| |||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Britain's Channel 4 exposes 'power' of pro-Israel lobby - HAARETZ
http://haaretz.com/hasen/
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The veil: Identity or modesty? By A. G. Noorani, FRONTLINE MAGAZINE
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20091204262408200.htm
BOOKS
The veil: Identity or modesty?
The veil: Identity or modesty?
A.G. NOORANI
Deoband’s fatwa on the veil may be dismissed. But not the issues the veil has raised, especially in Europe, the U.S. and indeed in South Asia. |
BY now Deoband’s fatwas have become predictable for their narrowness of outlook and a theology which has little concern with reason or, at times, even with learning. Its fatwa on the veil may be dismissed. But not the issue the veil has raised; especially in Europe, the United States and indeed in South Asia.
The Economist of October 17, 2009, reported the debate in Egypt, which has been raging for a century: “The veil has been put off and on as fast as hemlines in Paris have gone up and down.” By the 1970s most women had thrown it off. But it has crept back as a wave of religiosity prompted many to embrace a more distinctively Muslim look. Is the veil, then, a symbol of identity or a protection of modesty? Faced with the onslaught, women adopt a variety of the symbolic attire from the black niqab, which covers the face leaving just a bit for the eyes, to “lighter novelties such as a colourful Spanish-style scarf wrapped around hair tied in a bun”.
In October, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Cairo’s 1,000-year-old Islamic University, Sheikh Tantawi, lost his temper when he saw an 11-year-old student at a girl’s school wearing the niqab. He ordered her immediately to remove it and issued a blanket order banning it in all the girls’ schools. The reason he gave is noteworthy: “[T]he full face-covering is an innovation that represents too extreme an interpretation of Islamic modesty.” Islam does not prescribe the niqab. It is an “innovation” by some Muslims who reacted to Western influences in fashion as a “return” to the faith and an assertion of Muslim identity. The Religious Affairs Ministry of Egypt will be printing a leaflet called “Niqab: Custom not Worship”.
This is not enough. The crucial question remains to be answered. Precisely what does the Quran say on this subject? Marnia Lazreg is Professor of Sociology at the Graduate Centre and Hunter College, City University of New York. The sub-title of her work is “Open Letters to Muslim Women”.
She has interviewed women widely and done careful research. “In my previously published work, I have consistently objected to the manner in which Muslim women have been portrayed in books as well as the media”. On the one hand, they have been represented as oppressed by their religion, typically understood as being fundamentally inimical to women’s social progress. From this perspective, the veil has traditionally been discussed as the most tangible sign of women’s oppression. “On the other hand, Muslim women have been described as the weakest link in Muslim societies, which should be targeted for political propaganda aimed at killing two birds with one stone showing that Islam is a backward and misogynous religion, and underscoring the callousness or cruelty of the men who use Islam for political aims. Such a view made it acceptable to hail the war launched against Afghanistan in 2001 as a war of ‘liberation’ of women. Subsequently, the American-sponsored constitutions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were lauded as protecting the ‘rights’ of women in spite of evidence to the contrary. In this context, any Muslim woman who takes cheap shots at Islam and crudely indicts Muslim cultures is perceived as speaking the truth and is elevated to stardom.” Witness the empty-headed but raucous Milsi of the Netherlands and Nagi of Canada. Neither is known for learning.
In India, any Muslim who denounces Islam or Muslims becomes a hero, and not only in the eyes of the Sangh Parivar. The soft-secularist or, if you prefer, the soft Sanghi shares the approach. The author was born to a Muslim family in a predominantly Muslim country, Algieria, and is proud of her heritage.
She decided to write these letters to women whose religion is Islam and who either have taken up the veil or are thinking or wearing it. However, writing about women necessarily means writing about men. “To many in the Muslim world, well-meaning individuals beleaguered by geopolitical events, these letters may seem pointless. But perhaps such individuals need to resolve the apparently unimportant issue of veiling before they can defend themselves more effectively. These letters are also relevant to all people, women and men, seeking to understand the human experience. I have reached a point in my life when I can no longer keep quiet about an issue, the veil, that has in recent years been so politicised that it threatens to shape and distort the identity of young women and girls throughout the Muslim world as well as in Europe and North America.”
In France, the state passed a law (referred to as laicite) on March 17, 2004, denying young French Muslim women the right to attend the public schools if they wear headscarves. Turkey reinforced a long-standing prohibition against veiling in public educational institutions and compels faculty members to report and expel from their classes female students wearing headscarves. The Recep Tayyip Erdogan government’s attempt to remove the ban on headscarves in the spring of 2008 threw Turkey into turmoil. The attempt was overturned by the Turkish High Court as unconstitutional. The veil has become politicised.
The author holds that “the religious texts lack clarity and determinacy in the matter”. Shunning extremist positions, her letters are an invitation to reflection based on the Quranic texts: “Quranic words referring to women’s proper attire have been interpreted and translated in various ways that add to the instability of meaning. Nevertheless, at present, four words are commonly used to refer to major styles of veiling: hijab, jilbab, niqab, and khimar. The hijab has emerged as the standardised form of veiling across the Muslim world, coexisting with local styles. It comprises a headscarf wrapped in more or less intricate ways covering the neck but not the face, atop a long skirt, long baggy pants, or combination of both. Often the hijab is reduced to a headscarf draped around head and neck, worn over any modern style of dress. The jilbab consists of a long garment covering the body, a headscarf, thick socks worn with flat shoes (usually sandals), and gloves. Frequently, a black face cover (niqab) is added to the jilbab, primarily by women affiliated with a specific Islamist movement such as the Salafi (or adherents to a conservative interpretation of Islam). Khimar today refers to a specific way of executing a head cover that usually hugs the head tightly and cascades over neck and shoulders in a cape-like fashion.”
What the Quran says
AMR NABIL/AP
What the Quran says deserves quotation in full: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.”
The references Prof. Marnia Lazreg cites are important: Sura 24.31. The Glorious Quran, text and explanatory trans, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (Islamic Call Society: Socialist People’s Ar ab Jamahiriya, n.d.). “I am using this old translation because it denotes the translator’s desire to be ‘modest’ in translating the word furuj, or pudents, and represents a standard rendition of the original. Contemporary male advocates of veiling also use ‘modesty’ in the translation of this sura. See Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, Women’s Rights in Islam (New Delhi; Adam 2008), Ahmed Ali translatesfuruj as ‘private parts’. See Al-Quran: A Contemporary Translation by Ahmed Ali (Princeton; Princeton University Press, 1993).”
Interestingly men too are exhorted in the Quran to protect their pudenda (also translated as “modesty”). “However, this exhortation has not given rise to multiple interpretations, nor has it been used to conflate dress with moral character, as has been the case with women.” Sura 24-30 enjoins the believing men to lower their gaze and “be modest”.
Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, a 19th century reformer, defined modesty as an individual’s restraint from evil deeds. The author poses questions few dare to ask and demands answers. “If a woman conceals her breasts and legs but leaves her face bare, is she less desirable to a man? What if a man is attracted to a woman’s eyes or lips more than to her breasts or legs? If one agrees that men’s desire floats from one part of a woman’s body to another, there is no way a woman can be ‘protected’ from it. Men’s desire is the root cause of veils that cover the body and face, such as the Afghan burqa-veils that obliterate a woman’s physical self. She must bear the body she was born with, just as a convict must bear the ball and chain. Concealment of the body is thus a form of punishment as well as an apology for having been born female, when it is not a means of redemption.”
She points out that while “it is commonly understood that an ‘older’ woman may discard her veil rather than wear it, the text of the sura shows otherwise: ‘As for women past the age of child bearing, who have no hope of marriage, there is no harm if they take off their (outer) garment, but in such a way as that they do not display their charms. But if they avoid this, it would be better for them. God is all hearing and all knowing.’” (Sura 24.60). But commentators do not quite agree on its precise meaning.
Al Azhar University acknowledged that poor women are not under the obligation to wear the veil or refrain from work outside the home. Many a woman took to the veil to escape sexual harassment, which is the subject of an entire chapter. Often, advocates of veiling ground their view that it protects women in the following sura: “Oh Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the women of the faithful to draw their wraps a little over them. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them. God is forgiving and kind.” The veil in Muslim society is clearly not a symbol of identity; nor is there a clear injunction in its support.
Irrefutable assertion
Prof. Lazrag’s assertion cannot be refuted. In Islam the hijab is not a pillar of faith. “Nowhere in the Quran is there an indication that the veil is a condition of a woman’s acceptance of her faith.” She constantly draws on her interview with Muslim women to make her point and to demonstrate the havoc religious bigotry and ignorance have caused in the lives of Muslim women. The last chapter on “Why women should not wear the veil” sums up the author’s views. They are based on Islamic teachings, as well as the history of Muslims. “The history of Muslim societies is fraught with instances when women wore no veil without there being much ado. The veil rose and fell depending on local political circumstances. Its evolution mirrored women’s changed perceptions of themselves…. The current revival of the veil, often in a style imported from Egypt (a headscarf and long overcoat) coincided with a failed development policy, a civil war that pitted the government against a radical and splintered Islamist movement, and the emergence of an intraregional movement of cultural identity inflicted by geopolitical events. What goes on in Baghdad and Cairo, Washington, D.C., and Paris has resonance in Algiers, Rabat or Amman. In the history of domination, resistance, and protest in Middle Eastern societies, the veil has been an enduring symbol and fertile ground for dramatising political ideologies.”
In the Shah’s Iran the veil was used by women as a form of protest. In Khomeni’s Iran it became an oppressive mandate from men to women.
“Unlike religious prescriptions pertaining to dogma, the veil is a historical, if not the most historical, exhortation and therefore amenable to change. It carried no heretical connotation or penalty. Going out without it is not a prohibition, as usury or drinking alcohol is. This explains why nineteenth century Muslim reformists called for improvements in women’s social lives – largely held back by veiling. However, even the most liberal among them fell short of declaring the veil a non-religious practice in its essence. In 1879 Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani warned his contemporaries ‘that you should not ignore that it is impossible for us to emerge from stupidity, from the prison of humiliation and distress, and the depths of weakness and ignominy as long as women are deprived of rights and ignorant of their duties, for they are the moths from whom will come elementary education and primary morality.”
The veil should not be glorified. It retards women’s progress in society especially at the work place and in public offices. Advocates as well as opponents of the veil cite the West in support of these views, albeit for opposing reasons.
The author’s conclusions, based on case studies, are sound. “Modesty is neither secured nor enhanced by the veil. If chastity is the flip side of modesty, the veil is no guarantee for it either, it lies instead with a woman’s conscious decision to manage her sexuality according to her conception of herself in awareness of the social forces (whether religious or mundane) that seek to wrest from her the moral autonomy necessary for her to make that decision. Similarly, the veil is no protection from sexual harassment. In reality, it may even stimulate more harassment as a number of men are not sure that a woman is not wearing a veil because she is seeking greater freedom from her family rather than out of religious conviction. Besides, men themselves may be ambivalent about the religious status of the veil; they may not see it as an impediment to making sexual advance to a woman or even committing rape. For example, a veiled Saudi woman was raped as she was sitting in a car with a former boyfriend. Nevertheless, the reveiling trend acutely poses the question of a woman’s agency, her freedom to choose.”
The West’s repression will be counterproductive. “A woman veiling herself in Paris is making a statement about her place in French society that has refused to treat her as a full-fledged citizen; it perceives her as ‘allogenic’ and permanently marked as an ‘immigrant’ no matter the depth of her French roots. The veil for this woman signifies the appropriation of a sign that has been so politicised as to mean the rejection of French society. To the use of French culture as a weapon with which she was bludgeoned, this woman uses an equally powerful cultural weapon to defend herself. By the same token, she finds comfort in acknowledging and assuming her Islamic heritage, which she may have repressed for the sake of assimilation into the dominant value system of her society. She revels in her new visibility as a wearer of a reviled custom. A woman veiling herself in New York also makes a statement about the positivity of her culture in a social climate strained by the Iraq and Afghan wars.”
The veil’s revival is part of the revivalist fervour of the last three decades. Women face a political as well as intellectual challenge. They have to fight the recent trends as well as the perversions of centuries past. “Ultimately there is no compelling justification for veiling, not even faith. For it, too, needs to confront the power nexus that sustains the repetition of the history of the veil. No one is entitled to turn the veil into a political flag, and no one should derive satisfaction from its removal except women themselves.”
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Comments posted on TIMES NOW TV website over its story on “Rana’s recruitment drive”: Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
Comments posted on TIMES NOW TV website over its story on “Rana’s recruitment drive”:
Media is not investigating the possibility that both the so-called FBI suspects, Headley and Rana, were placed in India US US India US
If LET itself is a front for ISI which is reported to have full CIA support, why should India US
It is time Indian Government takes Indian public in full confidence over such devious designs of foreign agencies that spill over into public arena and poison our society.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
| LeT agent Rana's deadly 'recruitment drive' | ||||
| | ||||
| Intelligence Agencies are closing in on the dreaded Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives Tahawwur Rana and David Coleman Headley's network in Sources now tell TIMES NOW that this ad is in fact a camouflaged signal placed by the Lashkar operative Tahawwur Hussain Rana with a clear purpose. It was a message to his associates on where and when he would be available for meetings across the country. The Lashkar men used newspaper ads to liaise with their contacts. Rana and his wife checked into the Taj Residency hotel in Jacob Punnose, DGP (Intelligence), Kerala Police said, "Our information says he stayed at the Taj some person by name Hussain Rana with his wife stayed in the hotel. The ostensible purpose was his Canadian immigration. We are also looking into reports that he could be there in A closer look at the advertisement featuring Rana, revealed that the ad was published on | ||||
| | | | | |
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Ugly Politics Of Oath-Taking In Maharashtra - DINKAR K RAIKAR, Group Editor, Lokmat
http://www.tehelka.com/story_
The Ugly Politics Of Oath-Taking In Maharashtra  DINKAR K RAIKAR Group Editor, Lokmat 
TIME WAS when the Maharashtra legislature was regarded as the leading one in the country. But not so any more. On November 9 the state Assembly witnessed one of the lowest points of its career: and this on the very first day of its 12th innings since Independence. Members of Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) roughed up Samajwadi Party’s Abu Azmi, all because he insisted on taking his oath in Hindi rather than in Marathi. It is a fact that the state has accepted three languages – Marathi, Hindi and English as its formula for smooth working. But strangely, as more and more educated people get elected, the House, instead of profiting from this infusion, is increasingly preyed upon by parochial forces. Disregarding the pressing problems facing the state, these so-called “sons of the soil”, (actually just busybodies) continue to stay immersed in completely frivolous and emotive issues. All they seek is political mileage. Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Abu Azmi – a known adversary of the MNS – took it upon himself to force a showdown. What resulted was utter pandemonium. Indeed the House was so stunned that it hardly knew how to react. And that further encouraged the MNS roughnecks, who went nearly berserk, going to the extent of manhandling the Samajwadi Party leader. It was thanks only to the timely intervention of Legislative Affairs Minister Harshwardhan Patil and PWP’s Meenakshi Patil that Azmi was saved from being seriously hurt. The MNS legislators have no idea at all of the harm they are doing to themselves – because the fracas was telecast live on all the news channels. No law-abiding person, including many from among the Marathi manoos (people), will condone the hooliganism witnessed on that day. The ugly episode further exposes the MNS. For had its members been less insecure in some ways, they would almost certainly have ignored Azmi and tried to prove their critics wrong. Instead they themselves got it all wrong. Raj Thackeray, the highly ambitious nephew of Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray who parted ways with the Sena to form his own political outfit, is championing the very same agenda that his uncle embraced nearly 40 years ago. And the son-of-the-soil theory has worked for the MNS, which has seen 13 of its candidates making it to the Assembly in their very first attempt. This is what enables Raj to dictate his narrow political agenda so vigorously. The ruling Congress, as also the Shiv Sena-BJP combine, must find it extremely hard to oppose Raj. Indeed the most they seem able to do is to brand him a parochial leader. Yet this can hardly bother a man who continues to find so many supporters to champion his “cause” – the Marathi manoos in particular. Somehow none of them realise the dangers inherent in linguistic chauvinism. For while emotive issues do help such aspirants to grab power, history shows that such victories are mostly short-lived. In Maharashtra itself the Shiv Sena-BJP combine was voted to power once – but it failed to deliver and was booted out. And so it has been these past 10 years. Not that the Congress-NCP coalition is doing a better job; but they certainly have not fallen into that vicious parochial trap. Make no mistake: the November 9 episode was entirely political in nature. Abu Azmi may have been mouthing constitutional niceties; but finally he did precisely what was expected of him. And much the same is true of the MNS. Obviously the law is going to back Abu Azmi, and there was no surprise when he found backing from the ruling coalition. The Shiv Sena-BJP alliance meanwhile was caught in a Catch-22 situation of which Raj Thackeray took huge advantage. But in the long haul he and his supporters are unlikely to find any takers from among those who believe in upholding the rule of law. The punishment visited on the MNS lawbreakers, if harsh, is well deserved. There is bound to be a good bit of legal haggling. Two of the suspended men were not even swornin members. The House rules may not specify the quantum of punishment, but there are penal provisions that can be richly availed of. Besides, there is a strong possibility of things hotting up outside it. CHIEF MINISTER Ashok Chavan has thus killed two birds with one stone, and conveyed to the high command that he is a tough leader. In fact he had been secretly complaining to his bosses about the growth of the MNS during the tenure of his predecessor Vilasrao Deshmukh.
Of course it is not as though Congress leaders have not covertly consorted with the Shiv Sena to remain in the saddle. But then the BJP was never a strong force in Maharashtra, and it was only when it partnered with the Shiv Sena by adding the Hindutva plank to the twin agenda that the party could taste success. As for the Shiv Sena, it is no longer what it once was. Balasaheb is ageing, and the leadership of his son Uddhav is totally lacklustre. So its decline is imminent. This puts the Congress in a fine position to exploit the weaknesses in the Shiv Sena and, at the same time, use the MNS to its political advantage. Raj Thackeray has undoubtedly made his presence felt. In the recent elections, whenever the Shiv Sena lost a seat it was blamed on the MNS. But that only helped Raj. For consider: over the past 40 years the Shiv Sena has done little beyond talking the walk. But now that the MNS is walking the talk – or is at least being seen to be doing so by the parochial among the Marathis – the alarm bells for the Sena could get shriller. This was fairly evident even in the Assembly, where the sole consolation for it is that four MNS representatives have been suspended. For his part, Raj Thackeray too should know that, in the long run, his crude methods are unlikely to take him anywhere. He has achieved what he set out to do, which was to get noticed. But to attain the helm he will need to follow policies that are pro-people and not just pro-Marathi. WRITER’S EMAIL dinkarraikar@hotmail.com | |||||||||
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 46, Dated November 21, 2009 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)