Oh no. Don't compare Allama Shafi with Narendra Modi. Shafi is an Islamist of worst kind while Modi is a Hindu nationalist. Politics of both Shafi and Modi is divisive although the latter is pragmatic in socio-economic matters while the former is primarily concerned with matters of after life. There is no reason to believe that Modi will ever indulge in orthodox Hindu practices when it will come to dealing with women of the society.
The two leaders pose two different kinds of dangers. Shafi will take the society back to stone age while Modi will pose a great threat to the integrity of India.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Have a look at the following link:
http://video.in.msn.com/watch/video/muslim-women-pray-for-modis-success/fd0u2045
Here you will see Muslim women are praying for Narendra Modi's success, because he has given them opportunity to come to the forefront of the society, while Allamah Shafi wants them to go back to the kitchen.
From: SyedAslam <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] 'শফি নারী স্বাধীনতায় বিশ্বাসী নন' - হেফাজত ইসলামের মুখোশে রাজাকার, আলবদর ও তাদের দোসররা মাথাচাঁড়া দিয়ে উঠেছে
Also Read:Mon, 29 Jul, 2013
'শফি নারী স্বাধীনতায় বিশ্বাসী নন'প্রাইমনিউজবিডি ডেস্ক:ঢাকা : আল্লামা শফি ও তার সংগঠন নারীদের স্বাধীনতায় বিশ্বাস করে না বলে মন্তব্য করেছেন জাতীয় মহিলা সংস্থার নির্বাহী পরিচালক নাজনীন বেগম।
সোমবার সকালে জাতীয় প্রেসক্লাবের সামনে এক নারী সমাবেশে সভাপতির বক্তব্যে তিনি এ মন্তব্য করেন। মানবন্ধনের আয়োজন করে জাতীয় মহিলা সংস্থা।
হেফাজত ইসলামের মুখোশে রাজাকার, আলবদর ও তাদের দোসররা মাথাচাঁড়া দিয়ে উঠেছে উল্লেখ করে তিনি আরো বলেন, তারা এদেশের নারীদেরকে গৃহবন্দি করতে চায়।
আল্লাম শফির দেয়া বক্তব্য প্রত্যাখান করে তিনি বলেন, তার বক্তব্য বাংলাদেশের সংবিধান পরিপন্থী।
শফির বিরুদ্ধে আইনি ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ ও তাকে গ্রেপ্তারে সরকারের প্রতি আহ্বান জানান তিনি।
এসময় মানববন্ধনে উপস্থিত ছিলেন জাতীয় মহিলা সংস্থার পরিচালক সরকার মো. সামসুল, উপ-পরিচালক রেজাউল কবির প্রমুখ।
Women at the crossroad of religion, politics and patriarchy
Rokeya Chowdhury বৃহস্পতিবার, ২৫ জুলাই ২০১৩
<FotoyaBazderKaloHat_royeya1.png>
A tendency toward the reification of the female makes her more often a sexual object than a person. This is particularly so when she is denied human rights through chattel status. Even where this has been partly amended the cumulative effect of religion and custom is still very powerful and has enormous psychological consequences. Woman is still denied sexual freedom and the biological control over her body through the cult of virginity, the double standard, the prescription against abortion, and in many places because contraception is physically or psychically unavailable to her."One could hardly resist reading back this 1969 text of Kate Millet after seeing the much talked about video link of the Hifazat-e Islam Chief, Ahmad Shafi.And what did this elderly man have to say in his 'sermon' in front of a crowd?* Men should not allow women to study after grade four-five. Women should receive minimum education only to take care of husband's property.* Women should be homebound and be responsible for the husband's chattel; they should not roam around 'nakedly' (Ulongo).* Women commit 'zina'(fornication) while out for study or work, that's why, their income does not carry 'barkat'(blessings).*Birth control should be denounced; even polygamy could be resorted to for enhancement of the Muslim Umma.*Coexistence of men and women in public allures men and encourages 'zina'.Kate Millet was not incorrect in her observation that women are viewed as 'sexual object' rather than a person. It is quite astonishing how each of her lines cited above fits into Shafi's sermon. Ironically even in this 21st century, lives of women are essentially tied up between capitalism and patriarchy, while the former treats her as commodity, the latter holds her as a religious pawn.
If it wasn't so, how could Mr. Shafi dare to pronounce those derogatory remarks in a land where women workers constitute 80 per cent of the RMG sector which virtually runs our economy? Why is he allowed to roam around freely even after calling for curtailment of women's rights and choices of life? Would it be impossible to charge Mr. Shafi for defaming all the working forces and academia or for instigating violence against women? Can we allow such impunity when we have incidents like Hawa Akhter Jui who had her hand chopped off by her former husband for continuing college against his will or Rumana Monzur, who though being a university teacher had to lose her vision out of sheer possessiveness of her former husband?Jui and Rumana were courageous enough to survive those gruesome incidents and they have uplifted our morale by their determination. But let us not forget Hena, the 14-year-old rape victim who was held liable for 'fornication' by a 'religious' edict. While the perpetrator successfully escaped the whipping, Hena could not survive the lashes. We have hundreds of Hena dying each year and may be thousands of perpetrators being trained and instigated by the sort of 'Ilm' (knowledge) spread by Mr. Shafi and like. Thanks to this, we see a school teacher called a 'whore' in a public meeting for denying covering her head and the court has to declare afresh that women cannot be forced to veil. The court has expressed its concern over increasing social and religious vigilance on what women wear. And to our anguish, comes Mr. Shafi calling for restrictions on women's movement and attire in a disparaging language. But moral policing of women or blaming them for 'moral degradation' is not new in Bangladesh. Even, Hifazat-e Islam made a public admission that this is how religious sermons ('waz') have taken place in the country for decades, so why make a big fuss out of it?This is indeed something that as a nation we should ask ourselves — why have we allowed this so long? Try any video link of 'waz' from Bangladesh available in the social media, if you believe in equality of sexes and races you are bound to be aggrieved and enraged. Why do we allow such nuisance to continue in the name of religion? Why are these 'sermons' available in stores for purchase, why does not the law step in? How does the authorities concerned remain unmoved even when many have expressed anxiety over presence of children in 'waz', which is a common platform to malign women? Why do we take these so lightly when we have alarming rate of violence against w
__._,_.___
