hi boby, unfortunately yes. it was frozen somewhere in history. resurrecting now to reclaim the spirit of prophet Mohammad's (pbh) great democratic (wonderful in those days) spirit to be reciprocal in the multicultural societies. it is the real jihad to reclaim the identity to confront the western/secular terrorism.
regards, ahmed rafeek On 7/1/08, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is Islam monolithic? > > On 01/07/2008, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> hi, >> being nice is not opposite to polemic. nicenesss may fail to be inclusive >> of spaces to disagree. members will encourage for common thoughts for nice >> acceptability. >> >> ---------- >> *If so, why so much disrespect is shown to others' feelings, religion and >> gods in practice, almost everywhere Islam is in a powerful position? Or >> is it that there is so much disconnect between preachings and practices in >> Islam?* >> it is islam in europe (our discursive context in connection with ziauddin >> sardar) the 'other'. terrorists and binladen are not against west. they >> intensify the 'otherness' of islam in the world over. >> but it is high time no to point the finger only at west, US and cia, but >> to our own islamic age old ideals and shariat laws to develop the >> reciprocity in multicultured socieites. it is because of the same reason of >> age old ideals, islam can't confront (no violence meant) the brutal >> brahmanic system in india. >> >> reagards, >> ahmed rafeek. >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/1/08, kalyani g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Rafeek, >>> Isnt it good that the discussions should get nicer. >>> I agree with aftab, I was also pained. >>> It was not in good taste. >>> Free speech may continue >>> >>> kalyani >>> >>> >>> On 7/1/08, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> *Please read the corrected word yellow highlighted.* >>>> >>>> *"free speech doesnt mean you be disrespective to YOUR elders" * >>>> * >>>> >>>> *the discussion seemed to me getting 'nicer', BUT i apologetically >>>> admit that my response was insensitive in search of breaking the >>>> 'niceness'. >>>> >>>> >>>>> aftab, prasad, asma and all others who might get offended, please >>>>> accept my apology. (in fact i too liked asma's poems) >>>>> >>>>> ahmed rafeek >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > Hm... very insensitive remark >>>>> > >>>>> > On 7/1/08, Afthab Ellath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > > being romantic in poems on green fields and queens may sound nice, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I am a bit pained by the hidden meaning it conveyed... >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, ahmed rafeek j < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > hi >>>>> > > > fortunately islam is not holding the position of dominance in the >>>>> > > > european context of blasphemy/ secularism. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > no matter what the scripcture preaches transcendental to history. >>>>> we >>>>> > > > see how brutally the teachings of islam unfolding in the >>>>> socieites >>>>> > > > where it is dominant like pakistan, s a u d i a r a b i a, a f ga >>>>> > > > nistan and all. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > reciprocal respect in multi-cultured society is not exactly >>>>> applicable >>>>> > > > in all the context. we 've to be discriminating to the different >>>>> > > > groups and communities. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > and romantic imagination of respecting others may include all the >>>>> > > > 'stupid' senior citizens, but it may miss the respect the >>>>> differences. >>>>> > > > differences will include the time differences. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > being romantic in poems on green fields and queens may sound >>>>> nice, but >>>>> > > > responsibility is more important in 'actual' world. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > regards >>>>> > > > ahmed rafeek >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On 7/1/08, damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > On 7/1/08, Asma Siddiqui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > Dear all, >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > Nice discussion. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > There is an ethical or unethical side of things just as we >>>>> say >>>>> > freedom >>>>> > > > > > of expression or censorship. >>>>> > > > > > Freedom of expression doesn't mean to be hurtful for a >>>>> particular >>>>> > sect/ >>>>> > > > > > group. >>>>> > > > > > Islam preaches to respect others' feelings, religion and >>>>> their gods. >>>>> > > > > > If the Jyllands Posten had published the cartoons only for >>>>> the >>>>> > purpose >>>>> > > > > > of exercising freedom of expression, it shows how little they >>>>> know >>>>> > > > > > about freedom. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > Free speech doesnt mean you be disrespective to your elders. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Agreeing with you on all the points except the last underlined >>>>> one. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > when you speak of elders, you are speaking of individuals or >>>>> perhaps >>>>> > "senior >>>>> > > > > citizens" and not communities/ sect etc. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > We love the elders than their contemporaries because we value >>>>> their >>>>> > > > > significant contributions and we dont envy or scornful about >>>>> them as >>>>> > do >>>>> > > > > their same age or relatively same age group people. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > But a sort of irreverence is required that will only enable us >>>>> > understand >>>>> > > > > their real worth and have our own way. All people of all ages >>>>> have to >>>>> > go >>>>> > > > > through or face this. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > What do you say. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > damodar >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > regards >>>>> > > > > Asma Siddiqui >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > On Jul 1, 9:07 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > > > > > May be Gouri Viswanathan's concluding remark addresses your >>>>> concern >>>>> > > > > > marginally. >>>>> > > > > > "To be responsive to unequal power relations in multicultural >>>>> > societies >>>>> > > > > and >>>>> > > > > > yet at the same time practice a form of criticism that would >>>>> > dispense >>>>> > > > > > altogether with offense as a measure of belief's >>>>> existence:that is >>>>> > the >>>>> > > > > real >>>>> > > > > > challenge emerging from Rushdie affair."... >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > read more » >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Afthab Ellath < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > > > > wrote: >>>>> > > > > > > Rushdie's "blasphemy' was made more hurtful to Muslims >>>>> because of >>>>> > > > > western >>>>> > > > > > > intellectuals' reclamation of him as a secular figure, >>>>> marking off >>>>> > > > > believing >>>>> > > > > > > Muslims as nonsecular or nonwestern. >>>>> > > > > > > * >>>>> > > > > > > * >>>>> > > > > > > >> I think it is an important finding >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > Although blasphemy in a religious society provides an index >>>>> of the >>>>> > > > > degree >>>>> > > > > > > to which religious opinion has become monolithic, the >>>>> existence of >>>>> > > > > blasphemy >>>>> > > > > > > laws in a pluralistic society ideally acknowledges the >>>>> obligation >>>>> > to >>>>> > > > > protect >>>>> > > > > > > difference, on the assumption that without legal recourse >>>>> the >>>>> > > > > individuality >>>>> > > > > > > of community difference cannot be protected against the >>>>> brutal >>>>> > affronts >>>>> > > > > of >>>>> > > > > > > verbal abuse. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >> How will we see it working in Indian context? What >>>>> about the >>>>> > rights >>>>> > > > > of >>>>> > > > > > > M.F. Hussein or Baroda students... Is it different from >>>>> that of >>>>> > Taslima? >>>>> > > > > > > Should we treat the blasphemy on Hindu sentiments and that >>>>> on >>>>> > Muslims >>>>> > > > > > > differently? How will we define the framework of blasphemy >>>>> itself? >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Dileep Raj < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> Some of the observations made in the last chapter of Gouri >>>>> > > > > Viswanathan's >>>>> > > > > > >> *Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief* >>>>> (OUP,1998) >>>>> > may be >>>>> > > > > > >> of interest in this discussion. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> She engages David lawton's "Blasphemy" in that chapter. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 1." … Lawton specifically states at the outset that his >>>>> interest >>>>> > in >>>>> > > > > > >> blasphemy was 're-awakened by the Rushdie affair" and >>>>> proclaims >>>>> > that he >>>>> > > > > does >>>>> > > > > > >> not "address this book to anyone who supports killing >>>>> writers", >>>>> > as if >>>>> > > > > all >>>>> > > > > > >> those who took offence with Rushdie's novel also endorsed >>>>> his >>>>> > death >>>>> > > > > penalty. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 2.If blasphemy as a concept denotes the past of the >>>>> European >>>>> > world, it >>>>> > > > > is >>>>> > > > > > >> also put to use to mark the present of the non-European >>>>> world. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 3.Talal Asad's recent criticism that religion in >>>>> contemporary >>>>> > parlance >>>>> > > > > has >>>>> > > > > > >> become modernity's alienated self provides a useful >>>>> framework to >>>>> > > > > analyse the >>>>> > > > > > >> distancing of blasphemy from the present, even when >>>>> blasphemy and >>>>> > its >>>>> > > > > > >> persecution exist at the heart of contemporary culture. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 4. Given the persistence of religiously motivated >>>>> prosecution >>>>> > cases in >>>>> > > > > > >> Anglo-American culture, however sporadic they may be, why >>>>> do >>>>> > Salman >>>>> > > > > Rushdie >>>>> > > > > > >> and Taslima Nasreen command the kind of rapt media >>>>> attention they >>>>> > do, >>>>> > > > > > >> disproportionate to the attention >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> Given to other blasphemy cases? Why, for instance, is >>>>> James >>>>> > Kirkup, the >>>>> > > > > > >> author of the offending *Gay News *poem, not as familiar a >>>>> name >>>>> > as >>>>> > > > > > >> Rushdie or Nasreen? >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 5. The circularity of the meanings is evident in the fact >>>>> that >>>>> > whereas >>>>> > > > > > >> blasphemy is often a means of self definition for >>>>> blasphemers, it >>>>> > > > > signifies >>>>> > > > > > >> their lack of cultural belonging in the communities they >>>>> > challenge, >>>>> > > > > which >>>>> > > > > > >> condemn them to irreversible expulsion, and virtually to a >>>>> state >>>>> > of >>>>> > > > > > >> foreignness. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> From internal expressions of dissent, the construction >>>>> of >>>>> > blasphemy >>>>> > > > > > >> as yet again foreign contributes to an endless >>>>> polarization >>>>> > between >>>>> > > > > > >> religions and secularism, community and nation, nation and >>>>> > > > > international >>>>> > > > > > >> community. When Salman Rushdie is defended by western >>>>> literary >>>>> > figures >>>>> > > > > and >>>>> > > > > > >> intellectuals , his dialogue with Islam is turned into a >>>>> > blasphemy >>>>> > > > > sponsored >>>>> > > > > > >> by the non—Islamic world… As Sara Suleri points out, >>>>> Rushdie's >>>>> > > > > "blasphemy' >>>>> > > > > > >> was made more hurtful to Muslims because of western >>>>> > intellectuals' >>>>> > > > > > >> reclamation of him as a secular figure, marking off >>>>> believing >>>>> > Muslims >>>>> > > > > as >>>>> > > > > > >> nonsecular or nonwestern. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 6.Leonard Levy writes, "when the law punished indecency or >>>>> bad >>>>> > taste, >>>>> > > > > it >>>>> > > > > > >> became a class weapon of the prosperous against the >>>>> poor.the >>>>> > class that >>>>> > > > > made >>>>> > > > > > >> and enforced the law had little sympathy for the different >>>>> taste >>>>> > of the >>>>> > > > > > >> class that usually broke law. No one prosecuted Mathew >>>>> Arnold for >>>>> > his >>>>> > > > > > >> sarcasms against the Trinity in his *Literature and Dogma. >>>>> * >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 7. If blasphemy is now more a discourse of rights than of >>>>> creed >>>>> > or >>>>> > > > > belief, >>>>> > > > > > >> it is a reflection of the extent to which culture has >>>>> usurped the >>>>> > > > > function >>>>> > > > > > >> of religion, religious difference itself being >>>>> vociferously >>>>> > defended >>>>> > > > > only >>>>> > > > > > >> because it signifies *cultural *difference. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> 8.Although blasphemy in a religious society provides an >>>>> index of >>>>> > the >>>>> > > > > > >> degree to which religious opinion has become monolithic, >>>>> the >>>>> > existence >>>>> > > > > of >>>>> > > > > > >> blasphemy laws in a pluralistic society ideally >>>>> acknowledges the >>>>> > > > > obligation >>>>> > > > > > >> to protect difference, on the assumption that without >>>>> legal >>>>> > recourse >>>>> > > > > the >>>>> > > > > > >> individuality of community difference cannot be protected >>>>> against >>>>> > the >>>>> > > > > brutal >>>>> > > > > > >> affronts of verbal abuse. >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Afthab Ellath >>>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > > > > > >> wrote: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> *If we see them with the framework of >>>>> > > > > > >>> modern/western individualism we will end up with >>>>> advocating >>>>> > either >>>>> > > > > > >>> irresponsible chaos or state sponsored censorship* >>>>> > > > > > >>> ** >>>>> > > > > > >>> We will be forced to end up in state sponsored >>>>> censorship, if we >>>>> > start >>>>> > > > > > >>> from the fear of "irresponsible chaos"... Western >>>>> individualism >>>>> > is not >>>>> > > > > free >>>>> > > > > > >>> from this... That is why as Damodar pointed out more >>>>> number of >>>>> > books >>>>> > > > > are >>>>> > > > > > >>> banned in the west than anywhere else... >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> But neither Islamic fundamentalism nor indian bhrahmnism >>>>> can >>>>> > make >>>>> > > > > > >>> a different claim... >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> Freedom of expression is the freedom to express the >>>>> > difference... But >>>>> > > > > in >>>>> > > > > > >>> the west it is the freedom to express the "right" and to >>>>> offend >>>>> > the >>>>> > > > > > >>> "other"... >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, ahmed rafeek j >>>>> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > > > > > >>> wrote: >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> 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 >>>>> > <abdulkareem.uk@ >>>>> > > > > > >>>> gmail.com> >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > 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- Hide quoted text - >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > - Show quoted text - >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > -- > Bobby Kunhu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
