Featured Post

FrontPage صفحہ اول

Salaam Pakistan  is one of projects of  "SalaamOne Network" , to provide information and intellectual resource with a view to...

Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts

Anti-Muslim hate crimes to get own category, bringing Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitism

Anti-Muslim hate crimes are to be recorded as a separate category for the first time by police in England and Wales, Prime Minister David Cameron has announced. The move brings Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitic attacks targeting Jews, which have been recorded separately for some time. It was announced as the Home Office prepared to unveil new statistics which are expected to show a rise in numbers of hate crimes over the past year, continuing the trend seen in 2013/14, when offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent and race hate crime by 4 per cent in the wake of the murder of soldier Lee Rigby. Offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent since the murder of Lee Rigby Mr Cameron also announced he will provide new funding to boost security at religious buildings, as he hosted the first meeting of a new Community Engagement Forum at Downing Street. The Forum brings together representatives of faiths including Islam from around the country, and is intended to provide the PM with an opportunity to hear directly from those challenging extremism in the community. Announcing its creation in a speech in Birmingham in July, Mr Cameron said it was part of a drive to isolate extremists and "actively encourage reforming and moderate voices" in Muslim communities. Downing Street said the Forum will discuss the objectives of the Government's upcoming counter-extremism strategy, which is due for publication later this month and will include plans for a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremism. The meeting will also consider what more the authorities can do to help support young British Muslims. Speaking ahead of the meeting, the Prime Minister said: "We all have a role to play in confronting extremism. That's why I have invited important Muslim and non-Muslim figures to join the new Community Engagement Forum, so I can hear directly about their work in our communities, the challenges they face and so that they can be part of our One Nation strategy to defeat it. "I want to build a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremists and the poison they peddle. I want British Muslims to know we will back them to stand against those who spread hate and to counter the narrative which says Muslims do not feel British. "And I want police to take more action against those who persecute others simply because of their religion." Official Home Office figures showed that police forces in England and Wales recorded 2,273 crimes perceived to be motivated by religious hostility in 2013/14, up 45 per cent from the 1,573 recoded in 2012/13. Over the same period, recorded race hate crimes increased by 4 per cent from 35,889 to 37,484. The increases were ascribed by an official report at the time in part to the fallout from Fusilier Rigby's murder by Islamist extremists in south-east London in May 2013. Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Hate crime has no place in Britain and I am determined to make further progress to ensure we can eradicate this deplorable act. "Working with police to provide a breakdown in religious-based hate crime data will help forces to build community trust, target their resources and enable the public to hold them to account. "Our Counter-Extremism Strategy will be published later this month and will introduce a wide range of measures to defeat all forms of extremism. These will empower communities to confront extremist ideologies, and build more cohesive communities where everyone feels able to succeed." Downing Street said no figure has yet been decided for the additional funding to protect places of worship, which will be fixed following discussion with members of the new Forum.

by Andrew Woodcock, independent.co.uk

Labels: , , , , , ,

I’m a Muslim woman, Mr Cameron: here’s what your radicalisation speech means to me

Dear Mr Cameron,

What did your speech on radicalisation this week actually mean to someone like me?

Despite being born in Manchester, growing up here and being a proud Mancunian (let’s overlook my support for Liverpool FC), for the first time in 37 years I feel as though I don’t belong. And yes, I am Muslim. Just a British Muslim.

I used to hear the term “Muslim community” and think of a peaceful hard-working community who settled in the UK to create a better future for generations to come. Now I hear that and it paints a picture of a misunderstood, frightened community under attack and feeling the need to continually apologise and defend its religious beliefs.

There have been many responses to your speech, and some well-researched analyses. But I need you to listen to someone like me. I need to have confidence that the person shaping my children’s future has an understanding of the impact of legislation imposed by you and your government.

Let’s start with the proposal regarding passports. You said this week that parents will have the power to confiscate their child’s passport if they fear they will travel to Syria or Iraq to fight for Isis. No parent wants their child to do that – and not just Muslim parents. Why anyone would join Isis is beyond my comprehension, so having the ability as a parent to stop my child ever coming to harm would be welcome. But just out of curiosity, if my child’s passport is confiscated, would they then be labelled a “non-violent extremist” and, if so, what would be the consequences for them?

There is a lot of talk at the moment of “ideology”. To be clear, “ideology” doesn’t make me feel isolated. “Ideology” doesn’t drive radicalisation. Islamophobia, foreign policy and double standards make me feel isolated and scared and, I suspect, are the real driving force behind radicalisation.

Like others before you, including Tony Blair, you say your objection isn’t to Muslims and Islam but towards violent jihadism. It’s difficult for me to believe in your sincerity though, when you’ve created a society where just talking about certain aspects of Islam is now considered extremist.

Muslims and Islam have been vilified and demonised by society and the media. Islamophobic attacks are on the rise. And no, I haven’t been the target of an Islamophobic attack yet, but I’m also not naive enough to think it won’t happen to me just because I don’t wear a headscarf or because my clothing is more westernised. I dread opening my news app in case there’s another unfair, biased headline for which I will then have to apologise, whether it’s about child grooming or a violent killing.

I was pleased to hear you mention Islamophobia, but what have you done to counter it? Did I miss that in your speech, David? Prior to the general election, Theresa May proposed Islamophobia being recorded as a separate crime, but is this actually going to happen?

The media’s prejudiced use of the term “terrorism” has created the link between the word Muslim and terrorism, embedding it in people’s minds and propagating hate towards the Muslim community. Anders Behring Breivik was labelled a terrorist until he was found not to be Muslim; then many chose to brand him a “mass murderer” instead. Dylann Roof was described by many people simply as a “shooter”, despite having a manifesto of hate. Had they been Muslim, both would surely have been straightforwardly deemed “terrorists”. Why should I have to stop my children from watching the news or reading the papers? The media is using the actions of a few – who quite clearly do not understand the meaning of Islam – to tarnish 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide and demonise a peaceful religion. The media needs to take some responsibility for the way in which Muslims are being treated in the UK and for the rise in Islamophobia.

David, you need to ensure the media is fair in its reporting. This double standard, inadequately monitored by the regulator Ipso – the supposedly independent body created after the Leveson inquiry – contributes towards people’s lack of a “sense of belonging” and to radicalisation.

You completely failed to mention foreign policy. Do you really believe we didn’t notice the huge elephant in the room? I am not going to go into the politics of the numerous bombings that have been embarked upon, but how do I explain to my children that 519 Palestinian children were killed last year and the UK did nothing, while approximately half a million people were killed in Iraq on the basis of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist? Can you come and explain that to my two boys?

I wonder what the future holds for them. Will they be able to practise their faith or will they have to do it discreetly for fear of a teacher reporting them under the current Prevent legislation? Will any signs of increased religious practise be seen as a sign of “radicalisation” under this legislation? This same legislation was called a failure in an open letter to a major national newspaper this month by British academics, not just Muslims. Any human being, regardless of whether they are a teacher or doctor, would stop harm happening to others. As a GP I don’t need legislation to tell me to report someone I feel will harm others: I find that insulting. Do you think I have spent the past 12 years of my career allowing harm to occur?

Related: By scapegoating Muslims, Cameron fuels radicalisation | Seumas Milne

What will the job opportunities be like for my children? You expressed disgust at those who believed “Muslims were taking over the government” when all they would like to do is engage with the system – and surely this fits in with “British values”. But how will you ensure this happens fairly? You failed to mention how you will tackle the discrimination currently faced by Muslims in the workplace. Where is the policy intervention to address this issue so Muslims feel like they “belong”?

You say you want to “empower” moderate voices among British Muslims. I welcome that wholeheartedly. So when will you be replacing the Quilliam foundation with people who represent me and have some credibility and respect among British Muslims? There are “moderate” practising Muslims and organisations who are willing to work with you to tackle the threat of radicalisation and who are representative of the 2.7 million British Muslims living in the UK.

The thoughts and worries are endless. This is the reality of being a Muslim in Britain at the moment. If you are genuine about tackling “extremism” talk to the people who matter and address the issues that really count.

I await your reply.

I’m a Muslim woman, Mr Cameron: here’s what your radicalisation speech means to me?
theguardian.com

Labels: , , ,

At the mercy of bigots

When it comes to the exercise of freedom of speech or action, there exist no absolute principles. Even in the West, lines drawn to protect such freedoms are largely arbitrary. They are products of the historical evolution of those societies, as well as their existing social consciousness and power matrix and not the outcome of the consistent application of any principle. US law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnic or national origin, but denigrating the beliefs of Muslims is defended as an essential human liberty. 9/11 did many terrible things to this world, one of which was allowing bigots all over the world to wear their hate on their sleeves and practice it freely. The hypocrisy and double standards are all too obvious in the West as well as the Muslim world. 
Bigotry and racism are penalised for being illegal in some situations and celebrated as markers of freedom in others. There are laws against anti-Semitism in many western countries that have a history of tormenting the Jewish people. There are laws prohibiting the denial of the Holocaust. These are useful laws introduced to curb religious hatred and acknowledge widespread persecution of Jews in the past. But if anti-Semitism is prohibited (as it rightly should be, being a product of racism and bigotry) why have manifestations of Islamophobia, motivated by the same sentiments of hate and prejudice, come to be celebrated as expressions of necessary human liberty worth protecting? 
Let us consider three unrelated concepts to understand competing narratives on the problem of blasphemy, bigotry and mindless violence. The first is John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’ propounded in his essay “On Liberty” – that remains a foundation for contemporary liberal thought – where he argued that, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant...” The right to free speech and action is an extension of the right to think freely. An assumption implicitly included within Mill’s harm principle is that speech in itself can cause no harm. 
The second concept is one presented by John B Finch, who highlighted the limits of ones freedom of action by asserting that, “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” And the third is apublic policy concept that justifies prohibiting free speech when “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” will produce a “clear and present danger.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., while declaring illegal the distribution of pamphlets opposing the draft during the First World War had argued in the US Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States that, “the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent...” 
What is the logical basis to argue that words can do no harm? If ‘words can do no harm’ is an immutable principle, why criminalise Holocaust denial? Why recognise provocation as a mitigating factor in criminal law? Why contrive the crime of defamation or ban hate-speech? Why prohibit anyone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Let us not forget the difference between law and justice. Justice is the ideal that law has historically failed to realise being a tool in the hands of the powerful. The point is simply this: there exists no absolute right to free speech, expression or action anywhere in the world. The policies reflected in the law meant to protect these liberties are products of arbitrary choices made by power wielders based on their own sensibilities, worldview and taste. 
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that entered into force on March 23, 1976, mandated that, “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” If presenting the Prophet of Islam, whose humanism and virtuosity forms the cornerstone of the faith of over 2 billion Muslims, in the vilest possible manner doesn’t constitute advocacy of religious hatred and incitement of violence, what else will? Just because liberal political thought in the West is rooted in the history of separation of church and state that brought along mockery of religion, doesn’t necessarily mean that mockery of Muslim faith and sensibilities must accompany expansion of liberties in Muslim societies. 
Let us agree that Machiavelli got it right. Those who wield power determine what is and isn’t acceptable conduct. So what should Muslims do when they feel that the dominant West is promoting and defending hate speech against them and their Prophet in the name of liberty? In terms of taking constructive action there are two obvious strategies. There is a moral argument to be made: justifying manifestations of Islamophobia meant to hurt Muslim dignity and faith is wrong and such conduct must be discouraged within civilised societies through legal and social censure. The real-politick argument would be that Muslim states and societies must acquire such power and influence that their sensibilities can no longer be ignored in global power corridors. 
But how do we choose to respond? We cut the nose to spite the face. We indulge in vandalism, burn down public property, attack our own police, and terrorise fellow citizens for the offense caused by bigots on the other side of the world. The reaction in Pakistan to the offensive film against our Prophet corroborates views of Dominique Moisi in The Geopolitics of Emotion. Moisi has suggested that Muslim societies around the world have been enveloped by a sense of humiliation nurtured by loss of hope in the future. This causes despair and breeds a sense of revenge. Such revenge, being a negative emotion, doesn’t aim at rising to the level of ones perceived tormenters but bringing them down to one’s level through violence and destruction. 
So what is our strategy? That we will react to provocation by bigots abroad by cultivating and unleashing on ourselves the biggest hoodlums and bigots possibly conceivable? And that acting blindingly incensed will somehow terrorise the whole conspiring infidel world into respecting Islam and our Prophet? The ironic part is that the bearded bigots amongst us who have transformed hate mongering into a profession are most incensed on being served a taste of their own medicine. The Ishq-e-Rasool Day – when Pakistanis ought to have projected the values of civility and humanism that we associate with our Prophet – has brought into full public view the predatory tendencies of our society and the pusillanimity of the state. 
So what is the brave new idea of our ruling power elite: let us highjack the agenda of the bigoted brigades. And how is that to be accomplished? Simple: let the non-bearded act and prove to be bigger fanatics than the bearded. If the few days of Shariah enforcement in Swat under Sufi Mohammad and Fazlullah opened people’s eyes to the catastrophe that had hit that serene valley, the conduct of our bigoted brigades and their mindless recruits and followers on Ishq-e-Rasool Day should be a wake-up call for all thoughtful minds in Pakistan. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq might have sown and nurtured the seeds of bigotry and intolerance as a matter of state policy, but subsequent regimes have continued to water those plants. They are now bearing fruit. 
Intolerance is the biggest threat confronting Pakistan today. It is becoming an auto-immune disease proliferating and radicalising the society. Our power-wielders and thought leaders must understand that appeasement won’t work. Let us convince the West to rethink Mill’s ‘harm principle’. But it is more crucial for the state to ensure that religious bigots keep their fists in check.
Visit: http://freebookpark.blogspot.com
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Anti Islam Video from USA, Holocaust & Freedom of Speech


Video Response to the blasphemous Anti Islam Film>>http://lnkd.in/Cz4uyq


On the pretext of freedom of speech USA and West allows the extremists to insult Islam, Quran and Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him]. They are well aware that this will hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims, the world over who can not bear any non sense on the pretext of freedom of speech. On the other side In … Continue reading »
اللہ کا واسطہ، ہوش کے ناخن لو!...قلم کمان …حامد میر
میرا درد اور تکلیف ناقابل بیاں تھی۔ یہ تکلیف میری صحافیانہ جستجو کا نتیجہ تھی۔ میں نے سی این این پر ایک اسلام مخالف فلم کے خلاف لیبیا میں احتجاجی مظاہروں کی خبر دیکھی تو انٹرنیٹ پر اس فلم کو تلاش کرنا شروع کیا۔ ایک ساتھی نے فلم کو کسی ویب سائٹ سے ڈاؤن لوڈ کرکے میری مشکل کو آسان کردیا لیکن جیسے ہی میں نے فلم دیکھنی شروع کی تو مجھے ایسے لگا کہ کسی نے میرے دل و دماغ پر ہتھوڑے برسانے شروع کردئیے ہیں۔ میں خود کو بہت مضبوط اعصاب کا مالک سمجھتا ہوں لیکن سام بیسائل کی طرف سے”مسلمانوں کی مظلومیت“ کے نام سے بنائی گئی یہ فلم اس دور کی سب سے بڑی دہشتگردی تھی کیونکہ اس فلم کے مناظر اور ڈائیلاگ مسلسل بم دھماکوں سے کم نہ تھے۔ گیارہ ستمبر2001ء کو نیویارک اور واشنگٹن میں القاعدہ کے حملوں سے تین ہزار امریکی مارے گئے تھے لیکن گیارہ ستمبر2012ء کو یو ٹیوب پر جاری کی جانے والی اس فلم نے کروڑوں مسلمانوں کی روح کو زخمی کیا۔ میں اس فلم کو چند منٹ سے زیادہ نہیں دیکھ سکا۔ اس خوفناک فلم کی تفصیل کو بیان کرنا بھی میرے لئے بہت تکلیف دہ ہے۔ بس یہ کہوں گا کہ اس فلم کے چند مناظر دیکھ کر سام بیسائل کے مقابلے پر اسامہ بن لادن بہت چھوٹا سا انتہا پسند محسوس ہوا۔ یہ اعزاز اب امریکہ کے پاس ہے کہ اس صدی کا سب سے بڑا دہشتگرد سام بیسائل اپنی انتہائی گندی اور بدبو دار ذہنیت کے ساتھ صدر اوباما کی پناہ میں ہے۔ اللہ تعالیٰ کا لاکھ لاکھ شکر ہے کہ آج تک کبھی کسی مسلمان نے حضرت عیسیٰ  یا کسی دوسرے نبی کی شان میں گستاخی نہیں کی ۔ امریکہ کی طرف سے ہمارے دینی مدارس پر بہت اعتراضات کئے جاتے ہیں کہیں ان دینی مدارس کے طلبہ نے کبھی مسیحی یا یہودی مذاہب کی ایسی توہین کے بارے میں سوچا بھی نہ ہوگا جو سام بیسائل نے مسلمانوں اور ان کے پیارے نبی حضرت ﷺ کی۔ مجھے افسوس ہے کہ امریکی صدر اوباما کی طرف سے اس فلم کے خلاف آنے والا ردعمل برائے نام ہے۔ اس فلم کو امریکی اقدار کے خلاف قرار دینا کافی نہیں بلکہ یہ اعتراف کرنا بھی ضروری ہے کہ کچھ مسیحی اور یہودی انتہا پسند ریاست ہائے متحدہ امریکہ کو مسلمانوں کے خلاف ایک بیس کیمپ کے طور پر استعمال کرنے کی کوشش کررہے ہیں۔ یہ انتہا پسند القاعدہ، طالبان اور حقانی نیٹ ورک سے زیادہ خطرناک ہیں۔ میں صدر اوباما سے سام بیسائل اور ٹیری جونز جیسے دہشتگردوں کے خلاف کارروائی کی بھیک نہیں مانگوں گا لیکن امریکی میڈیا میں ا پنے دوستوں سے گزارش کروں گا کہ وہ یہ پتہ ضرور لگائیں کہ ان کے ہم وطن دہشتگردوں کو امریکہ کے کون کون سے خفیہ ادارے کی حمایت حاصل ہے۔ یقینا ٹیری جونز اور سام بیسائل پورے امریکہ کے ترجمان نہیں اور آج امریکہ میں رمزے کلارک جیسے بزرگ بھی موجود ہیں جو ایک پاکستانی خاتون ڈاکٹر عافیہ صدیقی کی رہائی کا مطالبہ کررہے ہیں لیکن مجھے ایسے لگتا ہے کہ آج عالم اسلام میں امریکہ کی پہچان رمزے کلارک نہیں بلکہ سام بیسائل بن چکا ہے۔
سام بیسائل کی دہشتگردی نے مجھے صلاح الدین ایوبی کی یاد دلائی جس نے ایک مسیحی بادشاہ کی طرف سے مسلمانوں کے پیارے نبی حضرت محمد اکرم کی شان میں گستاخی پر غضبناک ہو کر تلوار اٹھالی تھی اور آخر کار بیت المقدس کو فتح کرکے دم لیا تھا۔ افسوس کہ آج عالم اسلام کے کسی حکمران میں اتنا دم نہیں کہ وہ آئے روز توہین رسالت اور توہین قرآن کرنے والوں کے عالمی سرپرستوں کو للکار سکے۔ ہمارے ریاستی ادارے توہین رسالت اور توہین قرآن کے جھوٹے الزامات میں اپنے ہم وطن غریب غیر مسلموں کو گرفتار کرنے میں کوئی دیر نہیں لگاتے لیکن جب امریکی فوجی گوانتاناموبے یا قندھار میں قرآن کی توہین کرتے ہیں جب ٹیری جونز الاعلان قرآ ن پاک کو نذر آتش کرتا ہے اور جب سام بیسائل ایک فلم کے ذریعہ ہماری روح کو لہولہان کردیتا ہے تو ہم اور ہمارے حکمران محض زبانی کلامی مذمت کو کافی سمجھتے ہیں اگر لیبیا یا یمن میں امریکی سفارتخانے پر حملہ ہوجائے تو امریکہ وہاں فوج بھیجنے کی دھمکی دے سکتا ہے لیکن ہم آجاکر اپنی ہی سڑکوں پر اپنی ہی املاک کی توڑ پھوڑ کے سوا کچھ نہیں کرسکتے۔
ہمیں اعتراف کرنا چاہئے کہ آج ہم صلاح الدین ایوبی کو یاد تو کرسکتے ہیں لیکن صلاح الدین ایوبی بننے کی سکت نہیں رکھتے۔ صلاح الدین ایوبی ایک کرد تھا لیکن اس نے ا پنی ہمت و شجاعت سے ایک ایسی فوج کی قیادت کی جس میں عرب، ترک اورکردوں سمیت کئی زبانیں بولنے والے مسلمان شامل تھے۔اس فوج کے پاس سب سے بڑی طاقت جذبہ ایمانی تھی اور اس جذبہ ایمانی کو ختم کرنے کے لئے دشمن نے مسلمانوں میں لسانی، نسلی اور فرقہ وارانہ اختلافات کوفروغ دیا۔ کون نہیں جانتا کہ برطانوی فوج کے افسر کرنل لارنس نے مسلمانوں کا اتحاد توڑنے کے لئے ان میں قومیت پرستی کا جذبہ ابھارا اور عربوں کو ترکوں سے لڑا دیا۔ آج ہمارے پاس ایٹمی طاقت موجود ہے لیکن جذبہ ایمانی مفقود ہے۔ ہمارے اندرونی حالات نے ہمارے ایٹم بم کو بھی ا یک مذاق بنادیا ہے۔ ایسا لگتا ہے کہ ہم نے ایٹم بم اپنے بچاؤ کے لئے نہیں بنایا بلکہ ہم ہر وقت ایٹم بم کو دشمن سے بچائے پھرتے ہیں۔ ہماری بے بسی کا عالم یہ ہے کہ ہم اپنے دشمنوں کو خوش کرنے کے لئے ایک دوسرے پر گولیاں چلاتے ہیں اور ایک دوسرے کو اغواء کرتے ہیں، پھر اس قتل و غارت اور اغواء کاری کی تحقیقات کا تقاضا بھی دشمن سے کرتے ہیں۔
سوچنے کی بات یہ ہے کہ ہمارا قانون ہمیں تحفظ نہیں دے سکتا، ہم ایک دوسرے کو تحفظ نہیں دے سکتے تو ہم اپنے پیارے نبی حضرت محمد مصطفی ﷺ کی ناموس کی حفاظت کیسے کرسکتے ہیں؟ میری اطلاع کے مطابق امریکہ اور ہالینڈ میں دو ایسی فلمیں بنائی جارہی ہیں جن میں مسلمانوں کے شیعہ سنی اختلافات کو بڑھا چڑھا کر پیش کیا جائے گا۔ اس میں سے ایک فلم ایران کے خلاف ہے جس کا مقصد شیعہ سنی اختلافات کے علاوہ ایرانیوں اور عربوں کے نسلی اختلافات کو اچھالنا ہے۔ دوسری فلم شام کے شیعہ سنی اختلافات کے متعلق ہے۔ ایک مغربی ٹی وی چینل کی طرف سے بلوچستان کے حالات پر ڈاکو منٹری فلم بنائی جارہی ہے جس میں بلوچوں اور پشتونوں کے اختلافات کو ابھارنے کی کوشش کی جائے گی۔ بلوچستان میں بلوچ ، پشتون، ہزارہ اور پنجابیوں سمیت ہندو برادری کو کون کیسے ایک دوسرے سے لڑا رہا ہے اس پر کسی اگلے کالم میں بات ہوگی فی الحال صرف یہ کہنا ہے کہ ایک نبی ماننے والو ہوش کے ناخن لو۔ نہ پشتون کسی بلوچ کا دشمن ہے نہ بلوچ کسی ہزارہ کا دشمن ہے نہ سندھی کسی مہاجر کا دشمن ہے بلکہ سب صرف مسلمان ہیں اور ہمارا اصل دشمن وہ ہے جو ہمارے نبی کی شان میں گستاخی کررہا ہے۔ دشمن ہمیں آپس میں لڑارہا ہے ،ہمیں مارتا بھی ہے اور ایک دوسرے کے ہاتھوں مرواتا بھی ہے اس مشترکہ دشمن کے خلاف متحد ہوجاؤ!
اسلام دشمن فلم پر ہمارے برساتی مینڈک خاموش کیوں؟؟...کس سے منصفی چاہیں … انصار عباسی
لیبیا میں اِسلام مخالف فلم کیخلاف احتجاج کرنیوالوں کے ہاتھوں امریکی سفیر کی ہلاکت پر اقوام متحدہ اور غیرمسلم ممالک کے ساتھ ساتھ مسلمان ممالک بشمول پاکستان نے فوری مذمتی بیانات جاری کئے مگر کسی ایک اسلامی ملک نے بھی ...
 http://dunya.com.pk/?key=VjFjeE1HTXhTbGRSYkZaVFZrWmFURmxzVlRGaU1YQkdXa1prVkdKRmNFWlVWbVIzWVZVeGRWb3phRnBpUlRWb1dWY3hTMUl3T1ZsUmJVWlRVa1ZKTVZaR1dsTlZNWEJ5VGxoR1ZWWkZjRTlXYTFweVpERlJlRlZzY0d0V01Gb3hWVmN3TUZCUlBUMD0=
Visit: http://freebookpark.blogspot.com
Labels: , , , , ,

Treatment of Minorities [Non Muslims] in Islam & Pakistan: Debate

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tanzil - Quran Navigator

  • Download Free Quran Tafsir Software: Quran with Tafseer 1.0 is used to read and learn the Holy Quran in Arabic, Urdu and English Languages with five Translations and four Tafseer, all bundled together in one easy to use and small size of application. The software is equipped with a web type user interface for ease of use and provided Tafseer text with show-hide functionality also not required to install Urdu/Arabic language support, it can be determined translation and meaning of an aya from different respected scholars. These all resources can be freely used and distributed.
  • Quran, Islam & Humanity: 

Labels: , , , , , ,

The Other side: Positive Role of Madaris




Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Talking Tall- A peep to Muslim History in India

WebpageTranslator
The roots of the modern-day Hindu-Muslim antipathy in India and sectarian violence in Pakistan lie not in the distant past, but a mere 150 years back in history; or soon after the failure of the 1857 Indian Mutiny.

As the British became a lot more imposing after the failed mutiny, they also began introducing a greater number of modern ideas and technology, some of which suddenly awakened the Muslims to a stark reality. Muslims realised that they were actually a minority in India, something that was ignored by them due to hundreds of years of Muslim rule in India.

As the region’s Muslims finally resigned to the fact that the age of Muslim kings was as good as over, a number of Muslim scholars and reformers emerged and attempted to tackle this dilemma. Four strains of such reforms emerged: The conservative Deobandi movement, the puritanical Ahl-i-Hadidh movement, the ‘folk-Islam’ of the majority Berelvi creed of Islam and the modernist Islam.

The conservative as well as modernist reformers, though disagreeing on a number of issues, agreed that to tackle their community’s sudden minority mindset, Muslims of the region must now start identifying themselves as citizens of a worldwide Muslim ummah. It is also interesting to note that in spite of the fact that many among the modern-day Pakistani clergy and sectarian elements insist that their actions are tied to ideas of the first communities of Islam, a lot of literary material used in Pakistan ever since the 1980s in the shaping of various ‘Islamic’ laws and the rhetoric used to fan sectarian/communal hatred first emerged among the subcontinent’s Muslims not more than 200 years ago.

For example, the Mughals and the Muslims of the subcontinent weren’t all that bothered by the whole concept of the caliphate or for that matter the imposition of Sharia. The Mughals, though Central Asian by decent, were deeply entrenched in the political and social traditions of the subcontinent and so was their Muslim polity.

Also, till even the reign of the last major Mughal ruler, Aurangzeb, there are only a handful of documented episodes involving any serious physical clashes between the Hindu majority and the ruling Muslim minority.

Compared to the communal violence between the two groups in India and sectarian violence in Pakistan today, relations between the two communities and between Islamic sects were largely harmonious—especially during the reigns of Akbar and Shahjehan. What’s more, even after the emergence of the 18/19th century Islamic reformist movements, some of which attempted to reorganise India’s Muslim identity through a more strict and puritanical theology, tolerance between various competing sects amongst Muslims was a lot greater—until (beginning in the 20th century) the intellectual battles between these sects began degenerating into sectarian violence.

As tensions between Muslims and the Hindus and between Muslim sects began to grow, conservative Muslim scholars started reshaping Muslim history of the region as well. To them Mughal kings in general, and Akbar in particular, became villains, mainly for their ‘liberal views’ and detachment from the Ottoman caliphate (which ironically was largely secular and based on kingship). Yet, according to such scholars, it led to the downfall of Islam (secular Mughal rule?) in India.

Of course there was nothing academically or historically sound about such theories, and the scholars espousing them simply failed to look into the obvious political and economic reasons behind the fall of the Muslim rule, but the emotionally-charged claims in this respect resonated with a Muslim milieu ruing its lost status. The rewriting of the history of Muslim India by such scholars soon saw the Muslims of India talking more about ancient Muslim conquerors, and gleefully celebrating plunderers like Mehmood Ghaznavi and Muhammad Ghori, all the while downplaying Muslim rulers who had made India their home and played a leading role in uniting the region as a distinct and diverse empire.

The legacy of communalism in India and anti-Hindu sentiment in Pakistan today are a product of two main historical events: The suddenly discovered political majority status amongst the extremist Hindu fringe, and the Utopian intellectualisation of the Muslims’ minority complex, who were urged to look outside India for inspiration and somewhat ignore the brilliant legacy of (the supposedly Hindu-friendly) Muslim rulers of the region.

Today in Pakistan Muslims comprise a huge majority. So why do many Pakistanis spend more time celebrating Islamic history of regions outside India (especially Arabia), and seem to show more concern over what is happening to their brethren in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir, while drowning out the havoc being perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims inside their own country?

If we study the recent trend of intransigent thinking and of denials doing the rounds, we will notice this denial has now become the vocation of the urban middle class. In an era of populist democracy (mostly associated with the urban working class and the rural peasantry), the middle class feels that it is a minority. Thus, it can be suggested that this class too seems to be suffering from the same kind of a minority complex that Muslims of the subcontinent suffered from after 1857.

Perhaps that’s why, comparatively speaking, it is this class that is today enthusiastically responding to all the retro-Islamic paraphernalia (Caliphate, Sharia, etc.), anti-democracy sentiment and empty, rhetorical muscle-flexing based on glorified fables and myths of “Muslim power” doing the rounds today in the drawing rooms, the popular media and cyber space.

Smokers’ Corner: Talking tall, Nadeem F. Paracha 
http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/10/smokers-corner-talking-tall.html
Some Comments:

SARWAR RASOOL says:
Sir Nadeem Paracha sahib gi….now that you have finally decided to examine history ..deeply ..HERE is what you should & must study deeply…..the British & Imperial technique used to achieve their END…Divide & Rule ….Typically, imperial powers depend on the inability of oppressed local populations to muster a unified resistance, and the most successful occupiers are skilled at exploiting the differences among the occupied. Certainly that was the story of the British Empire’s success, and its legacy of nurtured local hatreds can be seen wherever the Union Flag flew, from Muslim-Hindu hatred in Pakistan and India, to Catholic-Protestant hatred in Ireland, to, yes, Jew-Arab, hatred in modern Israel. Ancient Rome was as good at encouraging internecine resentments among the occupied as Britain ever was…..Some argue that the development and propagation of the Bahai faith in the 1920s and onwards was a distinctly British tactic designed to add another “religious minority” to the Muslim fabric of the Middle-East, most notably in Iran and other lands with an Iranian populace….I can go on & on….the idea is SIR gi Nadeem sahib , don’t ignore..the real issue & stop tracking off track..it want get u anywhere……lol
best wishes & regard as always Sir Gi
URS truly
Sheedagandasa….lol


chakraborty says:
Nadeem has happily forgotten that The Rise of Marathas and Several other Hindu Powers – Jats (Under Suraj Mal), Bundelas (Under Chattrasal) and Sikhs lead to this insecurity among Muslims. Shah Waliullah quoted many bad words against Surajmal Jat as he plundered Delhi. More than 70% of territory was already under Hindus. Britishers came later. At the time Brits came, Mughals were confined to Delhi only. Other Muslims states in Continent were Awadh – Shia Siraj ud Daulah and Tipu Sultan- Ruler of Mysore. Please reflect the true history.

Jack says:
There have been clear tilts and a certain glorification of ancient Indian (almost completely Hindu of course) as well as medieval Hindu rulers; however, I do not think that the Mughal Empire has been painted as demonic (as mentioned below.Sher Shah Suri was an extremely gifted administrator ruler, and the Mughals (and India as well) benefited from his many contributions – civic administration, the Indian postal system, and the Grand Trunk Rd to name a few. That he was Muslim somehow never even comes to mind. Akbar is seen in the same light as Ashoka – as one of India’s greatest rulers. He must have also been a brilliant strategist, because his reaching out to nearby Hindu kingdoms and his famed religious tolerance did not come in the way of the growing empire. Aurangzeb, on the other hand, is seen to have been the pinnacle of intolerance, and Hindu-Muslim amity (or peaceful co-existence) in future centuries has been marred by his excesses. However, despite this dark period and the subsequent decline in the fortunes of the empire, the longevity of the greater Mughals ensured their wide acceptance as the rulers of India – which is why Bahadur Shah Zafar was the consensus choice if the 1857 mutiny had succeeded.
I humbly agree that misinterpretation and misuse of the system by ‘higher castes’ resulted in the alienation and deprivation of a large section of the Hindu population, and made a strong case for their eventual exodus into the arms of more accepting religions. I also agree that conversion back to Hinduism (a fatuous suggestion by someone just now) is ridiculous on many levels – not the least being that the same ills still plague our society, albeit to a far lesser extent than is gleefully reported in Pakistani media. On the other hand, that conversion was also encouraged by many Muslim rulers can be estimated from the number of years of uninterrupted Muslim rule within a region (take any region of erstwhile India till CE 1857) and the estimated growth in percentage of Muslim population within that region.
I feel pained that Pakistan disavows so much of its history in its unbridled dislike for all things Indian – unlike other Muslim nations like Iran and Egypt which are proudly laying claim to their pre-Islamic past. We (Pakistan and India) must accept that while we are not the same, we have much in common, and highlight our shared history and heritage (of which very little has purely religious overtones), rather than magnifying our differences.

MSalik says:
July 10, 2011 (2 days ago) at 5:16 pm
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU said in his “THE DISCOVERY OF INDIA” (Page 37): “HINDUISM as a faith is vague, emorphous, many sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other.”
Reply
  • Navin Bhardwaj says:
    since when has Pdt Nehru been rated as an authority on Hinduism? Readers would do well to remember that despite its perceived deficiencies Hindu beliefs and traditions are perhpas the oldest of any religion surviving in this world today in almost the same form they were conceptualized. Hindus have never had to invade anybody or to convert anyone to ensure the survival of their belief systems. Depsite our lands being invaded and often pplundered not once have we pressed the self destruct button as many great civilizations of this world have. Many great belief systems have come and gone but there is something to be said for the universality of Hindu ideas that this faith continues to survive and do well for itself to this very day
    Reply
    • Rag says:
      Heard of the Cholas? They ruled from Tanjore in present day Tamil Nadu. Do you think they were Hindus? Do you think they may have invaded kingdoms outside India e.g. Sri Lanka?
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)