__._,_.___
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:31:02 -0700
> Subject: Reason why Facebook was banned by BAL
> From: shobujbongo@gmail.com
> To: bangladeshiamericans@googlegroups.com
>
> It would be a wishful thinking on our part if we assume that BAL govt.
> has banned FB because of the offensive cartoon drawing contest of
> Islam's Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). This violent anti-Islam govt. gives a
> damn about Islam rather creates all kinds of impediment to suppress
> the pious folks of BD.
>
> Then what is the reason of the Facebook ban? May be the following link
> has the answer:
> http://www.nagorikblog.com/node/1377
>
> Thanks
> AK
>
> --
> * Disclaimer: You received this message because you had subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangladeshi-Americans Living in New England". Any posting to this group is solely the opinion of the author of the messages to BangladeshiAmericans@googlegroups.com who is responsible for the accuracy of his/her information and the conformance of his/her material with applicable copyright and other laws where applicable. The act of posting to the group indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator(s). To post to this group, send email to BangladeshiAmericans@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to BangladeshiAmericans-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/BangladeshiAmericans?hl=en ].
------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain zoglul@hotmail.co.uk
Dear Ezaj - Thank you for your appreciation.
Stay well
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: ezajur
Sent: Jun 2, 2010 3:59 AM
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: A personal note about AhmedisDear Robin
Thank you for sending this timely and thoughtful reminder of our common humanity.
Regards
Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait
__._,_.___
[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
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
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
__,_._,___
'Islam, Colonialism, and Resistance': Zia Sardar
NAKED PUNCH
May 4, 2010
http://nakedpunch.com/articles/61
Interviewed by Bux Qalandar Memon
1 - In your recent book Balti
During my childhood racism was much more overt. It was largely about the colour of your skin. 'To Let' signs on houses often carried the refrain: 'No Blacks, Irish or Dogs'. People would cross the road to avoid you when they saw you coming. I was a regular punch bag for racist bullies and thugs and came home from school routinely battered and bruised. Initially we were all 'blacks'; then all Asians become 'Pakis' and 'Paki bashing' became a favourite sport of racist thugs. The 1960s and 1970s, an era of recession, saw the rise of the fascist movement; and the consequent rise of several youth movements such as the Southall Youth Movement. There were two dominant kinds of racism: police and popular. Various racist murders and cases of police injustice led to a number of riots in places like
During the late 1980s, the generic black identity label began to recede. After the Rushdie affair in 1989, racism acquired a more cultural and religious dimension. Muslims became the new scapegoat. In addition, racism based on perceptions of patriotism also emerged during this period, indicated most clearly by the famous 'cricket test' of Norman Tebbit. When patriotism is contrasted with the charged language of 'immigrants' and 'bogus asylum seekers', minorities become easy targets as unpatriotic outsiders. Bring in the metaphors of 'nation' and the 'national way of life', based as they are on common descent, kinship ties, language, and custom, and every Black and Asian automatically becomes an alien Other. A variation of this form of racism is based on liberal secularism. Cultures and traditions that do not conform to the dictates of liberalism, such as the rural traditions of Asian Muslims in Britain, are constructed as intrinsically and immutably hostile to the European liberal ideals and consensus - that is, as 'alien' par excellence. Arrogant liberals, in my opinion, tend to be as racist as the easily identifiable, extreme conservative and nationalist types.
So I think racism in
2 - In your book, Postmodernism and the Other, you outline a modern form of a similar practice where the knowledges and ways of being of the
For non-Western cultures, post-modernism is simply a new wave of domination riding on the crest of colonialism and modernity. Alterity (along with other euphemisms signifying the Other or the non-West) is a key postmodern term.
Postmodern relativism embraces the Other, making alterity far more than just the representations of all non-Western cultures and societies. Alterity is the condition of difference in any binary pair of differences; there is even alterity within the self. Thus postmodernism avoids, by glossing over, the politics of non-western marginalisation in history by suddenly discovering Otherness everywhere and that everyone has its own kind of otherness by which it defines itself. While this proves the triumph of the postmodern thesis that everything is relative, it is incapable of suggesting that anything is in some distinctive way itself, with its own history. The postmodern prominence of the Other becomes a classic irony. Instead of finally doing justice to the marginalised and demeaned, it vaunts the category to prove how unimportant, and ultimately meaningless, is any real identity it could contain. We are all Others now, can appropriate the Other, consume artefacts of the Other, so what does it matter if Others want something different in their future - such as the chance to make it for themselves? Postmodernism is thus several quantum leaps above colonialism and modernity. Colonialism was about the physical occupation of non-Western cultures. Modernity was about displacing the present and occupying the minds of non-Western cultures. Postmodernism is about appropriating the history and identity of non-Western cultures, colonizing their future and occupying their being.
It is all the more ironic then to encounter
My main criticism is that while postmodernism demolishes grand narratives it privileges the grand narrative of liberal secularism. Indeed, liberal secularism is the umbrella under which postmodernism flourishes as well as the guiding principle of postmodernism. So it is an arch ideology pretending to be a force of liberation. The multiculturalism that postmodernism champions is largely window-dressing: it is not about giving power to marginalised cultures but consuming their cultural products. Postmodernism does not give voice to the voiceless, as it is claimed, but speaks for the voiceless. It is all about facile choice: we can choose to be different things. But of course the poor and the marginalised have no choice - you need power and representation to be able to choose. It is worth noting that postmodernism is specifically a product of western thought and philosophy, which has always defined reality and truth as its reality and truth. Now that this position cannot be sustained it seeks to maintain the status quo and continue unchecked on its trajectory of expansion and domination by undermining all criteria of reality and truth. Postmodernism takes the ideological mystification of colonialism and modernity to a new, all-pervasive level of control and oppression of the non-western cultures while parading itself as an intellectual alibi for the West's perpetual quest for meaning through consumption, including the consumption of all non-western cultures.
For me the whole postmodernism project is summed up by zapping. We have a seeming cornucopia of choice on our digital and satellite televisions, catering to all tastes however absurd or far out. We hop from channel to channel, zapping away. But we end up with everyone choosing to watch nothing. The raison d'etre of postmodern existence, the meaning of life, universe and everything, the intimate connection we all so acutely desire - all, all of this, is located in the art of zapping, the auto-creation of your very own postmodern spectacle. This is why I think postmodernism has fizzled out. It was empty to begin with; and we now hear nothing but the echo of the inner emptiness of the postmodern worldview.
3 - What role has Iqbal's thought played in your writing? What in Iqbal continues to radiate for you? For example, you quote the following couplet:
'if thou desirest everlasting life,
Break not the thread between the past and now
And the far future'.
You suggest that tradition must not be broken away from but reinvented. Why is this particularly important for the non-west? And how can tradition be used for those from the non-West now located in the West? For example, Muslims in
I dip into Iqbal off and on. He is always there as a source of inspiration and motivation. I find him a deeply traditional as well as futurist thinker. And, of course, he is eminently correct to point out that you cannot remain sane if you cut yourself from your past - a future without a past is no future at all. He wants us to jealously safeguard our traditions. But, as is clearly evident from his "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam", from time to time, traditions have to be reconstructed, rethought and reinvented. Indeed, traditions remain traditions by being reinvented; otherwise they become ossified, oppressive customs.
Iqbal knew all too well that ossified passive traditionalism and militant formalist traditionalism are both easy prey to modernity. I would also argue that postmodernism induces panic in all forms of passive and militant outlooks and thus not only renders them ineffective against its all pervasive nihilism but makes them self-destructive. In other words, modernity simply overwhelms and postmodernism co-opts passivism and fundamentalism with the end result that goals of modernity and postmodernism are promoted. Thus unthinking and simplistic reactions, which shuffle the blame entirely onto the Western world while seeking to best the western demon with its own tools and rationales, lead to further entrapment. The only cultural survival kit for those who would choose to remain alive within living traditions, retain their identity and distinctive moral and ethical vision of themselves and the purpose of their existence - what Iqbal demands - is to see through the limitations of the passive minimalist tradition and the futile trap of militant fundamentalism. For the worldviews of the non-West, the only option is to transcend meaninglessness through living consciously, creatively making, and constantly reconstructing. This is a difficult and complex agenda, yet it is the only worthwhile enterprise that can offer us any kind of sustainable future.
At the heart of any culture and its traditional forms is a distinctive moral and ethical understanding, a worldview. Traditional culture in all its forms is about expression and communication of this moral vision, about working out its contemporary significance and relevance for a people with a strong historical identity. It can only remain alive when it becomes the living language through which contemporary questions, problems, choices and decisions are articulated. Form is not tradition, that is the misconception of Western theory that has been imposed upon all of the non-West to become a self fulfilling, self sustaining delusion. Traditional forms were constantly in the process of being created, mutated and radically revised, that is the story of history. For the non-West history will really end, the project of modernity will be complete and postmodernism will rule un-assailed unless the worldviews of non-Western cultures become the medium through which economy, politics, social, industrial and ecological conventions are negotiated. Culture is not an optional extra that can be indulged after working hours in the privacy of the home, or on certain high days and holidays. If that is what culture becomes then it is the rotting corpse of a dead system of thought and understanding, the dried husk of a worldview that no longer interacts with the real world we inhabit. It is not just one worldview, but every worldview that makes up the rich mosaic of our world that must be brought back to life if we are to defy and resist western cultural hegemony and the seductive path into total dependency and ever expanding decay it offers. Moral and ethical considerations are never easy, they are the greatest challenge to our humanity and our intellect. Becoming cantered in the moral and ethical concepts of our worldviews cannot mean renouncing all old interpretations or abandoning all that is of the West. It does, however, require recognizing and transcending the limitations of both as part of the process of taking responsibility for the present and creating a future that answers to and is a function of what we believe to be of enduring value and meaning.
I think Muslims living in the West have a great opportunity to rethink and reinvent their traditions. We have to make our traditions meaningful to both: contemporary times and the societies we live in. To some extent this will be painful. We have to ditch the ossified and oppressive forms of our tradition, for example, those relating to suppression of women. And rediscover the life-enhancing dimensions of our culture, for example, the emphasis that women should be treated with respect and dignity in public space. Instead of being obsessed with the outward forms of culture - such as dress and facial furniture - we need to promote its spirit: the principles of equality and social justice, the concerns with community development and community life, the emphasis in our tradition on knowledge and learning and on consultation, criticism and self-criticism, and debate and discussion.
4 - You have suggested, in a private conversation, that a difference has to be made between 'historical Sufism' and 'contemporary Sufism'. Could you elaborate the difference?
Let me begin by pointing out that Sufism is integral to Islam; and it has played a great part in our history. Iqbal himself was a great Sufi. Perhaps he is the greatest Sufi of the twentieth century. But this is not widely recognised. Largely, because he did not go around wearing his Sufism as a badge. Historical Sufism, I would argue, was deeply grounded in life-enhancing tradition, devoted to social justice, thought and learning and thus played a major part in the spread of Islam. It was due to their concern for social justice that great Sufis like Shah Waliullah and Osman dan Fadio took up arms against the imperialist. It was their concern for education and the welfare of the people that enabled Sufis like Nizamuddin Auliya and Datta Gunj Buskh to spread Islam so successfully in the Subcontinent.
Contemporary Sufism has a totally different makeup. Popular Sufism throughout the Muslim world is mostly about saint worship, veneration of graves, and exploiting the gullible with charms and amulets. In some cases, as in
My main criticism of contemporary Sufism is its authoritarian character. Virtually all the Sufis I have met in my extensive travels around the Muslim world want total submission and obedience to their Sheikh: who has to be venerated endlessly, obeyed without question, and treated like a demi-god. This is not a prescription for creating a healthy, dynamic society.
5 - You have prefaced the new edition of Franz Fanon's "Black Skin, White Masks". What was your experience of reading and understanding Fanon.
Reading Fanon is always a volatile experience. His prose is full of anger - as it should be - and he writes with some immediacy and urgency. One also experiences slight disorientation as his texts, for example, "Black Skin, White Masks", are full of discontinuities, changes in style from academic to journalistic, mixing of genre, switches from analysis to pronouncements against the West, strange similes, extended metaphors and a string of contradictions. But all this was very refreshing when I first came across Fanon. I found myself constrained by disciplinary borders and found Fanon's ability to cross disciplinary boundaries - from psychoanalysis to medical analysis, literary criticism to Marxism - quite refreshing. I think he was consciously subverting genres, styles and disciplines. Something that I also try to do.
During my student days, "Wretched of the Earth" was the Bible of radical students from the
6 - Are enlightenment values, or what are articulated as such, compatible with Islam? Many, Muslims and non-Muslims, have suggested they are not.
I think the first question to ask is: where did the Enlightenment values actually came from? Did they emerge, ready-made, from within
But it was not just Greek thought -
This manufactured history does get one thing right. The barbarian hordes who overthrew
In contrast to
Quite simply,
The differences between Islam and
The truth is that many values we identify with the Enlightenment are Islamic values: the love of knowledge and learning, equality of all before the law, accountability in governance, contractual basis for rights, and liberal humanism - all these were and are the values propagate by the Qur'an, the examples of the Prophet Muhammad, and were practiced, on and off, in early Muslim history. From the Muslim point of view there is a double two-fold irony here. First, after appropriating these values,
7 - Radicalisation of Muslims in
Clearly radicalisation amongst Muslims has increased since the invasions of
Before we talk about the futility of violent counter-attack, let me say that I subscribe to the analysis of the Moroccan scholar Malek Bennabi, a contemporary of Fanon, who argued that nations are not simply 'invaded', they invite invasion, the attention of imperialist vultures, by the state they are in. More precisely, his thesis concerned what he called 'colonisibility': to be colonised, he said, a society has to be in a physical and mental state which makes colonisation almost inevitable. Bennabi, an electrical engineer, studied in
Violence is where I depart from Fanon. Fanon thought violence was necessary to resist imperialism. Gandhi proved him wrong. Thoughtless violence, I would argue further, serves only one purpose: to increase the pain and agony of Muslim people. Consider this: the most brutal and savage violence in
- So what is to be done?
I would argue that our main goal should be to build strong civil society and establish transparent and accountable governments in these countries. Governments that actually reflect the needs and desires of the people of
Courtesy: Naked Punch. Interview by Bux Qalandar Memon. This interview will be published in Naked Punch's forthcoming issue