare him with MF Hussain is not really germane, because the latter is not part of any tradition of vilification of Hindu goddesses by Muslims. In fact, MF Hussain while not any paragon of virtue, has not strayed too far from what is already part of Hindu tradition in the artisan engravings at Khajuraho. Rushdie on his part has not only willingly become part of a well-established western tradition of abuse but is also guilty of treachery to the culture of the nation he was born into — it is no wonder that he had to run away to lead a lascivious life with unending affairs in the West. This is symptomatic of a number of ex-Muslims or born Muslims who make it their hobby to bash Islam and everything it holds sacred — whether it is Ayan Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji or Ali Sina or Taslima Nasrin — Islam-bashing is the fastest way to get a Western passport and all the temporary luxuries of this life!
It is immaterial why Rushdie was not opposed on earlier visits or why he was opposed at the eve of elections. Irrespective of these sidetracks, the non-admission of Rushdie on Indian soil is a blessing in disguise, for people of all faiths can still hope to come to an understanding with each other about the purported secularization of tradition and demonization of Muslims, in particular. And yes, it is not just the loony fringe which demonizes Rushdie rather any believer with his entire soul would denounce the loony tradition of Islam-bashing.
The author is a management graduate. He may be reached at shad.shahid@gmail.comWednesday, January 25, 2012
Salman Rushdie is poor, substandard writer: Juctice Katju -THE TIMES OF INDIA
http://timesofindia.
India
Salman Rushdie is poor, substandard writer: Juctice Katju
PTI | Jan 25, 2012, 04.48PM IST NEW DELHI:
Salman Rushdie is a "poor" and "substandard writer" who would have remained largely unknown but for his controversial book 'Satanic Verses', according to Markandey Katju, till recently a judge of the Supreme Court.
Katju, who is now the Chairman of Press Council of India, criticised the admirers of India-born author based in Britain, saying they suffered from "colonial inferiority complex" that a writer living abroad has to be great.
"Salman Rushdie dominated the Jaipur Literature Festival. I do not wish to get into the controversy whether banning him was correct or not. I am raising a much more fundamental issue," he said in a statement here.
"I have read some of Rushdie's works and am of the opinion that he is a poor writer, and but for 'Satanic Verses' would have remained largely unknown. Even 'Midnight's Children' is hardly great literature," Katju contended.
He went on to add that the "whole problem with the so-called educated Indians of today is that they still suffer from the colonial inferiority complex. So whoever lives in London and New York must be a great writer, while writers living in India are inferior."
On the controversy surrounding Rushdie during the festival which ended yesterday, he said, "I am not in favour of religious obscurantism. But neither do I wish to elevate a sub-standard writer into a hero."
Referring to the Jaipur festival, Katju said one would have expected "serious discussion on literature, particularly indigenous literature" of the likes of Kabir, Premchand, Sharat Chandra, Manto, Ghalib, Faiz, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Subramania Bharti.
"Kabir and Tulsidas are no good because they lived on the ghats of Benaras, whereas Rushdie is great because he lives on the ghats of the Thames! This is the mental level of our 'intellectuals and 'literati'," the former SC judge said.
Katju maintained that the whole history of the great Indian literature, rich in its variety, from Valmiki and Vyas to modern times should have been discussed.
There could also have been a discussion on foreign writers like Dickens, Shaw, Victor Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert, Upton Sinclair, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gorki and Pablo Neruda, he said.
"Instead the total focus at Jaipur appeared to be Rushdie. Two personalities linked with films were projected as 'the finest poets' in India, though to my mind their work is of a very inferior order. This is the low level to which the Jaipur Festival sank," Katju contended.
He said India is facing massive socio-economic problems today and literature should address these. "The struggle which Kabir waged against narrow sectarianism, which Sharat Chandra waged against the caste system and women's oppression, which Faiz waged against despotism, which Subramania Bharti waged for nationalism and women's emancipation, which Dickens and Gorki waged against exploitation and social injustice - these are the matters which should have been discussed at Jaipur. Instead, Rushdie dominated most of the show," he said.
Katju, who is now the Chairman of Press Council of India, criticised the admirers of India-born author based in Britain, saying they suffered from "colonial inferiority complex" that a writer living abroad has to be great.
"Salman Rushdie dominated the Jaipur Literature Festival. I do not wish to get into the controversy whether banning him was correct or not. I am raising a much more fundamental issue," he said in a statement here.
"I have read some of Rushdie's works and am of the opinion that he is a poor writer, and but for 'Satanic Verses' would have remained largely unknown. Even 'Midnight's Children' is hardly great literature," Katju contended.
He went on to add that the "whole problem with the so-called educated Indians of today is that they still suffer from the colonial inferiority complex. So whoever lives in London and New York must be a great writer, while writers living in India are inferior."
On the controversy surrounding Rushdie during the festival which ended yesterday, he said, "I am not in favour of religious obscurantism. But neither do I wish to elevate a sub-standard writer into a hero."
Referring to the Jaipur festival, Katju said one would have expected "serious discussion on literature, particularly indigenous literature" of the likes of Kabir, Premchand, Sharat Chandra, Manto, Ghalib, Faiz, Kazi Nazrul Islam and Subramania Bharti.
"Kabir and Tulsidas are no good because they lived on the ghats of Benaras, whereas Rushdie is great because he lives on the ghats of the Thames! This is the mental level of our 'intellectuals and 'literati'," the former SC judge said.
Katju maintained that the whole history of the great Indian literature, rich in its variety, from Valmiki and Vyas to modern times should have been discussed.
There could also have been a discussion on foreign writers like Dickens, Shaw, Victor Hugo, Balzac, Flaubert, Upton Sinclair, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gorki and Pablo Neruda, he said.
"Instead the total focus at Jaipur appeared to be Rushdie. Two personalities linked with films were projected as 'the finest poets' in India, though to my mind their work is of a very inferior order. This is the low level to which the Jaipur Festival sank," Katju contended.
He said India is facing massive socio-economic problems today and literature should address these. "The struggle which Kabir waged against narrow sectarianism, which Sharat Chandra waged against the caste system and women's oppression, which Faiz waged against despotism, which Subramania Bharti waged for nationalism and women's emancipation, which Dickens and Gorki waged against exploitation and social injustice - these are the matters which should have been discussed at Jaipur. Instead, Rushdie dominated most of the show," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)