__._,_.___
A realistic view with some sensible observations. Personally, I would not have put secularism as a separate entity from Islam, especially in the Indian context. Packaging 'secularism' as a religion-denying stance is a colonially motivated "European Enlightenment" stunt. Our deshi fundamentalists love such stunt-baji, it suits their lie-machines to the tee.
Farida Majid
Can Islam and Secularism Dialogue With Each Other? By Maulana Waris Mazhari (Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)
The question of whether or not there can be a dialogue between Islam and secularism is a particularly pertinent one today. Many Muslims, including the vast majority of ulema and Islamists, believe that these ideologies are polar opposites. Hence, they insist, there is no possibility of arriving at even a minimum consensus between the two. Yet, the question of dialogue between Islam and secularism remains one of particular importance, especially in the context of the rights of Muslims living as minorities in non-Muslim-majority countries. Numerous non-Muslim scholars and even some noted Muslim intellectuals (such as the Pakistani writer Mubarak Ali, the Indian Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, and the late Professor Mushirul Haq) complain that where Muslims are in a majority, they brand secularism as 'anti-Islamic' and a threat to Islam and its followers, but where they are in a minority, they regard it as a blessing. Furthermore, where they are in a minority, they seem to argue for a secular state but, at the same time, insist that Muslims must remain safe from secularism. These intellectual contradictions, which abound in our ulema and Islamist circles, must be resolved if we are not to be accused of double-standards. It is primarily the responsibility of the ulema and other 'lovers of Islam' to address this task with the urgency it deserves. To cite an instance of such intellectual sophistry, in several of his Urdu works a noted, recently-deceased, Indian Islamic scholar described secularism in India as a 'shady tree' that must be protected and strengthened. At the same time, in his copious Arabic writings, aimed at Arab scholars and readers, he decried secularism in no uncertain terms. The same sort of contradiction may be observed, to an even greater degree, in the case of the ideologues and activists of the Jamaat-e Islami of India. Those of them who consider any minor departure from the thought of the Jamaat's founder, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, to be damaging to Islam itself agree wholeheartedly with Maududi's claim of secularism being a form of 'infidelity' (kufr). To my mind, these people are victims of a pathetic form of personality-worship and literalism. On the other hand are some other individuals also influenced by Maududi's thought, but who, after sixty years or so of lambasting secularism and hoping in vain for establishing in India what Maududi termed 'Divine Government' (hukumat-e ilahiya) or the Islamic Caliphate, have only just begun to realize that this utterly fanciful agenda is proving to be seriously counter-productive, creating immense hurdles in the path of Islamic missionary work and in the struggle for the rights of religious minorities, including Muslims, in India. It is striking to note here that these people have been compelled to accept secularism as the best available option. Theirs is not a choice willingly made, but one which they feel themselves forced, almost against their will, to accept because they realize that in India they have no other realistic option—the only alternative to a secular state in India being a Hindu state. This dualism in their thought is both a product as well as an indicator of the utter confusion and chaos that characterises contemporary Muslim political thought. In this regard, the question must be raised that if such people do not willingly accept secularism or actually believe in it, but have been forced by circumstance (the fact of Muslims being in a minority in India) to pay lip-service to it, how far can they truly be loyal to a system based on secularism? How far can they help such a system if they have chosen to support secularism out of compulsion and not out of choice and conviction? The emotionally-driven slogans of these people clamoring for what they call 'Divine Government' and the Caliphate in India have given added ammunition to anti-Muslim Hindutva forces in the country. Thus, in an interview given to the Urdu weekly Friday Special, the top BJP leader and former Home Minister Murli Manohar Joshi argued that if the Jamaat-e islami could talk of establishing an Islamic state in India, there was nothing wrong if the RSS demanded that India be declared a Hindu state. It is an undeniable fact that Muslim religious leaders have grossly misunderstood the meaning of secularism in its true sense. They see secularism as wholly opposed to religion. This is reflected in the general tendency in Urdu circles to translate secularism as 'irreligiousness' (la-diniyat). This is completely incorrect. In actual fact, secularism does not imply anti-religiousness. Rather, it simply means that the state follows a policy of non-interference in the religious affairs of all its citizens. There are two basic factors for the extremely erroneous understanding and interpretation of secularism in Islamic circles. One of these is the prevalence of a very narrow and restricted understanding of Islam. The second is the tendency to equate secularism with a certain strand of Western secularism that seeks not just to remove keep religion out of politics but also to uproot religion from society and from people's lives. However, the fact remains that there is not just one form of secularism. Rather, it can be understood, interpreted, expressed and practically implemented diversely and in an expansive and flexible manner. Thus, for instance, a noted Arab scholar, Abdul Wahhab Masiri, speaks of two types of secularism. The first is what he calls 'total secularism' or 'comprehensive secularism (al-ilmaniya ash-shamila), and the other 'partial secularism' (al-ilmaniya al-juziya). The former does not have any place at all for religion in the lives of individuals and society, while the latter provides for religion to be kept apart from politics, especially in plural societies, where this is the only practicable solution. Theocratic rule is a notion that is foreign in Islam, which has no room for priesthood. According to the famous Egyptian Islamic scholar, Mufti Muhammad Abduh, an Islamic government is a 'civil government' (al-dawlah al-madaniya). A 'civil government', he explains, is one that is established on the basis of human welfare and works for this purpose, keeping in mind the comprehensive interests of its citizens. In a similar vein, the noted thirteenth century Islamic scholar Izz Ibn Abdus Salam wrote in his Qawaid al-Ahkam, 'The aim of the shariah is to put an end to evil and strife and their causes and to promote the interests [of people] and the causes thereof.' He further added, 'People's interests as well as evils and strife and the causes thereof are indentified through human experience, customs and [other] reliable means.' This suggests the importance of human experience in devising structures, processes, and policies of governance. It is not true to claim, as many Islamist ideologues and ulema do, that the 'Righteous Caliphate', the period of the first four Sunni Caliphs, has elaborated, expressed and fixed for all time all the features and details of Islamic government and governance. It is well-known that Abu Bakr nominated Umar as his successor, while the latter set up a committee of six persons to decide his successor. Obviously, this indicates, the methods of choosing a leader can differ according to the context. The 'Righteous Caliphate' lasted, in practical terms, for a very short period of only thirty years. Undoubtedly, this system of governance was based on social justice and human welfare. However, to consider it the final Islamic model would mean accepting the argument that this model could not be realistically applied in later stages of history, and that it was rendered incapable of being applied after a short period of three decades. Certain indispensable modifications in the concept of Islamic government had to be made in the early Islamic period itself, and this was accepted at both the ideological as well as practical levels. For instance, the later ulema and Islamic commentators rebutted the literal import of hadith reports that suggested that the Caliph must be from the tribe of Quraish. Likewise, the notion that there must be a single Caliph for Imam for the entire Islamic world was also negated. The noted twentieth century Indian Muslim thinker Allama Muhammad Iqbal went to the extent of claiming in his acclaimed magnum opus Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam that in today's world a single Muslim ummah simply does not exist. Rather, he argued, the world's Muslims consist of several different communities, and recognized that it was difficult for all of them to form a single commonwealth. From this discussion, it clearly emerges that human experience plays a major role in the construction of the state structures. New human experiences emerge with changing times and conditions, and these need to be incorporated in crafting patterns and processes of governance, contrary to what doctrinaire Islamists and ulema might argue. This is also indicated in the Quran, which speaks of monarchy as being a blessing from God (5: 20) although in today we are all aware of the pitfalls of this form of governance. In this regard, all we can say is that monarchy was more suited to the context and times this particular verse of the Quran referred to, although for today democracy is for more preferable. A vital basis for dialogue between Islam and secularism, and evidence that such dialogue is indeed acceptable in terms of the shariah, is the polity established in Medina by the Prophet. The Constitution of this polity was, in a sense, based on the same princples that secularism (in its widely-accepted Indian sense) is founded on—equality and respect for the religious freedom of all communities. The leading ulema of the Deoband school, it is instructive to note, invoked the Constitution of Medina to legitimize their role in their struggle for a united and free India. The noted Deobandi scholar Maulana Saeed Ahmad Akbaradi was of the view that there was no contradiction between Islam and secularism, as understood in its particular Indian sense. This approach to both secularism and Islam, I believe, is the only practicable one for plural societies today, and can serve as a firm basis for a meaningful dialogue between Islam and secularism, and between believing Muslims and secularists.
Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates' Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.
|
[Attachment(s) from Mahfuzur Rahman included below]
Bangladesh Association of America, Inc. (BAAI) ®
Attachment(s) from Mahfuzur Rahman
1 of 1 File(s)
Current government in Bangladesh shut down another satellite based private television channel last week. Channel-One, a popular television channel commenced its broadcast few years back, when BNP-Jamaat coalition government was in power. During that time, a number of broadcast licenses were issued in favor of several influential members of the ruling coalition. Channel-One is one of those 'fortunate' ones.
Trend of shutting down private television channels began right in 1999 when Awami League was first in power. At that time, the government shut down country's first private television channel named ATV [earlier A-21 TV] and brought false accusation of 'smuggling information via satellite'. Later, the court of Metropolitan Session Judge in Dhaka [Bangladesh] not only dismissed the case, but made strong remarks criticizing the government for bringing such fabricated case against the promoters of country's first private television channel. Though fresh applications were submitted with the subsequent governments with the copy of the court order seeking fresh permission to re-commence the broadcast of country's first private television channel, none of the governments ever considered this as the owners of the channel were not members of any of the political houses in the country.
The tendency of slicing down voice of the media continued during the next government, when BNP-Jamaat coalition won the general election in 2001. Broadcast license of Ekushey Television, the first private owned terrestrial TV channel was cancelled and later the channel was shut down due to court order. Huge number of journalists and employees of the channel turned unemployed overnight.
When military controlled interim government was in power, broadcast of country's only new based channel named CSBC was snatched as the military controlled regime felt uncomfortable at the prolific reporting in the channel.
Before the general election of 2008, current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made specific pledge of according total freedom to media. But as soon as it came in power, there has been specific tendency of shutting down television channels owned by political opponents while issuing license to party leaders and affiliates with the aim of establishing monopoly in the electronic media, where no criticism of the government would ever be allowed.
While I am very much against the very 'theme' of shutting down television channels, it is important for me also to mention a gross via lotion of rules by the past BNP-Jamaat government, while issuing broadcast license to its party affiliates.
Ekushey Television's broadcast license was cancelled by the BNP-Jamaat government at the instigation of some of the so-called 'think-tanks' of it. It was alleged that, founder of this television channel got the license in his own name, which he later illegally transferred to a company. If this was the legal ground to cancel the licence of Ekushey TV, how the same government allowed issuing another license to NTV [a channel owned by the political secretary of the then Prime Minister]? It may be mentioned here that the political secretary of the then PM purchased the ownership of Total Entertainment Netrowk [TEN] TV, which was owned by a businessman named Sajjad Ali. This channel came into broadcast just for couple of months before it was closed down by the owners due to severe financial crisis.
If the transferring shares of Ekushey TV was seen as illegal by the BNP-Jamaat government, how the same government issued broadcast license to NTV with the transferred share documents of TEN TV? Subsequently, owner of NTV started a second channel named RTV. It is logically argued by many that, if the very birth of NTV was illegal, there is no legitimacy of RTV and in such case; both the channels should be immediately shut down.
Same thing happens in case of BOISHAKHI TV, a private television channel, share of which was recently transferred to a 'multi-level marketing company' by the owners of the channel.
Most importantly, while Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission sweats to find out irregularities in private television channel, they are ignoring one extremely important point. All of the private television channels need to pay substantial amount of rental to the satellites for using their transponders for broadcast. According to a recent information of Bangladesh Bank, none of the channels ever applied for permission for such transfer of foreign currency to the satellite operators for years. In this case, it is easily anticipated that such huge amount of money is sent to the satellite operators through illegal means, which is an offense under Money Laundering Act.
Another source in National Board of Revenue said, the private television channels are required to pay 15 per cent of the revenue collected from advertisement as Value Added Tax [VAT]. But, NBR claims that, none of the channels ever paid even fraction of the justified amount of VAT to the National Exchequer. If appropriate investigation will be conducted on this area, it will be revealed that, all of the channels are continuing to evade millions of Taka only from this specific sector.
I am not mentioning these irregularities to give any provocation to the government in shutting down more television channels in the country. The reason behind raising these points is to make one clear point that, if the government gets determined in suffocating the voice of any of the private television channels, they can always find ready tools in hand. But, this will not ultimately bring anything good for the very image of the government. With the closure of each of the television channels, hundreds of journalists and employees will turn unemployed. Hopefully, this does not go in favor of the electoral pledge of the current government, which gave specific commitment to the nation of doing everything in resolving the unemployment issue in the country. But, at least in media sector, the government is, contributing in deepening the unemployment crisis instead of resolving it. Hopefully, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina will kindly look into this matter, with sympathy and affection for the members of media in Bangladesh.
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/691/shutting-down-private-tv-channels
From: mohammed Davies <ma_davies44@yahoo.com.au>
To: Mohammad Asghar <msa7011@yahoo.com>; SAIF Davdas <islam1234@msn.com>; abdul_momen@hotmail.com; abdullah <abdullayusuf@yahoo.com>; abusayeeddr <abusayeedr@yahoo.com>; abutaher@gmail.com; adel <adelm@uapb.edu>; Afroj Jahan <shurovies.coll@gmail.com>; afsarbhai <afsar_hossainbd@yahoo.com>; afsaruddin2000@yahoo.com <afsaruddin2000@yahoo.com>; ahumanb <ahumanb@yahoo.com>; ajmol ali <ajmolali2009@hotmail.com>; aknahkhan@yahoo.com; Alamgir <malamgir1@aol.com>; albarakat@intermaxinc.com; alfaz <alfazanambd@yahoo.com>; ali_a_chowdhury@hotmail.com; Alochana <alochona@yahoogroups.com>; anis90 <anis90242@yahoo.com>; anisahmed63@yahoo.com; ank <ank2000pk@yahoo.com>; Antu <antu_007bd@yahoo.com>; anushey <anushey.ahmed@yahoo.com>; arif <arif1964uk@yahoo.co.uk>; arrad <arrad@ymail.com>; Ashraf <syguia@aol.com>; ask@citechco.net; atif <atif98@yahoo.com>; avijit <avijit_dev@yahoo.co.in>; axabi11@yahoo.com; ayesha_rahman21@hotmail.com; ayeshakabir@yahoo.com; ayeshapatel <ayshapatel1@yahoo.com>; azad <pelicaninfotech@yahoo.com>; azmalhaidar@yahoo.com; baainews@yahoo.com <baainews@yahoo.com>; badrawymohamed@yahoo.com; banglanari <banglarnari@yahoogroups.com>; BashirUddin <sitravels@videotron.ca>; beautyanwar@hotmail.com; ben <ben_inda@yahoo.com>; bidrohee@yahoo.com; caphurdi@dhaka.net; Captain Chow <captchowdhury@yahoo.ca>; celeti@aol.com <celeti@aol.com>; chabinazrul@yahoo.com; chowdhuryhkhan@yahoo.com; Colonel <mustafizmrk@yahoo.com>; dabir <md.dabiruddin@yahoo.com>; delwar <delwar98@hotmail.com>; Devdas sarkar <dsarkar1@hotmail.com>; dina <dina30_khan@yahoo.com>; dick_timm@yahoo.com; dip1971@hotmail.com; Dr.Prem <premd11@aol.com>; drmanik <eastside_peds@bellsouth.net>; drshabbir <drshabbir@bellsouth.net>; enayet <enayet_2000@yahoo.com>; falani <zeenarah@gmail.com>; farhadmazhar@hotmail.com; faria_shukhee@hotmail.com; farida_majid@hotmail.com; Farid <akhtergolam@gmail.com>; Faruque MW <mrisa@dhaka.net>; firoz <afirozny@yahoo.com>; friendsforallah <friendzforallah@yahoogroups.com>; fsobhan@hotmail.com; furlovera@buet <funloverbuet76@yahoogroups.com>; g_faroo1@hotmail.com; General Ibrahim <mgsmibrahim@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2010 9:56 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Tagore Deification
From: Mohammad Asghar <msa7011@yahoo.
To: SAIF Davdas <islam1234@msn.
Sent: Tue, 13 April, 2010 4:40:14 PM
Subject: Re: Tagore Deification
From: SAIF Davdas <islam1234@msn.
To: abdul_momen@
Sent: Mon, April 12, 2010 11:53:02 PM
Subject: Tagore Deification
SaifDevdas
islam1234@msn.com
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy.
__._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___