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.stmthough > > 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 greenyouth@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
