hi these subtle and overlapping categories of private and public are characteristics of the multi-cultured societies and hence progressive to be enriched. but, if we see them with the framework of modern/western individualism we will end up with advocating either irresponsible chaos or state sponsored censorship.
space for 'differences' is critically important in the new world. but, if you apply the yardstick of absolute rights of individuals, which is the product of western modernism and was excluding all the 'other' groups and communities, you will end up unintentionally supporting the dominance of white and brahminic elites in society, arts and administration. artisitic expressions are heavily capital embedded. creativity is no more a serene issue of individual freedom. rushdie will think about the publisher and market before he starts writing. mf hussain will visualize the walls of emerging indian middle class homes where his pictures will hang on. in fact it is good, as a noted thinker said idea is money. regars, ahmed rafeek On 6/28/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then individual' relgious expressions are private and artistci expression > are public. How will you account for the private feelings, the violatons of > one's inner experiences. > Can such clean categorisations of religeous and artistic expressions as > private and public possible? I am not talking about the public mobilization > of goons or fascists.... Then how will describe the public religeous > experienecs like festivals and celebrations... Even the perfomance of > rituals in public... and is the artistic expression of Taslima entirely > public? > > I think the expressions questioning the expressions of offence (not the > expression of freedom) is also form the freedom of expression... If we ask > to regulate such expressions, it will be easy to end up in some kind of > cencerships... > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Abdulkareem U K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I definitely don't want to advocate freedom for someone who use it to mock > others, or oppress others, or to prove their power. Jayllands Posten > editor's argument that they published the cartoons to make muslims > understand they should be prepared to face mockery was certainly a show of > power. But the powerfull is always free to do anything they want. They may > use the freedom of expression sometime, or some other cover next time. They > would claim they felt responsible to do that. > > > > But an artist's right to express ideas and use of techniques need to be > protected. Criticisms on religious beliefs and other power structures cannot > be exempted from that. It may hurt individuals, not because they were > targeted. Many of the religious believes are systematically fed in, mostly > with certain interests. If someone finds a problem there, and expresses it > in some form, I don't think the believers are the targets, but the system > that make them believe. Often we find it is the powers that drive system, > drive mobilisations against such expressions. > > > > With freedom of expression being such a double-edged sword, if we are to > determine whether a particular expression deserve freedom, it can only be > done after having it expressed, other attempts would amount to some form of > censorship - which is more volnerable to misuse than freedom of expression > itself. > > > > I agree, not all works are relevent everywhere. However, can we say art, > literature, voices, and thoughts expressed at some place in some context > have nothing to do beyond the context and boundaries? > > > > Regards > > > > Abdulkareem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 6:25 AM, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > lot of spelling mistakes and errors, after typing just send and sms > writing is also creating sevaral problems. We read after ti is sent and it > will appear as something counter to what we wanted to say. > > > > > > Corections and additions: (look below) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Pls. read > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is a liberatarian value to always to equate freedom of expression > with right to offend and impose it over all other "values". I am not > insisting here to call upon the State to impose proscibe books, flm etc wit > regard to "obscenity" claims of "upsetting the reiligious sentiments" as > demanded by organization or individuals etc. . The over-weigning towards > 'freedom of expresion" is as well rooted in enlightement westren secularism. > See most number of books banned by any State if you start from Guten berg > period will be more in europe or west than any other place. (pls. dont ask > me for statistics, pls) > > > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression is attached along with value we go (GIVE) for > writing and exprssions. We celebarate it as 'superior' value than say an > individuals' religious exprssions. Then individual' relgious expressions are > private and artistci expression are public. How will you account for the > private feelings, the violatons of one's inner experiences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not to defend what the goons are doing in behalf of fascist > forces in India fro along time against MF Hussain and Baroda students or > what happened against Talsima. Here, they were 'expressions" quetioning > freedom of expression but it was action only for politcal mobilizations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PLS. Read this as, they were not Expressions questioning the idea of > freedom or what has been expressed. > > > > > > > > One more point: there are several pamphlets published 'interrrogating' > the authors like Rushdie. why are they not accessible to us. Perhaps, the > authors are unknown and vernacular. They may also lack "literary" quality. > So whatever be said, there is "hirerachy' of values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > damodar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence, I think there is a merit in what Zardar says on "satanic > Verses". We may have to probe more about it. I have my own doubts, which am > raising here. I think we dont have easy answers and let us not take an > 'all-time" psosition on this, perhaps as Rafeek indicates by "Universal" > notion of 'freedom of expression' > > > > > > > > > > damodar prasad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/28/08, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > hi > > > > > > you dont want to worry about the freedom of cartoonist, who > depicted > > > > > > prophet filthily as art of the powerful european state-run > politics of > > > > > > anti-muslim. same time supporting global islamic brotherhood > against > > > > > > cartoon is equally deplorable. > > > > > > > > > > > > imagining of a universal social context is another mistake. in a > > > > > > society like saudi arabia, same kind of cartoon wud've possessed > > > > > > positive elements. > > > > > > > > > > > > fight the book with another book and cartoon with another cartoon > > > > > > sound funny. but, lucky that sardar was not advocating for any > > > > > > organized offence against rushdie as khomaini did. > > > > > > > > > > > > if a person feel violently offended by m.f.husain's painting of > hindu > > > > > > gods, her anger is justified in personal level and she is free to > > > > > > respond to it in her own way. but, when it becomes part of the > > > > > > orchestra of powerful organizations, it becomes violent, loses > the > > > > > > quality of freedom of expression. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > ahmed rafeek > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Abdulkareem U K > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Compose new > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > Inbox > > > > > > > Starred > > > > > > > Chats > > > > > > > Sent Mail > > > > > > > Drafts > > > > > > > All Mail > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > Contacts > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom of expression is a much debated topic. I too am not > 'enlightened' > > > > > > > enough to debate that in depth. I had found myself not been > entertaining > > > > > > > freely expressed views often. What I said was that I cant agree > to Sardar's > > > > > > > point of view, that freedom should be exercised with > responsibility, because > > > > > > > my opinion is different. Not to state Sardar is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I am to accept that notion, I think I will end up in lot of > dilemmas when > > > > > > > trying to express my ideas. To whom all should I act > responsible? What one > > > > > > > person/group considers as right might be wrong to some others. > Should I > > > > > > > write or express only within an acceptable limit? If so, > acceptable to whom? > > > > > > > To the majority? to the powerful? to my religion? or other > religions? Should > > > > > > > I express without hurting anyone's feelings? If so, how would > anyone try to > > > > > > > bring up change? what is the need of change? Is there a thing > called > > > > > > > "absolute right" that everybody can accept? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder, If sardar was to accept that notion, will he be able > to question > > > > > > > the idea that "sharia is divine" which most muslims believe? > will he able to > > > > > > > question the laws, however inhuman they might be to him, > practiced by the > > > > > > > muslim communies/countries in the name of belief. Isn't he > asking for the > > > > > > > freeedom to express when he criticises that sharia does not give > space to > > > > > > > question? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sardar might be shocked on reading what Rushdie has written. > There is > > > > > > > nothing wrong in that. I quoted that part only to give the > context in which > > > > > > > he answered the second question, rushdie's right to write so. > The answer "I > > > > > > > would forgive him" was that I found myself disagreeing with. > While Sardar > > > > > > > could forgive rushdie, Khumeini and many others could not. If > Sardar sees > > > > > > > Rushdie's work as an attack, and decides to attack back with a > book, > > > > > > > Khumeini used his weapon - fatwa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me post a portion from Karan Thapar's interview (Devils > advocate - > > > > > > > CNNIBN) with Arundhati Roy, on Freedom to express while > disucssing Tasleema > > > > > > > Nasreen issue: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: Let's come to the issues and the principle that > underlie > > > > > > >> what I call the Taslima Nasreen story. To begin with, do you > view freedom of > > > > > > >> speech as an absolute freedom, without any limitations or would > you accept > > > > > > >> that there are certain specific constraints that we all have to > accept? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: It is a complicated question and has been > debated often. I > > > > > > >> personally, do view it as something that should have no caveats > for this > > > > > > >> simple reason that in a place where there are so many > contending beliefs, so > > > > > > >> many conflicting things, only the powerful will then decide > what those > > > > > > >> caveats should be and those caveats will always be used by the > powerful. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: So you're saying that given the fact that many > people are > > > > > > >> vulnerable, freedom of speech for them should have no caveats, > it should be > > > > > > >> absolute and that's their only protection? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: I think so because if you look at the facts, you > have > > > > > > >> outfits like VHP or the Bajrang Dal or the CD that the BJP > produced during > > > > > > >> the UP elections, you see that they do what they want to do. > The powerful > > > > > > >> always do what they want to do. It is the powerless and the > vulnerable that > > > > > > >> need free speech. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: Let's explore the position that you're taking – > free speech > > > > > > >> is an absolute freedom and there should be no limitations on > it. What about > > > > > > >> the view that by criticising Islam, Taslima has offended > beliefs which for > > > > > > >> tens of millions of Indians, maybe for hundreds of millions are > sacred? > > > > > > >> These are beliefs that underlie their dignity and their sense > of identity. > > > > > > >> Should freedom of speech extend that far as to threaten > people's sense of > > > > > > >> themselves? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: I don't believe that a writer like Taslima > Nasreen can > > > > > > >> undermine the dignity of 10 million people. Who is she? She is > not a scholar > > > > > > >> of Islam. She does not even claim that Islam is her subject. > She might have > > > > > > >> said extremely stupid things about Islam. I have no problem > with the > > > > > > >> quotations that I have heard from her book. Dwikhandito has not > been > > > > > > >> translated into English, but let's just assume that what she > said was stupid > > > > > > >> and insulting to Islam. But you have to be prepared to be > insulted by > > > > > > >> something that insignificant. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you some of the things that she > said, not > > > > > > >> from Dwikhandito, but from an interview she gave to Anthony > McIntyre, The > > > > > > >> Blanket in 2006. She says, "It's not true that Islam is good > for humanity. > > > > > > >> It's not at all good. Islam completely denies human rights." > Elsewhere she > > > > > > >> talks about what she calls the venomous snake of Islam. To me > that sounds as > > > > > > >> if it goes perhaps beyond a simple critique and into deliberate > provocation. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: It sounds like Donald Rumsfeld or some Christian > > > > > > >> fundamentalist. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: And you would rile at him so why not rile at her? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: Yeah, but I wouldn't say ban him or kill him. I > would say > > > > > > >> what a ridiculous person. What a ridiculous thing. How can you > start > > > > > > >> reacting to everything like that? We have an infinite number of > stupidities > > > > > > >> in the world. How can you start having your foundations rocked > by every > > > > > > >> half-wit? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: Let's put it like this, does freedom of speech > necessarily > > > > > > >> include the right to offend? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: Obviously it includes the right to offend > otherwise it > > > > > > >> wouldn't be the freedom of speech. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Karan Thapar: But is that an acceptable right in India? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Arundhati Roy: One person's offence is another person's > freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The full interview can be found here: > > > > > > > > http://www.ibnlive.com/news/if-treated-like-taslima-id-give-up-writing/53464-3-single.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though both situations (Sardar's comments on Rushdie / Roy on > Tasleema) more > > > > > > > of a similar nature, I am not doing a comparison. To me, > Arundhati's > > > > > > > arguments look more convincing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, I don't consider Sardar as a close-minded person. > His openness > > > > > > > is evident from all his writings (even in the latest - How I did > I arrange > > > > > > > my daughter's marriage) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abdulkareem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ahmed rafeek j > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> hi abdul kareem, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> i'm not 'englightened' enough to comment on sardar's writings. > but, no > > > > > > >> surprise, jmathe islami minds will say so. if they could accept > > > > > > >> sardar's writing, definitely there would've some serious > mistakes in > > > > > > >> it. then it wudnt be difficult to find him wrong. so lucky !! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> yes, i never knew that there is an intellectual space within > islam is > > > > > > >> possible that can think about personal/social/political > changes. his > > > > > > >> writings tend to destabilize the age-old frozen structure of > islam and > > > > > > >> break the monolith. politically it questions the very > foundation of > > > > > > >> global islamic brotherhood. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> but, i don't really understand the universally applicable > notion of > > > > > > >> freedom of expression. what is wrong when you admit that u > feel like > > > > > > >> raped if your beliefs and sentiments are violently attacked by > > > > > > >> 'freedom of expression'; be it a novel or cartoon. do u've to > be a > > > > > > >> 'decent' art-lover appreciating the aesthetic side of them? > what is > > > > > > >> wrong as long as sardar doesnt support the 'fatwa' against > rushdie? > > > > > > >> what is wrong in arguing for responsibility in expression of > freedom > > > > > > >> in a society where people of different religion, race and caste > > > > > > >> inhabit? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> regards, > > > > > > >> ahmed rafeek > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Abdulkareem U K > > > > > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > Though I haven't finished reading, "Desperately Seeking > Paradise – the > > > > > > >> > Journey of a skeptical Muslim" is indeed an excellent piece > of work. > > > > > > >> > Muslims > > > > > > >> > such as me would find a lot of similarities in his > experiences and > > > > > > >> > observations with their own, when they seek Islam's answers > to their > > > > > > >> > quests. > > > > > > >> > But my friends, who borrowed this book from me, especially of > those > > > > > > >> > inclined > > > > > > >> > to Jama'the islami, complained that he is exaggerating some > "small" > > > > > > >> > issues, > > > > > > >> > and some had even suggested that his way of interpretation of > Islam is > > > > > > >> > dangerous. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Sardar is inspiring, not just as a writer, but as a person > continuously > > > > > > >> > in > > > > > > >> > search. I had watched some of his documentaries, talking to > Muslim > > > > > > >> > leaders > > > > > > >> > and intellectuals, traveling around the Muslim world, to see > how and > > > > > > >> > what > > > > > > >> > transformations take place (and do not take place) in Islamic > societies. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > His documentary "Battle for Islam" made for BBC, is about his > journey > > > > > > >> > five > > > > > > >> > to Muslim countries outside Middle east (Pakistan, Indonesia, > Malaysia, > > > > > > >> > Turkey, and Morocco). He talks to state leaders, activists, > religious > > > > > > >> > figures, families and individuals, seeking their concepts on > Islam and > > > > > > >> > how > > > > > > >> > it influences their life. He looks at the new initiatives to > redefine > > > > > > >> > Sharia' laws in some countries and the reactions. (A > shortened version > > > > > > >> > of > > > > > > >> > Battle for Islam can be viewed online at BBC site – > > > > > > >> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/battle_for_islam/default.stm > > > > > > >> > though > > > > > > >> > video quality is quite bad). Through his profound writings > Sardar > > > > > > >> > consistently criticises brutal and unjust sharia practices > and calls for > > > > > > >> > redefining sharia. He conveys the moderate Muslim mindset to > the west on > > > > > > >> > contemporary issues. At times I had felt Sardar as a lynchpin > between > > > > > > >> > Islam > > > > > > >> > and Modernity > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > But I disagree with the views that he expressed at times when > Islam > > > > > > >> > confronts with freedom of expression. His comments on Salman > Rusdie, and > > > > > > >> > some of his comments on Prophet's cartoon issue. I haven't > read his > > > > > > >> > chapter > > > > > > >> > on Salman Rushdie in "Desperately seeking paradise", but had > read some > > > > > > >> > of > > > > > > >> > the articles in which he had mentioned his feelings. When > asked about > > > > > > >> > Satanic versus In a BBC interview a few years ago, He > commented that > > > > > > >> > "…eventually when I got to the sacrilegious bits I became > quite, quite > > > > > > >> > frozen. It had an absolutely stunning impact on me. I think > in the book > > > > > > >> > I > > > > > > >> > say I felt as though I was kind of raped - my inner sanctum > was, was > > > > > > >> > violated. For a very simple reason - that everything I hold > dear was > > > > > > >> > systematically abused, and mocked and described in a pretty > horrific > > > > > > >> > way. I > > > > > > >> > mean what Rushdie had done is to take the life of the > Prophet, which as > > > > > > >> > I > > > > > > >> > pointed out earlier on, is a model for Muslim behaviour, and > > > > > > >> > systematically > > > > > > >> > deconstruct it in a very abusive way…" When asked "Did you > feel he had > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > right to write it?", with long pauses and deep sighs he > answered "That > > > > > > >> > is a > > > > > > >> > very interesting question. I mean I'm willing to forgive him > for > > > > > > >> > actually > > > > > > >> > writing it, in a sense. I'm very strongly in favour of > writing as an > > > > > > >> > exercise and reading. I mean the first words that were > revealed to the > > > > > > >> > Prophet was, the first word that was revealed to the Prophet > is 'read'. > > > > > > >> > So > > > > > > >> > reading and writing are very, very important for Muslims as a > whole. And > > > > > > >> > in > > > > > > >> > Islamic history books are fought with books. And in fact my > response was > > > > > > >> > it > > > > > > >> > is a book that has attacked us, and we therefore must attack > it back > > > > > > >> > with a > > > > > > >> > book." Which is in fact exactly what I tried to do - to fight > book with > > > > > > >> > books. In one of the articles on the cartoon issue he wrote > that - the > > > > > > >> > "mindless defenders" of freedom of expression should realize > that the > > > > > > >> > absolute freedom only remains in the jungles. In a civilised > society, > > > > > > >> > freedom always comes with responsibility" > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > --- > > > > > > >> > btw, anyone has his book "Balti Britain"? Sardar says that is > his > > > > > > >> > autobiographical excursion than "Desperately seeking…" > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Regards > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Abdulkareem > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:26 PM, damodar prasad > > > > > > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> I AM HAPPY. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> damodar > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> On 6/24/08, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> aftab, > > > > > > >> >>> In fact it hits like a revelation to many of my logical > patches. It > > > > > > >> >>> was nauseating reading on islam from the sources of jamat > e-islami, > > > > > > >> >>> mujahid and other 'intellectual' Islamic groups in India. > their > > > > > > >> >>> relentless but stupid attempts to legitimize the Islam > based on the > > > > > > >> >>> modern scientific knowledge are doing no good to either > islam or > > > > > > >> >>> science. They are still searching in the same well like > frog. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> Having realized alien to etheism and euro centric > secularism, only > > > > > > >> >>> viable way to lead the life was sunni brand of practicing > muslim > > > > > > >> >>> rejecting all intellectual aspects of islam. And found > it's logical > > > > > > >> >>> descending from a krishnamurthy type of mysticism. > Intellectual/ > > > > > > >> >>> ethical engagements to the world along with struggles of > powerless > > > > > > >> >>> also became part of the same mysticism, though > 'enlightened' by some > > > > > > >> >>> readings. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> !! The only non-stupid writing on islam that i've ever come > > > > > > >> >>> across!!Hopefully this will make my engagements with the > world of > > > > > > >> >>> justice more responsible and festive. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> regards > > > > > > >> >>> Ahme rafeek j > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> On 6/23/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > Hi > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > My neighbour and Friend Karim has this book in his > shelf.. > > > > > > >> >>> > "Desperately > > > > > > >> >>> > Seeking Paradise".. But I havent got an opportunity to > grab it for > > > > > > >> >>> > reading... Hopefully I will have it soon.. I have read > Some of his > > > > > > >> >>> > article > > > > > > >> >>> > and heard some of his speeches..His critique on "Fiqh" > and > > > > > > >> >>> > "Shari'ah" > > > > > > >> >>> > is > > > > > > >> >>> > very interesting... Unlike many of his comteporaries he > attacks the > > > > > > >> >>> > concept > > > > > > >> >>> > of "Fiqh-u-Sunna" (the Life model of Prophet Mohammed > that a > > > > > > >> >>> > practising > > > > > > >> >>> > muslim has to follow) itself rather than Shari'ah Laws > itself, while > > > > > > >> >>> > being a > > > > > > >> >>> > practising muslim... > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > Regards > > > > > > >> >>> > Afthab > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:34 PM, ahmed rafeek j > > > > > > >> >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > >> >>> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > prasad, > > > > > > >> >>> > > and u led me here....quite interesting...thanks... > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > http://www.ziauddinsardar.com/Articles.aspx > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > Ahmed rafeek j > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM, damodar prasad > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > On 6/23/08, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> hi > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> (un)fortunately first time i hear the name zaiuddin > sardar. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> it's > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> not > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> long enuff after i realize my inescable, but > unrepentant muslim > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> root > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> with no deep reading on islam. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> to me childhood beliefs always haunted me with the > world of > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> jinnumma > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> and mysticism interrogating the 'rationality' of my > limited > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> scientific > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> knowledge. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> hence, i dont understand the meaning of > reconceptualizing islam > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> so > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> as > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> to flourish the science. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > That doesnt in anyway invalidate pursuits of Islamic > religious > > > > > > >> >>> > practitioners > > > > > > >> >>> > > > to explore the world- particulalry the world of > science and its > > > > > > >> >>> > > > interrelation with Religion. But Rafeek, may I tell > you that > > > > > > >> >>> > > > Zardar is > > > > > > >> >>> > a > > > > > > >> >>> > > > very interesting writer to engage. Particulalry his > work, > > > > > > >> >>> > > > "Desperately > > > > > > >> >>> > > > Seeking Paradise" a class work. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> regards > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> Ahmed rafeek j > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> On 6/23/08, damodar prasad > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Zaiuddin Sardar's new work "Breaking the Monolith" > may be of > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > interest > > > > > > >> >>> > to > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > many of you. Thsi is a collection of > essays,columns and > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > articles > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > published > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > at several journals. Many of you are familiar with > his works- > > > > > > >> >>> > postmodern > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > & > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > other, why do people hate america and the > autobiographical- > > > > > > >> >>> > desperately > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > seeking paradise. This is a great work. I had > written a small > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > piece > > > > > > >> >>> > on > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > desperately seeking paradise. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > This book deals with the several themes connected > with > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > contemporary > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Islam. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > And some of the issues discussed in the book are > pet themes > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > of > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > our > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > discussion. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Let me quote from the essay "Islam and science": > beyond > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > troubled > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > relationship. Zardar says: "the decline of science > in Muslim > > > > > > >> >>> > societies > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > is a > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > product of the systematic reduction in the meaning > of the > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > basic > > > > > > >> >>> > concepts > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > of > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Islam"... > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > "Most importantly, it is about how the enterprise > of science > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > is > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > made > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > relevant and meaningful, internalized within the > ethos and > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > conceptual > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > framework of Muslim socities. The decline of > Islamic science > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > was > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > a > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > product > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > of combined forces that enginered a conceptual > traditon In > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Muslim > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > civilization.. Science will only take root in > Muslim socities > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > if > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > they > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > can > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > reorient themselves: reconceptualize Islam itself > as a > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > holistic > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > enterprise, > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Sciecne will flourish..." > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > In Islam and secularsim, he writes : "My travels > in the > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > middle > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > east > > > > > > >> >>> > soon > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > clarified one aspect of the problem. Secularism in > the Muslim > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > world > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > associated with oppression and suppression of > tradition and > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > religious > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > people." ... "If Muslism were to accept > secularism, both > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > secularism > > > > > > >> >>> > and > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > religion had to be reformulated." > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Zardar in this book nuancely depicts the role of > Muslim > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Intellectual. > > > > > > >> >>> > A > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > detailing of what an "intellectual" is itself a > good read. We > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > need to > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > juxtapose this with Gramsci's and Said > understanding of > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Intellectual > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > (meanwhile, what is the opposite of "organic" > intellectual? > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > It > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > is not > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > "inorganic". Reading through group discussions, we > now have a > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > new > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > category > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > which can be termed as "anti-biotic" > intellectuals. Not > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > detailing > > > > > > >> >>> > their > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > charchterstics). > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > A critical review of some of the ideas and > concepts is > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > required, > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > I > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > think, > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > reading through this. But it is the ethos > underpinning his > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > writings > > > > > > >> >>> > that > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > makes this an important work. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > But I found something irritating: Even Zardar > passively > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > admits > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > that > > > > > > >> >>> > 9/11 > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > is > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > a watershed in global history. I can understand T. > Freidman > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > stating > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > this. Of > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > course it is an "important" event. But the > non-eurpoean and > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > Latin > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > American > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > socities were experiencing devastations of massive > scale from > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > the > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > impearilsot onslaught through out the century. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > The outlandish apologetics of such devastations > are called > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > neo-liberals, > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > neocons, neoimperialists and one of their > contemporary guru > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > is > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > an > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > indian- > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > deepak lal and soem local lals. > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > damodar > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > -- > > > > > > >> >>> > Regards > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > Afthab Ellath > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
