1. I have absolutely no problem with religious people buying "halal" meat or choosing Shariah banking or opting for Shariah law. I have every respect for their decisions. My big question was why these Islamic products are in the market now. Is there any religious edict (I doubt there is any!) that the meat you buy from a grocery store exclusively for eating purpose has to be sanctified? Any way, let me tell you about the unethical behavior of a "halal" meat vendor. One such vendor was found to buy meat from an American grocery store to replenish the stock in his own store. That's why I have said that the concept of "halal" meat is nothing but a religious slogan to make money by catering to a particular market segment.
2. Shariah banking is again both a political and business slogan. It wants to make money by selecting a particular market segment. It is a political slogan of the Islamic parties blessed with outside influence. A Shariah bank and a specialized bank (rural bank, industrial bank, etc.) are not comparable. To be effective and efficient in serving the financial needs of a target group, specialized banks are created. Shariah banking is superfluous as mainstream banking system can serve all categories of clients. Religious branding is not a good idea in a secular society as this may start with a little thing and then gradually aspire to engulf the entire system. This possibility needs to be precluded. Shariah banking is a very recent idea. Right?
3. If you think judiciously (I mean not being emotional or egoistic about your own religion) you should appreciate that every thing good in Shariah legal systems (there are many schools and not all schools agreeing on many issues) can be incorporated in the legal system of a secular country. Religious branding again can be avoided. There are myths that cutting hands for stealing and stoning to death for adultery are sanctioned by Sharia law. What about beheading? What about discriminating against women when it comes to witnessing? I have just given few examples. Are these myths or facts?
4. I have said before that Shariah law may be a tool for the ruler and the clergy to share state power. I was reading Romila Thapar which supports my guess. The Muslim rulers in India had to go through similar experiences. There has always been both collusion and tension between the ruler and the clergy. If you look at the Hindu Chaturvarna (recorded and justified by sage Manu) system you will see that Brahmins and Kshatriyas have almost equal status. Power of "Brahmins" has to be minimized and the ruler has to govern as per people's choice, not by divine authority.
5. Let me finish by telling you about my personal experience. As a tourist I have visited the major Hindu holy places. You will not believe how much corruption is going on there in the name religion. Some of these holy places are money making machines. Every day simple minded and piety seeking Hindus are being cheated. One can even be a victim of coercion by the so called "pandas" in those places.
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
I have simply expressed my concerns. I still believe that both the ideas are outdated.
>>>>>>>> What I meant is I am not going "Crazy" over it but I am not going to be unhappy if it goes all over the world. Since it does NOT replace traditional system and gives an alternative to consumers. I have same views about Grammen bank model as well. Here I am talking about "Sharia bank" or Islamic bank ONLY. I don't think the US will have sharia law anytime soon, so it really does not matter to discuss it. Just to make the point little clearer. Few years ago, I was in a discussion where couple of people discussing about our Bangladeshi system and if sharia will make any positive impact. I said we are not ready for it YET. Because we lie easily and we have no moral problem attacking innocent people. Sharia is a good law but unless we have a sound justice system where Sharia can be implemented properly, it is better to wait. Because I don't want to see people are chopping off their hands just because someone bribed the judge or police to make a false report!! Fundamentally Islam stands for fairness and justice. So unless our institutions are run by more ethical people nothing and none is safe from current establishment in Bangladesh. Sharia is a great system but we need to have good people guarding it. Looking at how the sentiment of "Muktijuddho" is being abused to make money, I am convinced that, as a people we have opportunities to be more mature and responsible. Therefore, not only USA but unless I see some fundamental changes, no law is safe. We have journalists supporting those who kill journalist. We have police beating victims and molesting young women. Extortion rackets and corruption is well known in our system. I say system because I do not think even BNP will be able change much of it. Because corruption became systemic and unless we tweak it to make it more "People friendly" it will be used to oppress common people.
It is also my understanding that Shariah law was a tool for the rulers and clerics to share power. I am saying this using my knowledge on how priests and Christian rulers used to share power. I am sure the same pattern can be found among many Hindu rulers too. >>>>>>>>> I do NOT blame you for being "Concern" about Sharia. Actually sharia covers everything. The fact we Muslims do not eat pork meat is part of Sharia. The fact every Muslim father have to give some property to their daughters is part of sharia. The fact that, women were given power to divorce her husband if he was not able to satisfy her physically is ALSO part of Sharia (Our women do not know it but it can be added to marriage contract as per her demand. All of that over 1400 years ago). It is part of Sharia that, an ideal Islamic state takes full responsibility to protect lives, faiths and properties of non-Muslims. I can go on and on. I do not see much problem with Sharia itself but because most of us are opportunist people, we are very vocal about our rights but easily forget our responsibilities!! If you can collected 100 young men who want to establish Sharia in Bangladesh and question them IF they know that it also means they have to protect Hindus and Christians (As dhimmis or protected people) you are NOT likely to get much response. My real life experience tells me that, only few would even know what Sharia really stands for. According to Sharia rulers, kings and emperors also HAVE to follow conditions of Allah(SWT). No exceptions. Sadly our collective experience with Pakistan does not give us the right view of Sharia. However common people are pretty cool. I say the same about Indians too. I do criticize Indian policies towards our country but I get along with Indians fine most of the time. As we have seen some evidences, Sharia law is discriminatory and cruel and that's why there have been and still there are movements against the implementation of this sort of law. In a modern world, laws made by man should be good enough. Clerics should not have any role in the judicial system of a country. >>>>>>>> I rarely have problems with laws. I mean even secular laws are mostly "Good" in the books. However law is only good when it is implemented properly. American laws are good but it was not fair to African-Americans. So the problem was not with the laws but who and how it was applied. I say the same about Sharia. By looking at current leadership of Islamic parties, I am not so sure they are so eager to deliver their responsibilities. Rather they are often frighteningly eager to use sharia to promote their own interest. There are great scholars of Islam in our country but they are not in the leadership at the moment. Sharia law makes it mandatory on Muslims to pay Zakat (2.5% charity EVERY year!), volunteer if country needs to be defended (Go to war if necessary), pray five times a day etc. I think in these cases "discriminatory" Sharia is there to protect non-Muslims. During prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Jews of Medina also had access to court system of their choice (Taurah law). They did not have to pay "Zakat" to the state but they had to pay "Dhimma" tax for the facilities they enjoyed in an Islamic state. The people who love to be critical about everything "Islamic" often forget to tell you these "Little issues". Once you take an unbiased look at scripture, you will see the fairness in Sharia.
Shariah banking uses a marketing strategy to make money by catering exclusively to a section of highly religious people. Operation wise, basically it is not different from modern banking. It is simply old wine in a new bottle. There is no reason for a Shariah bank to be more efficient than other banks. Even there is no guarantee that management would not be corrupted. >>>>>>>>> There are similarities with traditional banks and some differences. Maybe member Hannan can educate us more on it. Generally speaking, it gives great participation to customers. If the bank makes more money in investing different projects, customers are given large percentages of the profit. If bank loses money, customers do share some portion of the lose. Also investments have to be in ethical business. So no "Islamic invesments" in porn industry, wine making, drug dealing curtails.
In this connection I want to make reference to the concept of halal meat. As I see it it is also a business strategy of using religious sentiment to make money. >>>>>>> I agree with your observation that most of the time people play the religious card a little too much. But practicing Muslims do pay the extra money to show our love for our Creator. I get a little less profit from Islamic banks and I do it willingly. :-) The key part of Islamic banking is it offers an additional choice to consumers. If you do not want to participate, you can go to a different bank that suits your need. You will see similar "Ritual" among Jews as well. They pay a little extra to satisfy their religious requirements. Also note, among Muslims there are some differences of opinions about Halal meat concept. Muslims from the sub-continent are mostly goes for what is known as "Zabiha halal". Which means it has to be slaughtered as per Islamic instructions and by a Muslim. I have met many religious Arabs who often produce a verse from the Qur'an which says meat slaughtered by "People of the book" (Jews and Christians) are OK to consume. So these Muslims do agree with Halal requirements but ALSO buy meat from a kosher shop as well. However most of the people of Indian sub-continent go with "Zabiha halal" to ensure we are not taking any chances. There are many debates among Muslims about it with no definitive answers. Hope my answers were helpful. If you have more "Concerns" feel free to share. :-) Shalom!
It is also my understanding that Shariah law was a tool for the rulers and clerics to share power. I am saying this using my knowledge on how priests and Christian rulers used to share power. I am sure the same pattern can be found among many Hindu rulers too.
Shariah banking uses a marketing strategy to make money by catering exclusively to a section of highly religious people. Operation wise, basically it is not different from modern banking. It is simply old wine in a new bottle. There is no reason for a Shariah bank to be more efficient than other banks. Even there is no guarantee that management would not be corrupted.
In this connection I want to make reference to the concept of halal meat. As I see it it is also a business strategy of using religious sentiment to make money.
-----Original Message----- From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 26, 2012 4:35 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
You are admitting that Shariah law and Sharia banking in America are on your wish list indicating that I have not read too much into your e-mail. That is your personal choice. I have simply expressed my concerns. I still believe that both the ideas are outdated.
You will know better. But my understanding is that the concept of Shariah law started to be crystallized two centuries after the death of the prophet. The idea of Shariah banking must be a very recent idea. It is also my understanding that Shariah law was a tool for the rulers and clerics to share power. I am saying this using my knowledge on how priests and Christian rulers used to share power. I am sure the same pattern can be found among many Hindu rulers too.
As we have seen some evidences, Sharia law is discriminatory and cruel and that's why there have been and still there are movements against the implementation of this sort of law. In a modern world, laws made by man should be good enough. Clerics should not have any role in the judicial system of a country.
Shariah banking uses a marketing strategy to make money by catering exclusively to a section of highly religious people. Operation wise, basically it is not different from modern banking. It is simply old wine in a new bottle. There is no reason for a Shariah bank to be more efficient than other banks. Even there is no guarantee that management would not be corrupted.
In this connection I want to make reference to the concept of halal meat. As I see it it is also a business strategy of using religious sentiment to make money. I don't understand in what way a well raised cow slaughtered and packed in a safe environment can be a haram food, and to make it halal it has to be religiously certified by a cleric. Here the beef is only a food; the cow has not been sacrificed in the name of God. I may be missing some thing here. Probably you will be able to help me.
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
It is interesting to know that you also wish that Shariah Law and Shariah Banking could be adopted in America!
>>>>>>>> You are reading too much into it. Basically it is about choices for consumers. There have been "Islamic" investment in Europe and America for a while. Europe has "Islamic banking window" in many banks in addition to "Regular" banks. However there is a difference between "vehemently support" and to keep it in the wish list. I would also like to have fresh Hilsha fish, Bangla Radio stations, Bangla schools in north America but I'll not about to get into violent arguments over them. My safe guess is (Correct me if I am wrong) you "Wish" for no Sharia banks in Bangladesh. Giving consumers more choices is not a bad thing. Specially when we see "Islamic banking" stood up to recent recession quite well. As far as member Hannan is concern, I respect him choice and I respect choices of most members of this forum. Everyone should have the freedom to like something or dislike something else. As long our choices is non-violent and hurting no one, why is it a problem. Mr. Hannan is a member of this forum and he can have an opinion and other members can disagree with it. That does NOT mean you are trying to turn Bangladesh into communist Russia or Mr. Hannan is trying to make Bangladesh into Afghanistan so easily. People of Bangladesh do not like fanatics of any color. It is the very people who made big sacrifices to establish Pakistan and then when they wanted to attack our identity they defended it and broke out of that "Broken model". All along they were Muslims and most freedom fighters I see today are very Islamic also. All along I made it VERY clear that, I do not see teachings of Islam conflicts with universal values rather it supports most of our common values. Therefore I made it obvious I do not consider being Muslim means I have to carry a "Chip over my shoulder". Bangladesh had Islamic banks for many years now and I do not know of any major problem with it. Couple of those "Islamic banks" have few Hindu gentlemen as directors!! (Would you believe it?) The bottom line is as long theology is not hurting any groups of people, it should be welcomed. to introduce systems based on theological theories whereas the American nation is determined to be secular and keep the church separate from state? I don't understand!!!
>>>>>>> To my knowledge there has been NO initiatives to introduce "Sharia" in America. With due respect, I say you are READING stuff in the post that has NOT been said. As far as I know America kept church and state separate and will remain that way in near future. I do NOT know of any effort to change that from any Muslim organizations of north America. Lastly I think member Hannan is an expert in this field and successfully designed and implemented this system without changing/hurting secular banking system. Maybe you can ask him your questions or share your concerns. Take is easy. ;-) Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jun 24, 2012 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
It is interesting to know that you also wish that Shariah Law and Shariah Banking could be adopted in America! I thought in this forum we have only a few people including Mr. Hannan, adviser of Jamaat, who vehemently support it. Any way, I am not sure why Sharia Law and Shariah Banking would be more suitable than the current legal and banking systems! It would be O.K to have them in Talibani Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or any other countries ruled by "Islam-pasand" political parties, but why in America? Why should there be efforts or movements---active or dorment--- to introduce systems based on theological theories whereas the American nation is determined to be secular and keep the church separate from state? I don't understand!!!
I need help.
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
Yes, there are Muslims who will love to see Sharia Law and Sharia banking in the western world,
>>>>>>>> My observation is this is not a priority of American Muslims. I am sure it would be nice IF it was there but no major Islamic organizations of north America proposed to replace American laws with Sharia. So the whole hoopla in Kansas was about "Nothing". Couple of Bangladeshis are in leadership positions (Both are freedom fighters) in Kansas Muslim community and none of them ever discussed even inside "Bangladeshi Muslim" community. Yeah, if they could have an "Bonoful sweet" shop in Kansas city, it would be nice but I don't think anybody is demanding "Kalojam" in Kansas!! The Sharia topic for Muslims are like that. American Muslims activists are trying to be "Understood" and trying to avoid misunderstanding with mainstream Americans. I would say it is the right choice considering the Eco system over there. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thu, Jun 21, 2012 9:21 pm Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
There are two sides of the story. Edward Said's "Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world" is now on my dek. "From the Iranian hostage crisis through the Gulf War and the World Trade Center bombing, the West has been haunted by a spectre called 'Islam'. As portrayed by news media-- and by a chorus of government, academic and corporate experts-- 'Islam' is synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria. (story of one side) At the same time, Islamic countries use 'Islam' to justify unrepresentative and often repressive rgimses" (story of the other side).
Yes, there are Muslims who will love to see Sharia Law and Sharia banking in the western world, and also there are Muslims who do not want Sharia. The story of the other side here is the Kansas story as has been referred to by Mr. Rahman.
Said was born into a Christian family. But he was secular and highly critical of religious fundamentalism and fanaticism.
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
Anyway, fanatic people (religious/ideological/political) may present themselves as innocent and harmless, on the surface, but inside they hide monsters. Once you hurt their feelings, they could be quite dangerous. We need to be cautious about these people; most of them are not normal thinking people.
>>>>>>>>> As far as I know the term " religious Fanatic" is used when people preach violence or cause harm to other people for belonging to a different religion etc.
I am pretty sure that sort of "Preaching" did not come from me.
He appears to be unhappy about the USA, where people are not yet gagged. I used to think him as a special breed of religious people, as he often preaches free-speech.
>>>>>>>> The true meaning of "Free speech" is to speak your mind. I am very familiar with the "New law" state of Kansas introduced. While no one in Kansas (With a tiny Muslim population) EVER attempted to replace current laws, they are trying to ban it!!
Because of laws of the US, they could not spell Sharia on the law but everyone campaigned for it spoke about how "Sharia" will take over Kansas. People were fed a bowl of lies and fear mongering was the reason why the law was passed. It is a SAD situation for the country like the USA. Which speaks about "Free people" and "Free speech" but surrendered too many times to racial and religious bigots.
Last year a similar smear campaign was launched about the FICTIONAL "Ground zero mosque". While NO ONE ever proposed to erect any mosque on "Ground zero", people from all over the US decided to be "Against a proposal" that was never proposed by anyone!!
The article I linked spoke clearly about a group of people who are very active in fomenting hate against American Muslims.
I am NOT upset about the US and people are NOT "Gagged". Recently bunch of Rohingas were persecuted for belonging to the wrong race and religion but most of our "Esteemed" group members mocked about it for being "Jamaati". Such is our ethics.
I count myself very blessed and fortunate that, in my REAL life I mixed with people from all back ground and very comfortable being "Me". I do not force my religion or ideologies unto others and some Muslims do lecture me for being so Liberal!!
Since I posted messages here, I do not recall pushing my religion unto anyone. ONLY explaining what it is!!
But even that pushed "Panic" buttons on many members. Because they enjoy simply trading insults without any knowledge of topics they discuss.
Lastly, you are welcome to think of me as your wishes. However it would be "CREDIBLE" if you could present some logic, reasons behind such ideas. Last time I checked, simply trading insult is not the same thing as "Free speech". Most civilized countries with the concept of free speeches have codified laws against "Hate speech". Maybe with some years and evolution, we'll learn to know the difference.
It is not about "Hurt feeling" rather standing up against hate mongering. Hope you understand the differences.
Hope I did not hurt any "Feelings" here. Just speaking my mind. :-)
Shalom!
I am pretty sure that sort of "Preaching" did not come from me.
He appears to be unhappy about the USA, where people are not yet gagged. I used to think him as a special breed of religious people, as he often preaches free-speech.
>>>>>>>> The true meaning of "Free speech" is to speak your mind. I am very familiar with the "New law" state of Kansas introduced. While no one in Kansas (With a tiny Muslim population) EVER attempted to replace current laws, they are trying to ban it!!
Because of laws of the US, they could not spell Sharia on the law but everyone campaigned for it spoke about how "Sharia" will take over Kansas. People were fed a bowl of lies and fear mongering was the reason why the law was passed. It is a SAD situation for the country like the USA. Which speaks about "Free people" and "Free speech" but surrendered too many times to racial and religious bigots.
Last year a similar smear campaign was launched about the FICTIONAL "Ground zero mosque". While NO ONE ever proposed to erect any mosque on "Ground zero", people from all over the US decided to be "Against a proposal" that was never proposed by anyone!!
The article I linked spoke clearly about a group of people who are very active in fomenting hate against American Muslims.
I am NOT upset about the US and people are NOT "Gagged". Recently bunch of Rohingas were persecuted for belonging to the wrong race and religion but most of our "Esteemed" group members mocked about it for being "Jamaati". Such is our ethics.
I count myself very blessed and fortunate that, in my REAL life I mixed with people from all back ground and very comfortable being "Me". I do not force my religion or ideologies unto others and some Muslims do lecture me for being so Liberal!!
Since I posted messages here, I do not recall pushing my religion unto anyone. ONLY explaining what it is!!
But even that pushed "Panic" buttons on many members. Because they enjoy simply trading insults without any knowledge of topics they discuss.
Lastly, you are welcome to think of me as your wishes. However it would be "CREDIBLE" if you could present some logic, reasons behind such ideas. Last time I checked, simply trading insult is not the same thing as "Free speech". Most civilized countries with the concept of free speeches have codified laws against "Hate speech". Maybe with some years and evolution, we'll learn to know the difference.
It is not about "Hurt feeling" rather standing up against hate mongering. Hope you understand the differences.
Hope I did not hurt any "Feelings" here. Just speaking my mind. :-)
Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 6:21 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Can we discuss religion freely?
Now, I am so sorry that I made a boo-boo in my last hurried comment, as shown bellow: "As you know - the fasted growing religion has been the fasted growing problem on earth also." I wrote "fasted" instead of fastest. Thanks to Dr. Das and others who pointed out my mistake. In response to my above statement, Mr. Q. Rahman said the following: >>>>>>> Growth did not cause any problem. Ignorance and politics did. Don't think this comment was based on "Logic". Mostly on assumptions and perception. Specifically if you live in the US, it became "Kosher" to talk about Islam this way (Without any rational). In his response, Mr. Q. Rahman may have revealed his inner self. He is saying that - one cannot say whatever he/she likes about Islam from other places, except USA. He is right; people are already gagged by fanatics everywhere else to say anything against Islam. He appears to be unhappy about the USA, where people are not yet gagged. I used to think him as a special breed of religious people, as he often preaches free-speech. Anyway, fanatic people (religious/ideological/political) may present themselves as innocent and harmless, on the surface, but inside they hide monsters. Once you hurt their feelings, they could be quite dangerous. We need to be cautious about these people; most of them are not normal thinking people. Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 6/19/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
|
__._,_.___