Desicritics Category: Politics: Religion

Book Review : Identity and Violence by Amartya Sen

Shantanu Dutta — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:04:51 EDT

Amartya Sen’s book, “Identity and Violence’ examines the unfortunate connection between violence and our tendency to identify with one key trait — our ethnicity, or religion, for example — to the exclusion of all others. Sen argues that we can combat this tendency by rejecting this narrowly defined, limited sense of identity, and embracing a broader, richer and more complex understanding of ourselves.

Speaking of his own identities, he says:

I can be, at the same time, an Asian, a British citizen, a Bengali with Bangladeshi ancestry, an American or British resident, an economist, a dabbler in philosophy, an author, a Sanskritist, a strong believer in secularism and democracy, a man, a feminist, a heterosexual, a defender of gay and lesbian rights, with a nonreligious lifestyle, from a Hindu background, a non-Brahmin...This is just a small sample of diverse categories to each of which I may simultaneously belong.

He bemoans our predisposition to separate human kind into many different boxes – he cites Samuel Huntington and his Clash of Civilizations stereo types. Huntington of course contrasts Western civilization with "Islamic civilization," "Hindu civilization," "Buddhist civilization," and so on. The supposed conflicts of religious differences are incorporated into a sharply fractured vision of hard-boiled divisiveness. In fact, of course, the people of the world can be pigeonholed according to many other subsets, each of which has some—often far-reaching— importance in our lives: nationalities, locations, classes, occupations, social status, languages, politics, and many others. While religious groupings have received much expression in recent years, they cannot be supposed to eliminate other characteristics. Amartya Sen contends that our society is driven as much by confusion as by hatred. Challenging the division of people by race, religion, and class, he presents an alternate understanding of a world that can be made to move toward peace as firmly as it has spiralled in recent years toward brutality and war.

Sen also notes the inclination to create a random -often historically inaccurate- identity of the self in order to distinguish it from the other. Here he criticizes the idea of the Western mind whereby certain ideas (e.g., democracy) are claimed to be the sole property of the Occident. Citing examples of Buddhist councils during the reign of Emperor Ashoka (3rd Century BC) and tracts on religious freedom during that of the Mughal Emperor Akbar (16th Century AD), Sen attempts to demonstrate how such an identity can be quickly disputed.

A lot of the book is preoccupied with the Muslim identity because much of the attention is directed towards the perception and understanding of this identity in the world. Moreover, much that is valuable in the Western civilisation is a legacy of Muslim as well of other, such as the ancient Hindu, civilisations. In other words, watertight compartments between civilisations are historically unsustainable. And, of course, people themselves are blends of several civilisations so that it is not correct to assume that there is such a thing as a uniform, homogenous, monolithic Muslim civilisation.

But is it really possible to fix the responsibility for all the violence that we witness today on the failure of people to recognize the various identities of others? Would that not be as naive an attitude to take towards the occurrence of violence as the perpetrators of aggression take towards identity? How are identities really shaped and very importantly how are they correlated to more concrete, real-life processes that go on in the world? Again, while it is true that everyone has multiple identities what compels one person to prioritize one of these many identities over all others? that is for us, the readers to figure.

To Censor Or Not: Bloggers' Duties and Liabilities

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:52:50 EST

Recently a young blogger from Kerala named Ajith got into some serious trouble after having started an anti-Shiv Sena community on Orkut. Anonymous commentators posted nasty and vile comments on Ajith’s ‘I Hate Shiv Sena’ community website. The Shiv Sena’s youth wing filed a complaint with the Thane (a city on the outskirts of Mumbai) police station against Ajith following which charges were brought against Ajith under sections Sections 295A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

Fearing arrest, the young blogger approach the Kerala High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. Later, Ajith approached the Supreme Court for an order quashing the criminal complaint filed against him. The Supreme Court ruled against Ajith and directed him to travel to Thane and face the charges filed against him.

My initial reaction on hearing of this was on the same lines as my friend Jo who has written an article on this issue here:

However, on reflection, I have come to conclusion that the Supreme Court of India was absolutely right in its ruling.

My reasons are as follows:

Section 295A of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 506 of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: -And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Though Sections 295A and 506 sound reasonable, they can be (and are) interpreted to cover a wide variety of sins. It is interesting to note that the Indian Penal code of 1860 was created by the British Parliament for its Jewel in the Crown which had mutinied in an unprecedented manner just three years ago (in 1857).

Over sixty years after independence, the IPC has not seen many amendments. As we all know very well, it is not the Supreme Court’s job to make the law. It only interprets the laws that are made by the representatives of the people in the legislature.

Let’s assume that Ajith were a journalist who writes a regular column in a newspaper. Also, let’s substitute the Shiv Sena for an individual Mr. X who is mild and meek and has difficulty melting cheese in his mouth. What would be your reaction if Ajith were to write an article in the newspaper saying that he hates Mr. X, who is the scum of the earth and should ideally be lynched. Would Mr. X have a cause of action against Ajith? You bet he would! Ajith would be liable for both criminal intimidation and defamation.

One of the fundamental principles of law is that every one is equal before the law. Though the intention behind such a principle is to ensure that the weak and the meek do not lose out to the strong and the dominant, the law cannot discriminate against the strong and the powerful either. This would mean that even a nasty piece of work such as the Shiv Sena should have equal protection of the law from criminal intimidation and defamation. If Ajith were to write a newspaper article against the Shiv Sena defaming it and criminally intimidating it, he would be liable under the IPC. The publisher of the newspaper would also be liable.

In this instant case, it was not Ajith who wrote those nasty comments, but some anonymous individual. However, Ajith is in the position of the publisher of a newspaper who is responsible for whatever is written in his newspaper. It is true that the internet is a free medium where everyone has the freedom to express himself or herself. However, there is no reason to take the view that rules regarding defamation or intimidation shouldn’t apply to the internet.

Bloggers and website owners should ensure that no one publish comments on their blogs or websites unless the blog-owner or website owner has approved the comment. Even DesiCritics should, in my opinion, follow this approach, rather than edit comments after they are made.

Finally, let me add this. It seems unbelievable that the Shiv Sena, a party that has specialised in intimidating and harassing minorities in Mumbai should file a complaint against a teenager in a faraway state merely on the basis of comments published on his Orkut community website. I’m sure that the Shiv Sena has not been intimidated by Ajith’s orkut community. It has surely been defamed, but one of the defences to a charge of defamation is that the alleged statement or writing that caused the defamation is ‘true’.

I’m sure that there will be hundreds of lawyers in Mumbai who are happy to defend Blogger Ajith (now a cause celebré). However, travel to Thane Ajith must, as directed by the Supreme Court of India, and answer those ridiculous charges.

Godhra-Gujarat Seven Years Later

Vivek Bharat — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:12:08 EST

The English language media in India has never attempted to sincerely fulfill its duty as the standard bearer of free speech in a democracy. Its reluctance to provide a platform for a differing view at odds with its own preset agenda which reeks of bigotry at times is obvious when it pertains to Hindutva. A perusal of English newspapers in India leaves one with the impression that what happened in Gujarat in 2002 was a one-sided massacre of Muslims by Hindus; a hyperbole promoted by selective reporting and bolstered by biased opinion rants. With the 2009 Lok Sabha elections around the corner, there appears to be a subtle attempt to resurrect this disinformation campaign through a rash of articles that recall the horror of Gujarat 2002 through a skewed lens.

Whenever the phrase ‘the victims of Gujarat 2002’ is mentioned in English language newspapers, it invariably refers to the 790 Muslim victims of the Hindu-Muslim riots that ravaged Gujarat in 2002. Forgotten are the 254 Hindu casualties that occurred during the same fracas. Forgotten are the 59 Hindu men, women and children who were roasted alive at the Godhra station on February 27, 2002 in an act of heinous sectarianism that sets a diabolical standard.

Before I proceed further let me make one thing clear. I condemn unequivocally both the Godhra incident as well as the riots that followed. No modern society can tolerate such a display of barbarism and still call itself civilized. My gripe is not with highlighting the plight of the Muslim victims; every act of injustice regardless of the religion or creed of the victim needs reparation. I am concerned with the double standards that our Indian society espouses .The Muslim victims of the Gujarat riots have endless number of proponents each weaving story after story vastly exaggerated for sensational effect that fill volumes of newsprint and occupy endless hours of television time. In contrast the Hindu victims have few advocates and even these scarce voices continue to be stifled by the English language media in India which denies them a just platform for their grievances. I feel compelled to raise my voice to inject a sense of balance in this uneven playing field.

There are some points that I wish to reiterate about the Gujarat riots:

1) Godhra was a deliberate act of evil that was meant to provoke. It did. Without Godhra there would never have been a Gujarat 2002.Whether the Hindus should have exhibited a greater degree of restraint or not is certainly debatable. I would have preferred a massive non-violent protest. However it does not alter the irrevocable fact that Godhra was categorically the epicenter of the communal earthquake that rocked Gujarat.

2) This was not a pogrom by any stretch of imagination. Focus on the death ratio of 790 Muslims to 254 Hindus: it sounds like a riot with sizable casualties on both sides. To comprehend the meaning of a pogrom one needs to scrutinize the death toll in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984: greater than 3000 Sikh deaths to zero Hindus. This fellow countrymen is a pogrom orchestrated by the so-called secular Congress party.

3) Anti-Hindu violence during the Gujarat riots was not only widespread but ugly as well. Hindus too were also the victims of police inaction. I quote not from any parochial source but from a report by the Human Rights Watch.

a) “Hindus have also suffered greatly from the violence in Gujarat. In addition to the fifty-eight people killed during the torching of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002, over ten thousand Hindus have also been made homeless as a result of post-Godhra violence……”
….Sanjay Pandey, "Riots hit all classes, people of all faith," Times of India, March 18, 2002

b) “In Ahmedabad, violence broke out on March 17 when Dalits in the Danilimda area were attacked by Muslims. On March 19, it was Modasa, a town in Sabarkantha district. A police officer's son was stabbed and two communities went berserk.... The stories only got more macabre. In Himmatnagar, a young man who went to a Muslim-dominated area to do business was found dead, with his eyes gouged out. In Bharuch, the murder of a Muslim youth led to mass violence. Next the Sindhi Market and Bhanderi Pole areas of Ahmedabad, hitherto calm, were attacked by mobs. This phase, really, was one of Muslim mobs attacking Hindus.”
Udhay Mahurkar, "Gujarat: End of Hope," India Today, April 15, 2002

c) “A resident named Harki Bhen added: Kerosene bottles were thrown in through the roof. They threw it through the windows and the openings in the walls. We called the police thousands of times but they told us, "Sir is out". In the morning the mosques began announcing that Islam was in danger, that there was poison in the milk. This is their code word. We are the only Hindus here, poison here means us. The rioting lasted between 2:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.”
Human Rights Watch interview, Harki Bhen, Ahmedabad, March 23, 2002

d) “Human Rights Watch visited Mahajan No Vando, a fortified Hindu residential area situated within the Muslim dominated area of Jamalpur, on March 23. Mahajan No Vando was the site of a retaliatory attack by Muslims on March 1.
According to residents, approximately twenty-five people were injured in the attacks and at least five homes were completely destroyed. Residents closer to the periphery of the fortified compound and its entrance also suffered extensive property damage. Muslim residents attacked the compound from the higher Muslim-owned buildings that surrounded it using light bulbs filled with acid, petrol and crude bombs, and bottles filled with kerosene and set some Hindu-owned houses on fire. According to the residents, who had collected and saved the remnants of what was thrown in and showed them to Human Rights Watch, "There was acid in the glass bottles and in the light bulbs that were thrown in. They used solvent petrol, kerosene, and acid. They filled some Pepsi bottles with them."
Human Rights Watch interviews, Mahajan No Vando residents, Ahmedabad, March 23, 2002

With accusations and counter accusations swirling in the air in the aftermath of the riots, it was essential to have an enquiry commission that would clear the air and ascertain the truth. The Nanavati Commission was constituted on March 6, 2002 by a decree in accordance with the Constitution and submitted its report in September 2008 after painstakingly interviewing 1106 witnesses and examining 46000 affidavits. The commission was chaired by GT Nanavati, a retired Supreme Court Judge with stellar credentials and unquestionable integrity. Moreover Nanavati’s track record as an investigator par excellence was supported by his successful one-man enquiry commission into the anti-Sikh riots that brought many a guilty to book

The Nanavati Commission made two important observations:

1) That the fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002, was a “pre-planned conspiracy” of the local Muslims.

2) The report stated: “There is absolutely no evidence to show that the chief minister, his council of ministers or the police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots.”

Certain sections of our media have tried to underplay the conclusions of the Nanavati Commission by invoking the assertions of the Banerjee committee. However, the Banerjee Commission sanctioned by Lallu Prasad Yadav in 2004 stands disqualified as a legitimate vehicle, being debarred by the Gujarat High Court which deemed it as ‘unconstitutional, illegal and null and void’. Additionally, the haste with which this commission submitted its interim report, within 4 months of its inception, raises serious questions about its depth and accuracy

There have been other self styled impromptu ‘tribunals’ orchestrated by private organizations with a preset agenda. These carry no legal brief, only murky the situation further and have no place in a functioning democracy. They cannot be taken seriously.

Effectively, to date, the Nanavati Commission remains the only valid commission of enquiry into this matter. A judicial enquiry commission headed by a Supreme Court Judge represents a powerful and impartial instrument of a democratic process. To negate the findings of one is to question the very basic tenets of our democracy.

When we accept the culpability of Jagdish Tytler emanating from the previous Nanavati commission and indemnify the criminality of Madhukar Sarpotdar on the basis of the Srikrishna Commission, why is it that certain sections of our society balk at the exoneration of Modi by the present Nanavati report?

This smacks of double standards. Findings must be respected even if we do not agree with them: for that is the basis of a mature democracy.

Ref:
Human Rights Watch Report, April 2002.

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:55:37 EST

Let me cut right to the chase here. This is unacceptable. Let me say it again for emphasis. It is not just bothersome or even upsetting. It is unacceptable. In the 21st century, in a democratic, secular nation, what has been going on, festering like a recurrent lesion, sprouting in every part of India, is just, simply unacceptable and will not do.

In case you are wondering who it is that's going to stand up to it: we are. We will not allow our freedom to be violated and we will make sure we protect the independence we fought long and hard to get the first time around. We have come a long way. We have seen the change and been the change. So who better than our pioneering, hot-blooded breed to stand up to the revolting and shockingly regressive acts of a few who feel threatened by progress.

They are just acting out of fear. It is obvious, isn't it? They attack in packs, afraid to be the lone ones incriminated. They target women and assault safely from behind the vague curtains of culture. But we all know that it isn't their culture that is in grave danger. Their position, their power and the extent of their bullying is in great peril. The places where they once ruled the roost are now turning into big, bustling cities making them feel like small, insignificant fish in a big sea.

Institutions and companies have transported the educated, smart crowd into the vacuum in which these bullies once enjoyed unfettered omnipotence. Now, in place of the void, there is a young, vivacious bunch of professionals, men and women who work hard and party hard and do so shoulder to shoulder. These people are harder to manipulate. This crowd has not just taken over, they threaten to pull into their growing ilk, the younger ones too. Business are bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of this new species and everything that once belonged to the bullies is now up for grabs. So they are retaliating. They are like petulant little children who couldn't have all that they demanded, hated sharing and so now are acting up. Therefore it is up to us, the educated class to teach these spoiled little brats to grow up and stop reacting so bizarrely to change. We must do it in a manner that is as different from theirs as is humanly possible.

So now comes the big question: how do we do it? How do we make our presence known? The answer may seem too simplistic because it sits smack in front of our faces. Think about it: we travel through these cities like one stream of blood, flowing steadily, keeping the city alive, stuffed in trains, piled into buses, walking along the teeming streets. Even partying and a trip to the movie theater is all the more fun with a group. We work in teams and are all the more effective for that. We discuss films, fashion, clothes, the economy, the job market and even our health problems. Yet this fear of walking out on the streets of a free country seems like a personal problem, like we were alone in that walk, like when a bully arrived with his little gang and punched us in the face, we would be all by ourselves and the world around us would just suddenly go blind. What we forget is that in this lonely fear too, we are still together. In this anger against the unfairness of the situation, we are together. We can if we decided, be together in the one resolute determination of not letting a handful of insecure men undo all that we have put into making our cities. So the answer is simple. Whatever it is we do, we do it together.

We celebrated Valentine's Day battling fear and took the threats in our stride defanging the demons with the pink disarming humor of our proud underwear. With the International Women's Day approaching, it is time to get serious. In our busy, routine lives we have underestimated the power of silent, non-violent protests. All it takes is for people to stand at a side-walk with banners to get word around. Some major struggles were won with this strategy and somewhere along the line we just shrugged and rolled our eyes at the quiet potential of public demonstrations and satyagrahas. Maybe we started taking our precious freedom for granted and needed to be reminded that we simply cannot. We have to earn it and when someone tries to snatch it, we fight for it.

It is important, I feel, in today's world to use media smartly. Instead of constantly criticizing media's inadequacies, we could use it as a tool. Find a niche and throw yourself into the swift current of this ever growing medium. Find a female leader in your area who is looking to make an arrival on the political scene. Do a little research. If one political party is making your life difficult for wearing jeans and celebrating Valentine's Day and there damn well must be another party that will fight for your votes, or can be persuaded to do so.

Find a celebrity who is willing to make your cause their own or give your movement their support and voice. Find a television network, a newspaper or a magazine that will run your story and provide your opinions with a voice. Find an artist who will put your thoughts into a slogan or a creative, riveting poster. Write to your city officials, your ministers and drown their offices in letters of your indignant protest. Just remember that one or two voices are easy to be ignored. If you are fuming over a coffee mug at your kitchen table, take that rage to a medium that will express it in the most noticeable manner possible.

Haven't we whined about a dysfunctional system for too long? When has this "system" ever worked? Maybe we just don't realize that we are one of the appendages of this faulty system. If the system is not working, we, as a group could propel in into motion. What will it take for us to get off our bums and make a placard with a strong message on it? This is not a women's liberation movement at all. Genders cannot be fighting alone in a battle such as this one. It could be your sister wearing jeans, coming home from work. It could be your teenage daughter walking back from school or college, the neighborhood aunty who brought you food when you were sick, a dear friend or your colleague. Most importantly, it is them today and it could be you next.

Let us review what the odds are of your being targeted next. You have a very high chance of being next on the hit-list if you answer 'Yes' for any of the following questions. Are you considered an "outsider" in Bangalore or a non-Maharashtrian in Maharashtra? Do you party? Do you meet up with friends at pubs? Do you wear jeans or clothing that may not be considered "Indian"? Do you eat pizza or meat? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Does your religious persuasion always match that of the political party currently raging a mini-war in the nation you know of as secular? Do you send children to convent or English medium schools? Do you have a spouse of a different religious persuasion than yours? Do you have friends of the opposite sex? Are you married to the girl you are driving home from work or who you happen to be having dinner with? Are you non-conversant in Marathi in Mumbai or in Kannada in Bangalore? Are you a blogger or a journalist who expresses their opinions about politics, culture, media and religion? In spite of your qualifications and the six figure salary, do you have no clout with the local law enforcement or political activists? Before you fall asleep at night you should take a moment to wonder which one of these labels will be tagged onto your identity and turned into a vice or a disqualification; which one of these labels will plant nagging fear into your routine as you go about working to make a living, partying to rid your stress and walking on the streets of a country whose freedom you celebrate once a year on a public holiday. India did fight a freedom struggle years ago and it is high time that yet another quest for independence begins.

As a civilized society, we must remember that curbed freedom is a disease, an epidemic that does not spare a gender or a certain religion. It has uprooted saplings of modern, free thinking from Afghanistan and left it barren under the regime of the Taliban school of thought. This disease feeds on your fear and on the social inertia that has settled over our generation. An active, proud and independent public cannot let this inertia set in. Let it be known that this disease feeds most of all on the little disabling voice in your head which tells you that this is not your struggle, that it isn't your battle to fight. Sadly, this malady spreads, swallowing in its wake our hard-earned progress, until the feeble voice in your head is one day replaced with the grim realization that your own struggle has arrived. The assailant and his prejudice have changed form and you are the next prey. And there is nobody left to fight for you or with you.

Does the Quran Incite Violence? A Debate with Mike Ghouse, Part 2

MA Khan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:59:23 EST

I am responding below to Mike Ghouse's reply to Part 1 in this debate. I regret that I wasn't able to respond with immediacy.

Let me start by addressing Ghouse's favorite argument regarding the Quran, which I encountered in his emails and postings in Websites quite a few times. He frequently says that, in the colonial era or before, the Westerners intentionally mistranslated the Quran to harm Islam. "The Quran was mistranslated three times (by Europeans)", he asserts. Thereafter, Muslim rulers (as pious as the Saudis, who are main sponsors of translations of the Quran) also embarked on the same mission to mistranslate the Quran, obviously to harm Islam and Muslims, as Ghouse would have it. "The Kings on the Arabian lands had to fool their people too to get their support", as he puts it.

To him, these translators distorted the Quran so badly that, by reading it, Muslims are becoming terrorists all over the world in the name of Islam--the religion of pristine peace and tranquility. Let me first ask Ghouse a few questions:

1. First, what is his scholarship, expertise in Arabic, to judge translations of the Quran of most famous scholars like Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Dr. Muhshin Khan et al.? May I ask, if Ghouse, probably an India-born student of business/commercial studies, is fluent in Arabic or understand Arabic at all?

2. Secondly, would Ghouse sit in Saudi Arabia and dare distorting the Quran intentionally. I can assure Ghouse that the kind of "gross distortion" he accuses other famous translators with, if he does the same level of distortion of whatever kind sitting in Saudi Arabia, he would not last a day. Well, Ghouse may even give a try of the same at Islamabad, Khartoum, Cairo or Kabul. His is unlikely to last much longer, if at all. Let me inform readers that Muhshin Khan and his co-translator, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, taught at the Islamic University of Medina, the city of Muhammad, where Islam was born. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, another brilliant translator, was sponsored by the Saudis.

3. Thirdly, Ghouse has found a good translator in Muhammad Asad (d. 1990), an Austro-Hungarian Jews, who converted to Islam and later ended up in India, where, in the company of fanatic Allama Iqbal, he became a scholar of Islam. "Go to Mohammad Asad's translation of Quran, it is one of the most accepted translations", he asserts. In fact, Asad's translation is not correct enough for Ghouse, as he say: "If I live longer, Insha Allah, God willing, I will do the translation to reflect the intent of the Quran".

Although Asad's credential in Arabic was undoubtedly good, he had no real training in Arabic at its crown centres of Baghdad, Cairo, Saudi Arabia, which scholars like Muhshin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali had. Moreover, born in a Jewish Rabbi family and well-acquainted with developments of the 20th-century Europe, I leave it to readers to reflect on how his background could have influenced his English rendering of the Quran and on Ghouse's wisdom of picking Asad as a more reliable translator.

4. Fourthly, does Ghouse want to tell us that all the Imams, Muslim clerics--from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world--who keep spewing hatred on Quranic justification, read the Quran in English translations? Do Arabs like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, late al-Zarqawi and all those Islamic terrorists read the Quran in Arabic? Ghouse would obviously have us believe so.

I must point out another great point of this sagacious Islamic scholar, Mike Ghouse. The University of Southern California [probably with association of CAIR, MSA (Muslim Students of America] etc., hosts the Compendium of Islamic Text, which says:

There were about 360 idols around the Ka`abah. He pulled them down with his sword while reciting: "And say: 'Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.'" (Al-Qur'an, 17:81) Also "Say: 'Truth has arrived and falsehood neither creates anything new nor restores anything.'" (Al-Qur'an, 34: 49) The idols tumbled on their faces.

On the basis of such info, Wikipedia notes that:

In 630, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conqueror, and he destroyed the 360 idols in and around the Kaaba.[28][29] While destroying each idol, Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81] which says "Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish."[28][29]

But to Ghouse, this information is all false. That means leading Islamic organizations in American, like CAIR and MSA, are out to harm Islam and Muslims, too. It is false even when most of the greatest classical scholars of Islam say so. Ibn Ishaq [Karachi, p. 552], Muhammad's first pious biographer, says that after capturing Mecca, Muhammad ordered the destruction of all idols of the Ka'ba, shouting out: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish".

But to Ghouse, those greatest were ignorant or were out to harm Islam and Muslims. So, where lies truth? Who knows the truth? It is Michel Wolfe, a non-Muslim filmmaker of our time and the producer of the film "The Message". When Ghouse asked Wolfe, the latter replied, as Ghouse puts it: "From his (Wolfe's) understanding the idols were 'removed'", not destroyed, the latter remark being "blatantly misleading".

Allah or Muhammad probably paid a visit to Wolfe lately to furnish him with the correct information. He has no other way to discover this truth. I wonder how Ghouse's wisdom failed to ask Wolfe as to how he discovered the truth.

Nonetheless, the moral of the story is: You can take over a temple and remove there idols therein, not destroy them. Idolaters of the world can drive this message of Ghouse home.

Now let me turn to the Quranic verses Ghouse has addressed. I will not respond to his comments on other religious scriptures, because my expertise doesn't lie there. I have spent the last 5-6 years researching Islam extensively, on which I am confident of commenting. If other scriptures have violent content, they incite violence too.

In explanation of verse 7:179, despite whatever unnecessary things he has written, Asad's translation still says that the Kafirs, such as Hindus, "are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way". That means a non-Muslim, heedless to Allah's messages, is worse, more evil, than animals like cattle, which the original author put as: they are "like brute beast." I need someone explain what's the difference between the two. Therefore, the claim of the original author that "In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals" is roughly right, although he would been accurate had he said "kafirs [Hindus] are worse than animals (cattle)". That's what Asad affirms and Ghouse agrees.

Why does Ghouse not give a fitting treatment to his non-Muslim neighbors deserving of animals like cattle, nay, worse than cattle as Asad puts it. I grew up in the countryside, we raised cattle. Worse than cattle around us were foxes that grabbed our chickens or spoiled sugarcane plantations. We used to kill them at the first opportunity. Tigers, hyenas, wolves are worse than cattle, too. What treatment would Muslims render, if they happen to come across animals like these in their neighborhood? Heads of the kafirs should roll.

Concerning my quoted verse 4:56, Asad's translation basically say the same thing: For those rejecting Islam, "We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems) shall, in time, cause to endure fire: [and] every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering [in full]..."

This horrible cycle of punishment--that a Hindu, Christian or Jew deserves--would continue for eternity; so vile a people are they. No doubt, Allah's psychopathic punishment would surpass the barbarity of Hitler by infinite folds. Again, the original author is accurate in emphasizing that Allah has intense hatred of non-Muslims.

I will now touch upon three verses that Ghouse did not address. First verse 3:56:

"...moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come."

The question of how Allah will punish the kafirs in this world? Not by Himself but through the hands of his followers, aka Muslims. Muslims must engage the vile unbelievers in Jihadi wars and inflict grievous punishment on them; and those, who perish in the process, will receive Allah's succor in paradise (loaded with eternal virgins of immaculate beauty) as says the Quran [Quran 47:4]:

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Next verse 8:13:

"Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them".

The message is crystal-clear here. This means, Muslims must endeavor to take hold of those vile unbelievers, who oppose Allah and Muhammad mission (i.e., reject Islam) and "cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers." Allah's clear words are enough; nothing more is needed to be said on this.

Let me move on the last verse 9:111:

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.."

This can be accurately dubbed as the verse of 9/11 attacks. Life of Muslims has been purchased by Allah for fighting in Allah's cause (i.e., Jihad), in which they must slay and be slain. That is, they must wage Jihad and try their best to slay the kafirs. Obviously some Jihadis would be killed in such holy wars. But this death in Jihad battles, called martyrdom, is no loss for Muslims; instead, it the greatest, the most desirable, thing ever can happen to a Muslim; because, this martyrdom gives him a ticket for straight landing in Allah's paradise. Getting a ticket to paradise, believe Muslims, is the central aim of their every action in this world.

Some master deceivers of Islam would tell us that Jihad means struggling with the self, which will help them gain paradise. I hope, some of them will come forward and explain to us as to how struggling with the self would result in slaying the kafirs and getting killed in the process. Probably Ghouse can enlighten us on that.

Let me emphasize that Ghouse has done little research on the Quran. Moreover, he is either a good-hearted person with little knowledge of Islam or he is on a mission of deceiving the gullible kafirs. The fact that he said, "However, the verses that have been quoted "as from Quran" are actually manufactured a 1000 years ago and the neocons have been recycling it to malign a religion, that is their business and livelihood", means that he is undoubtedly out to deceive his willing audience.[ED: ASSERTION]

Has Ghouse torn away those pages of his Quran that contain these manufactured verses of brutality?

Let me emphasize to the reader that engaging with ignorants or deceivers takes us to no meaningful enlightenment on the subject. Therefore, I may wish to conclude this debate here, unless Ghouse comes forward with some solid, well-researched, arguments that deserve a response.

However, if readers are keen to get a full picture of the incitement of violence (i.e., Jihad) in Islam, I urge them to get a copy of my just-released book, Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery

I am getting some very encouraging assessments on the book from experts, including top professors (see in the link). I believe this book will have strong humanizing impact on Muslims (the radical ones), while help everyone understand why the world today is mired in the horror of terrorism.

Does the Quran Incite Violence? A Debate with Mike Ghouse, Part 1

MA Khan — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:01:56 EST

Mr. Mike Ghouse (MBA, MCom), claims his Website, is by a Speaker, Thinker & Writer on Pluralism/Interfaith, Terrorism, Islam, India & peace. He is a well-known Muslim activist based in Dallas and a prolific contributor to many Websites, including Desicritics. I have been confronted by him (also noticed him confronting others) on a few occasions, including once in Desicritics, that the Quran is a book of peace and that there is no violent verses in the Quran.

Recently a Hindu writer, in an e-mail group, commented on why Muslim terrorists bomb and cause harrowing carnage in Indian cities---such as Bangalore, Ahmedabad etc.---one after another that:

“In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals and hence He instructs the Muslims to mount any kind of torture and atrocities on them, kill them, burn them and their houses, take their women and children as captives and rape their women and so on. So the Koran says:

• “We have created, for hell, many genii (races) of men...and they are like brute beasts” (7.179)
• “Verily, those who disbelieve our signs, we will surely cast them to be broiled in the hell-fire, so often as their skins shall be well burnt, We will give them new skins in exchange, so that they may taste the sharper torment” (4.56)
• “Whosoever followeth any religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him in this life, and in the next life he shall be of those who perish” (3.85)
• “I will cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers” (8.12)
• “Therefore cut off their heads, and strike off all the ends of the fingers. This shall they suffer because they have opposed Allah and His Prophet, and whosoever shall oppose Allah and His Prophet, verily Allah will be severe in punishing them” (8.13)
• “moreover, as for the non-believers, I will punish them with grievous punishments in this world, and in the world is to come” (3.56)
• “they shall suffer a grievous punishment” (3.77).
• “They (believers) shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain” (9:111).”

In response, Mike Ghouse as usual threw in his challenge:

It is time to get over the propaganda that has been dished out over the years. There is no such verse in Qur'an, if you have the list produce me one. Not what is handed down to you, but the one you can point to? Remember, finding the truth is one's own responsibility. You have an open challenge here. Let’s clean the slates and live in peace, one person at a time.

Terrorism is committed by individuals and not religions, these are the dirty games played by individuals donning the mask of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or any one. They have everything to gain to upload hatred between people.

Although I deal with violent aspects of the Quran in my Website, previously I couldn’t take on Ghouse’s challenges because of the scarcity of time. This time I have taken it up. Ghouse has agreed to an open debate with me, which we have agreed to publish in Websites. Since, we both have published in Desicritics and come from that part of the world and that the debate started concerning Islamic terrorism issues in India, Desicritics is the best place to bring this debate to readers.

In this first installment, I am initiating the debate and hope Mr. Ghouse will soon do his part to continue the debate through.

Dear Mike Ghouse,

I am, hereby, taking up your open challenge and opening the debate here.
The said Indian writer has produced a set of Quranic verses, which obviously incite violence. You can see it yourself and still, you deny that there are no violent verses in the Quran. These verses have obviously been picked from the Quran according to my checking of six different translations. May I now ask you the following questions:

1. Why do you think that these verses do not exist in the Quran?
2. If you think that they exist in the Quran, why do you think that they do not incite violence?
3. Allah himself urges Muslims to ‘strike terror into the heart of the infidels’ [8:12]. Why do you disagree with Allah? Who knows better? You or Allah?
4. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad also said: “I have been victorious with terror.” Why do you disagree with Prophet Muhammad? Do you know better than the Prophet? Why do you think that Prophet Muhammad lied?

Let our debate start from here. I wait for your response. Once the debate is completed we will publish it on websites.

Inaction of State Governments is a Great Concern for Civil Liberty

Madhu Chandra — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:41:30 EST

Be it the post-Godhra episode in Gujarat 2002 or the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Orissa 2008 or the Mangalore Pub attack on women, the inaction of the ruling state government in dealing with fanatic outfits is a grave concern for Indian secularism.

The BJP Karnataka Government’s home minister making a decision to wait and watch the Sri Ram Sene outfit to carry out their diktat on "couples celebrating Valentine’s Day will be forced to marry in temples" is the clear sign of inaction of the state government.

Attacks on civil society carried out by religious fanatics of Hindutva brigades appear in mushrooming of their outfits. The Sri Ram Sene is the latest version and chose the mode of communalism to promote and propagate their outfit.

Sri Ram Sene’s chief Pramod Muthalik with multiple criminal records, who led the propaganda of promoting his organization through attacking the individual rights and the response of the Government allowing him to have an open press conference and uttering diktats on any couple found celebrating Valentine's Day will be forced to marry is the repetition of what has witnessed by the nation and the world in BJP-ruled Gujarat and Orissa, where massacres of religious minorities allegedly took place.

Valentine’s Day is the perfect time to express one’s love to loved ones or family members, it brings a smile on their faces. What is wrong with expressing one’s love with one’s lover or family members in the manner one likes? It can be done in Indian ways, or in the way of a love affair between Laila-Majnu or Romeo & Juliet! It is the right of every individual.

The open declaration over the Mangalore pub attack as victory and as a means to increase publicity of the Sri Ram Sene outfit and choosing the mode to promote their propaganda is very apprehensive. The modes of promoting one’s organization through propaganda like the Mangalore pub attack is a serious concern.

Communalism erupts in almost every state of India but how they are tackled is the difference. One recalls the communal genocide of post-Godhra, the one-sidedness of the Modi government to curb the riots and the Naveen Patnaik Government’s inactive response to anti-Christian violence in Orissa, where in the previous case, thousands of innocent Muslims were massacred and in the latter, over 50,000 innocent tribal Christians were forced homeless.

Surprisingly, Hindutva’s brigade did not stop there, but moves to attacking the innocent civil societies. Today they are targeting the youngsters in the name of Indian culture. Tomorrow, nobody knows, but could happen to those of you who see everything but keep mum.

The selection of the right time to carry out the communal attacks by these outfits has always a connection with upcoming elections, either for a state assembly or for the Parliament. The political leaders, particularly of those parties who sympathize with Hindutva outfits would keep quiet and watch until the matter worsens because that helps them gain political mileage.

Hindutva taking root in the southern part of the country through the gateway of Karnataka is another signpost of the attack on Indian secularism and is a grave concern for every Indian citizen. Open acclaim in the cities like Mangalore and the way the accused are left free, gives similar outfits the expectation that they can carry out such acts anywhere and at any time.

The Hindutva hatred has almost spread to every nook and corner of the country. In Western India, beginning from Gujarat to the east up to the North= east frontier, from Jammu and Kashmir in north to Kanyakumari in south, the social fabrics of society are targeted to break through communalism among different religious, ethnic, caste and linguistic groups.

What matters the most is the responsibility of the concerned state government whenever any form of communalism erupts. The inactive responsibility of the Hindutva-sympathetic governments to curb communalism is very unpleasant for civil societies!

Obama, Terrorism and Kashmir

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:44:51 EST

Pakistan is a problem for Obama, a big problem, much bigger than even Palestine. This is not only because Pakistan is a frontline ally in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but also because Pakistan is under the grip of Islamic fundamentalists who control vast swathes of the country. As Pakistan officially cooperates (in varying degrees) with the American government in its fight against the Taliban, its population turns more and more anti-American. Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus has very close links with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamists. The US has no chance in hell of dismantling the army-ISI-Islamists link unless the Kashmir problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the common Pakistani. In the eyes of the average Pakistani, the Kashmir dispute necessitates a strong Pakistani army, strategic depth in Afghanistan and links with insurgents willing to become martyrs in Kashmir. If the Kashmir dispute is resolved, Pakistan’s rulers (Zardari or anyone else in power) will find it easy to crush Islamic militancy in Pakistan and divert Pakistan’s resources to Afghanistan.

For that reason, Obama will find it irresistible to try and persuade India to solve the Kashmir dispute. When I say resolve, I mean a resolution that is to the satisfaction of the common Pakistani. India has already had a taste of such interference when a couple of weeks ago, British foreign minister David Miliband wrote in a British newspaper (the Guardian) that “resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders”. Miliband got a lot of flak for saying what he said, both in India and even from British journalists. It is very much possible that Miliband’s article was in anticipation of Obama changing the US policy on Kashmir.

India has always taken the stand that Kashmir is an internal issue and that it will not permit third party mediation. I wouldn’t say that India should change its stand if Obama were to request India to do so. Over twenty years of militancy have vitiated the atmosphere so much in the valley. Kashmir is no longer a territorial dispute, but is a part of the global fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Also, the only resolution that will be acceptable to Pakistan is accession to Pakistan. India should continue to resist any outside interference in Kashmir. However, India must also prepare to withstand pressure from the United States and the adorable Mr. Obama.

Book Review : The Jewel of Medina

Kim — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:21:05 EST

I had heard of the controversy surrounding "The Jewel of Medina" a couple of months ago, but it hadn't really inspired me to go out and buy the book immediately. Of course there was the other matter of it not being available in a Middle Eastern country. But when a friend of mine told me she had the book in case I was interested, I decided to see what the fuss was all about.

The book was initially quite ho-hum (compared to some of the other books I have read on the subject) while it covered the childhood politics around a little girl growing up in a polygamous family where her own mother was the second wife. The girl just happens to be Aisha Bint Abi Bakr, herself an extremely controversial character in Islam. After the Prophets death, she led an army against his son-in-law Ali, which was the cause for the Sunni-Shia split.

Sunnis claim Aisha was the favorite wife of the Prophet, while Shiites believe that he disliked her for her disobedience. Sunni accounts put the Prophet in Aisha's embrace at the time of his death and Shiites believe that he died in Ali's arms.

Why is The Jewel so inflammatory?

Conservative Catholics across the globe were vociferously against "The DaVinci Code" as it was based on the anti-thesis of a non-negotiable fact - that Jesus was married and sired a bloodline. This questioned the foundations of the Catholic faith and the vows of celibacy taken by priests and nuns.

"The Jewel of Medina" portrays each edict passed by Mohamed as being one for personal gain. It also caricatures him as an old man in constant sexual overdrive, whose only interest was in finding the next beautiful young bride. Drawing conclusions and elaborating on the fact that, when his male followers were allowed only 4 wives, the limitations did not apply to him. And other such incendiary conclusions.

For someone who is not familiar with the basics behind the Islamic teachings, it is a disastrous book to read, because it will completely distort the idea of Islam and its foundations. Ms Jones in her interviews has claimed that she wrote this book to make Islam more accessible and understandable to the general public in USA.

If this is her target audience, it will only serve to further aggravate the differences between Muslims and non-Muslims in America where a majority of non-Muslims already look upon Muslims with suspicion and in extreme cases, even hatred. Among the non-Muslims in America, there is a wide spread belief that women are completely dominated by men in this religion, they are forced to cover up from head to toe by overbearing fathers and husbands. This book will only serve to deepen and worsen those beliefs. I do not see any "understanding" coming out of this book.

The problem with writing fiction with characters from real life is that very few readers actually have the ability or knowledge to distinguish the line between the blurred lines of fact and fiction in a novel. And how much of this book is fiction? As a non-Muslim with basic information about Islam from my Muslim friends, I was quite riled up about certain injustices being described in certain sections of this book. This is a normal process when reading a book, the skill of the author is in making you feel for the characters. But the way it is portrayed as fact, brings these feelings out back into the world beyond the reading of a book.

What Ms Jones has written is a piece of fiction and not even a well researched one at that. Friends of mine who are scholars in Islamic studies, say that the inaccuracies are innumerable.

Geraldine Brooks (who has extensively researched the history of this era), author of the 1995 nonfiction book, "Nine Parts of Desire" whom Jones has cited as one her initial inspiration, says this in her review of The Jewel of Medina, "if you wish to claim that your novel is "extensively researched", why lurch around in time and space, grabbing at concepts such as hatun, or leading wife, which Jones knows full well belongs to the Ottoman empire of centuries later, or purdah, which exists in Persian, Urdu and Hindi but not Arabic? Why refer to an Islamic veil by the modern Western term "wrapper"? Why have Muslims bowing to Aisha, when bowing is an alien custom to desert Arabia and to Islam's egalitarian ethos?"

Is "The Jewel of Medina" a good story? - Well, it manages to keep your interest going after the initial chapters, wondering what is going to come next? and How will Aisha manage this latest calamity?. But in most parts it reads like Mills & Boone/ Silhouette kind of Soft Porn.

I ask a larger question : "Is it ethical to write a book like this, which caricatures a person who is the cornerstone of a particular religion?

Disclaimer : I do not want to get into a debate about death threats, riots and fatwas that inevitably follow a book of this kind.

Is Terrorism a Vice born out of Patriotic Virtues?

Suresh Naig — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:36:20 EST

Patriotism, as per the dictionary, conveys a person’s loyalty, devotion and readiness to defend and guard a country, to which one belongs. From time immemorial patriotism is extolled, as a supreme virtue. Since patriotism is more emotional than rational, the benignity of patriotism could easily be converted into malignant terrorism, by stoking emotions.

A nation or a country has different dimensions, other than its geographical boundaries. It has its economic, social, and cultural dimensions too. A country is united by its cohesive cultural identity, which supersedes every other factor – geographical, economical or political. When this cultural identity is uprooted, mere geographical intact-ness of a country loses its relevance. Or to put it the other way, a country cobbled up on apparent lines of similarity, other than cultural cohesiveness, cannot stay intact in the longer run.

Break-up of USSR into different fragments, could be attributed to different reasons and the major being cultural disconnect. The same cultural bondage saw unification of Germany, on the 3rd of October, 1990. Break-up of USSR into fragments and re-unification of East Germany and West Germany, were almost simultaneous. Communism as a philosophy lacked the cultural cohesiveness in neither uniting nor dividing countries.

In spite of different kingdoms existed in our mother land, due to geographical convenience, economic viability, territorial advantage and individual avarice, Bharat was united culturally. Adi Shankara in 5th Century BC (those of you who want to dispute the period of Adi Shankara to 6th Century AD, pl wait) could not have established his mutts in different directions, North, East, West and South, but for the cultural connectivity existed in our land.

This cultural connectivity of our great nation was beyond religions, for our cultural uniqueness, accepted every religion into its fold, without antagonising any religion or sect. In addition to Hinduism; Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and Christianity continues to co-exist in our great land, since our culture is basically polytheist in nature. But for the cultural cohesiveness of our land, British would have failed to create a single political entity as India. Without understanding our basic strength, many attribute our sovereignty to English, whereas British were more known for their dividing capabilities than unifying credentials.

Many a time, religion and culture are misunderstood, to be overlapping to each other; experiments in that direction also failed; sterling example is the split of Pakistan into two. Pakistan was born out of apparent similarity of religion, but bereft of cultural cohesiveness and hence it was not able to stay as one political unit. Without proper understanding of this phenomenon, disgruntled elements in Pakistan are seeing a demon in India, which had engineered the split.

Patriotism is apparently misunderstood in Pakistan, by encompassing religion into its patriotic firmament, since the country originated on religious grounds. Because of this confused logic, select few inside Pakistan want to avenge India on religious lines, attributing assumed reasons of religious suppression in Kashmir and for causing the split of Bangladesh. However much diabolic or manic the design might be, because of its sanctification from the religious patriots, the feeble voices of reasonable persons in Pakistan have been dinned by the noises of radicals.

The radicals, however miniscule in number, wield enormous political and religious clout; they have absolute power of destruction. Political power centre in Pakistan had lost its control over these rogue elements since long and hence they continue to deny the presence of terror elements in their land.

Overt operations such as war or economic sanctions would hurt only the section in Pakistan which does not have anything to do with these terror elements and it is better for India to think of covert actions, aimed at hitting these modules beyond recovery.