http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2257&eid=5
BLOGS / Sundeep Dougal
Free Speech V/s Hate Speech
In the NDTV show Walk the Talk in March 2009 Dr Zakir Naik was described as the “rockstar of tele-evangelism”:
“…but surprise of surprises, he is not preaching what you would expect tele-evangelists to preach. He is preaching Islam, modern Islam, and not just Islam but his own interpretation of all the faiths around the world.”
In February this year, the Indian Express, ranked him 89th on its list of the most powerful Indians in 2010, ahead of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen:
The evangelist, who wears suits and ties and preaches Islam in English, is a powerful orator. His sermons on Peace TV-English boast of a viewership of 100 million. The channel is aired in more than 125 countries and was launched in North America last year. Last year, he launched Peace TV Urdu, which has 50 million viewers. In the last 14 years, Naik has given 1,300 public talks, including 100 in 2009.
Power punch
Naik’s 10-day “peace conference” last November in Mumbai was attended by a million people. His lecture at the same conference was attended by around 2 lakh, including former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.
What next
He plans to launch Peace TV-Bangla by December and a news channel by 2012 or 2013.
He then recently appeared in NDTV's We The People show as a participant in March, and while he was apparently unhappy with the reception he was given, many thought that he had been treated with excessive reverence. He expanded on his experience in these videos. In the words of one fan, "He cleared informed there were 75 DVDs released of top American analysts and professors who proved that 911 was inside job."
On Friday, Britain announced that it would not allow Dr Zakir Naik to enter Britain to deliver a series of lectures he was due to give in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England. Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May said in a statement, without elaborating:
“Numerous comments made by Dr. Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour”
The following has been cited as one of those "numerous comments":
“Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … we don’t know.
“But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. I read the newspaper.
“If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Writing in the WSJ, Sadanand Dhume contrasts the way Zakir Naik is treated in India and points out that only a handful of journalists—among them Praveen Swami of the Hindu, and Khushwant Singh—have questioned Dr. Naik's views—and wonders whether it has something to do with how "India accords extra deference to allegedly holy men of all stripes". But he also notes:
...most of India's purportedly secular intelligentsia remains loath to criticize Islam, even in its most radical form, lest this be interpreted as sympathy for Hindu nationalism.
And goes on to argue, correctly of course:
Unless this changes, unless Indians find the ability to criticize a radical Islamic preacher such as Dr. Naik as robustly as they would his Hindu equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism will remain deeply flawed.
Mr Dhume's piece appeared on June 20 in which he also argued:
It helps that Indians appear to have trouble distinguishing between free speech and hate speech. In a Western democracy, demanding the murder of homosexuals and the second-class treatment of non-Muslims would likely attract public censure or a law suit. In India, it goes unchallenged as long as it has a religious imprimatur. However, create a book or a painting that ruffles religious sentiment, as the writer Taslima Nasreen and the painter M. F. Husain both discovered, and either the government or a mob of pious vigilantes will strive to muzzle you. [Read the full WSJ piece: The Trouble With Dr Zakir Naik]
But today's Indian Express carries an editorial which takes just the opposite view:
Words must be fought with words alone, not clumsy state action. Such provocation is inevitable in the complex, variegated democracies we live in — in both India and Britain, we could bump up against people whose positions worry us, and we are free to debate, mercilessly mock, or ignore that opinion. But to declare it unsayable is highly dangerous. Salman Rushdie, who has himself been singed by such logic, has warned Britain of the danger of walling off religious matters, saying that “the defence of free speech begins at the point when people say something you can’t stand.” Zakir Naik talks of ideas that some might abhor, but some others take all too seriously. Not permitting open discourse is to constrict the free play of disagreeement and disputation. [Read the Indian Express editorial: Talk is Cheap]
While words definitely need to be fought with words, and while sites like NewAgeIslam have been waging a heroic battle, and while even the likes of Darul Uloom Deoband and other mainstream Muslim bodies have spoken out and even issued fatwas against Naik, others argue that all of this is very miniscule and hardly effective given the large audience and viewership his TV channels command. Do you think there is a wide enough engagement or a platform to counter the reach of Dr Naik's Peace TV? How else should his words be engaged with? Do you think Britain did the right thing by denying him the visa? How should India and Indians tackle the challenege that Zakir Naik obviously poses?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Supermacist Ideologies
Supremacist ideologies
Two countries — Britain and Canada — have banned Zakir Naik, boss of the Islamic Research Foundation and Peace TV, from entering their countries. Reason: his entry is “not conducive for public good.”
There are several ironies to this ban. First, it seems that these two democracies are afraid of the impact Naik’s speeches will have on their own Muslim populations. This implies that they are not confident of countering his views through direct engagement and rational argumentation. They have shot themselves in the foot and admitted defeat against radical Islamist rhetoric. If Britain and Canada believe in democracy, they should have allowed Naik to make his speeches, and challenged him on facts and/or sued him for preaching hate or making false statements. But they chickened out.
Second, democracies are tying themselves in knots when it comes to imposing bans. They won’t ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons or Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, which have upset many Muslims. But they are ready to ban Naik’s right to talk to Muslims in Britain and Canada. Even when banning things, one must be consistent.
On the other hand, it is difficult to hold any brief for Naik and his convoluted logic. Among other things, he has justified polygamy on the ground that men are by nature polygamous. But polyandry? No sir. He has ambiguous views on terrorism, to say the least, and he has gone on record to claim that 9/11 was George Bush’s conspiracy.
On Tuesday, Naik clarified his remarks on terrorism and confused us more. He said every Muslim should be a terrorist with “anti-social elements”. This is no way to clarify his views on terror.
When anti-social elements are not defined, it could mean anything. Some so-called secular faces, most notably film-maker Mahesh Bhatt, have not covered themselves with glory in standing by Naik. Without explaining, Bhatt said: “I salute his (Naik’s) audacity in challenging their (the British government’s) ignorance.”
Bhatt should know that Naik’s audacity is actually limited. He is philosophically on the same page as Britain when it comes to bans. Naik would be happy banning anti-Islam books. By the same logic, he shouldn’t object to the British government’s efforts to gag him by denying him an entry. He is opposing the ban because it restricts his freedom to preach dubious views, but he has no qualms about muffling the voices of those who disagree with him.
Naik has outrageous views on freedom. He is all for equal rights for Muslims in non-Islamic countries, but not the reverse. Reason: Because Islam is the right religion. Others are wrong, so how can they claim parity with Islam?
Naik’s Peace TV is also a misnomer. It has little to do with peace, except as defined by the man himself. The channel is an Islamic supremacist forum whose central objective is to put the religion on a pedestal. Nothing wrong in that, for all religions innately believe they are better than the rest. But supremacist ideas sit poorly with democracy, harmony and inclusiveness. If Hitler sought racial supremacy for Aryans, and upper class Hindus sought supremacy based on caste, Naik’s supremacist ideas are based on religious beliefs. By questioning the legitimacy of other religions he is not doing Islam any favour.
As an Indian he has not learnt the most important lesson his civilisation has to offer: that there can be different paths to the same objective, whether that objective is about finding god, or truth or peace or whatever. This is not the same as moral relativism, but the idea of different paths allows people from diverse cultures, races and belief systems to coexist peacefully.
Naik cannot be considered a votary of peace as long as his
polemics focus on proving the superiority of his religion.
In a violent world that’s armed to the teeth, where countries, communities and groups have written their own stories of victimhood and grievance, real or imagined, supremacist ideas are sure to lead us to Armageddon. We only have to look at such ideologies of the 20th century to realise why this is so.
Hitler’s racist and anti-Semitic orientation brought us the Second World War. The Soviet Union and Communist China believed in the supremacy of the proletariat. These regimes ended up terrorising and killing millions of their own people in the process. In this century, unprincipled belief in capitalism’s superiority has led to the collapse of the world economy in 2008.
The moral: when we start believing that only one book, or one
ideology or one approach has all the answers, we are doomed. This is not to question the good in every holy book or ideological treatise, but human beings must have the humility to admit that no one can really have all the answers, and that too all the time. We can only get better and better approximations of the truth, but may never quite get there.
Two countries — Britain and Canada — have banned Zakir Naik, boss of the Islamic Research Foundation and Peace TV, from entering their countries. Reason: his entry is “not conducive for public good.”
There are several ironies to this ban. First, it seems that these two democracies are afraid of the impact Naik’s speeches will have on their own Muslim populations. This implies that they are not confident of countering his views through direct engagement and rational argumentation. They have shot themselves in the foot and admitted defeat against radical Islamist rhetoric. If Britain and Canada believe in democracy, they should have allowed Naik to make his speeches, and challenged him on facts and/or sued him for preaching hate or making false statements. But they chickened out.
Second, democracies are tying themselves in knots when it comes to imposing bans. They won’t ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons or Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, which have upset many Muslims. But they are ready to ban Naik’s right to talk to Muslims in Britain and Canada. Even when banning things, one must be consistent.
On the other hand, it is difficult to hold any brief for Naik and his convoluted logic. Among other things, he has justified polygamy on the ground that men are by nature polygamous. But polyandry? No sir. He has ambiguous views on terrorism, to say the least, and he has gone on record to claim that 9/11 was George Bush’s conspiracy.
On Tuesday, Naik clarified his remarks on terrorism and confused us more. He said every Muslim should be a terrorist with “anti-social elements”. This is no way to clarify his views on terror.
When anti-social elements are not defined, it could mean anything. Some so-called secular faces, most notably film-maker Mahesh Bhatt, have not covered themselves with glory in standing by Naik. Without explaining, Bhatt said: “I salute his (Naik’s) audacity in challenging their (the British government’s) ignorance.”
Bhatt should know that Naik’s audacity is actually limited. He is philosophically on the same page as Britain when it comes to bans. Naik would be happy banning anti-Islam books. By the same logic, he shouldn’t object to the British government’s efforts to gag him by denying him an entry. He is opposing the ban because it restricts his freedom to preach dubious views, but he has no qualms about muffling the voices of those who disagree with him.
Naik has outrageous views on freedom. He is all for equal rights for Muslims in non-Islamic countries, but not the reverse. Reason: Because Islam is the right religion. Others are wrong, so how can they claim parity with Islam?
Naik’s Peace TV is also a misnomer. It has little to do with peace, except as defined by the man himself. The channel is an Islamic supremacist forum whose central objective is to put the religion on a pedestal. Nothing wrong in that, for all religions innately believe they are better than the rest. But supremacist ideas sit poorly with democracy, harmony and inclusiveness. If Hitler sought racial supremacy for Aryans, and upper class Hindus sought supremacy based on caste, Naik’s supremacist ideas are based on religious beliefs. By questioning the legitimacy of other religions he is not doing Islam any favour.
As an Indian he has not learnt the most important lesson his civilisation has to offer: that there can be different paths to the same objective, whether that objective is about finding god, or truth or peace or whatever. This is not the same as moral relativism, but the idea of different paths allows people from diverse cultures, races and belief systems to coexist peacefully.
Naik cannot be considered a votary of peace as long as his
polemics focus on proving the superiority of his religion.
In a violent world that’s armed to the teeth, where countries, communities and groups have written their own stories of victimhood and grievance, real or imagined, supremacist ideas are sure to lead us to Armageddon. We only have to look at such ideologies of the 20th century to realise why this is so.
Hitler’s racist and anti-Semitic orientation brought us the Second World War. The Soviet Union and Communist China believed in the supremacy of the proletariat. These regimes ended up terrorising and killing millions of their own people in the process. In this century, unprincipled belief in capitalism’s superiority has led to the collapse of the world economy in 2008.
The moral: when we start believing that only one book, or one
ideology or one approach has all the answers, we are doomed. This is not to question the good in every holy book or ideological treatise, but human beings must have the humility to admit that no one can really have all the answers, and that too all the time. We can only get better and better approximations of the truth, but may never quite get there.
The new ‘We’ is a manifesto for today’s pluralistic societies
The new ‘We’ is a manifesto for today’s pluralistic societies.
An interview with Today’s Zaman
Monday 21 June 2010, by Tariq Ramadan
You have an article called “Manifesto for a new ‘We’” which was published in The Independent. I would like you to explain what “We” means?
I describe it as a manifesto for a new “We.” We live in pluralistic societies in the West, as well as in Muslim countries like Turkey. We are not even clear about what it means to be a pluralistic society. Instead of speaking about our differences, the principle at the beginning is to accept that these are pluralistic societies. We have no choice. The West now is full of pluralistic societies. Islam is a Western religion as well as a religion for Muslim-majority countries, and we are bound by the laws of the country, we speak the language of the country, we are loyal to the country and we have our objective. And this objective is that you and I, Muslims, non-Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews are to come together and do something to work together. So a new “We” is a vision for more contribution and to stop talking about integration.
When we look at Europe, we see some problems occurring one after the other in countries such as Greece and Spain. It starts with an economic crisis and a social crisis and then transforms into hatred and the exclusion of foreigners. Is this really the case in Europe?
The situation in Europe and in the West by and large is not very good. We have trends coming from far-right parties and populist parties targeting Muslims because they are undermining the homogeneity of the society, the culture and living together. I am Swiss by nationality, and in my country we voted against the minarets, we are talking about the burqa and headscarves. Any visible symbol of Islam is perceived as a danger, and the parties are building on that. At the same time, what is happening at the grassroots level is much better because you have Muslims settling down, working, contributing and doing their jobs. So I think that there is a state of tension within society because we are facing an identity crisis within the Muslim communities, who are asking “who are we?” and within the surrounding society. Now what we have to do is to be much more involved in society and not let far-right parties and populist parties set the political agenda. We should be much more involved in society to create a new “We.” We are citizens. We are not minorities and we are not the victims of a minority mentality. We should be involved in society; this is the best way in fact to react to the trends that we see today in Europe.
Is Islamophobia still an issue in Europe?
Yes, I would speak about racism against Muslims. Muslims are targeted if they wear a headscarf, if they have a Muslim name or if they appear to be like a Muslim. It is still difficult to get a job, to get a house, to be respected and the atmosphere is very difficult. So I would say yes, there is Islamophobia. Many people are really experiencing phobia, which means fear. Muslims should respect people’s fear by responding to their questions and should also resist the instrumentalization of fear in what I call emotional politics. Emotional politics uses this fear just to win the next election.
The integration of Muslim immigrants and Europeans was considered a challenging issue in Europe. Today can we talk about the contribution of the third and fourth generations to European society rather than their integration into society?
I would say that we have to differentiate between the discussion on Islam and Muslims in Europe, or European Muslims, with immigration, because immigration is an ongoing process. We keep speaking about immigration. Now we have millions of Europeans and we are reaching the fifth generation, not only the third one. Regarding the fifth generation in some countries such as France and the UK, we still speak about British citizens of immigrant backgrounds, of French citizens of immigrant backgrounds. These are now citizens and it means that for many people Islam is still a foreign religion and a religion of immigrants and we have to show now that it is not true. As you said, the success of integration is to stop talking about integration. It is now to speak about contribution and living together. Still, we will have immigration problems but they are not connected to Islam, they are connected to the fact that Europe cannot survive if there are no people coming from the outside. We need migrants and immigrants to help us in the economic field but we deny this. So there is an economic need and a cultural resistance. But this is another situation, it is another discussion. We have to distinguish between European Muslims living in the country as citizens and contributing and how to deal with the new immigrants who are coming in, and we have to deal with them on political, social and cultural grounds, of course.
Do you find the dialogue between Muslim immigrants and Europeans sufficient?
I speak about citizens talking to their governments. I think that at the local level it is much better than what we see. At the national level we have controversies like in the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany and Norway. So I would say it is not enough and we have to improve the dialogue, but if we look at the local level we can find that there are very interesting processes and trends. It is going to be a very long process. It will take at least two generations before we settle down. So we have to be patient, we have to work for the future and for the next generation, not for the next election. This is something to be made very clear. We are not something to be bought and we are not to be sold. We are subject citizens, we want to be respected and we will contribute to a better future for our countries. This is our loyalty to the country; we want the best for our countries.
Can we say that the young Muslim immigrants are contributing more to European society?
Not only the new generation, not only the third generation. We have to keep in mind and to remind people that the first generation contributed to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. We have to say this, we have to say that mothers and fathers, even grandfathers and grandmothers, came and they contributed to society. They built France, Germany, Britain, Sweden and Belgium. These countries needed these people and they were even asking these people to come. I was with Jack Straw, the previous UK secretary of state for justice, who said, “We went there to bring them here.” So we brought them to Europe. The first generation contributed, the second generation contributed and the third generation is contributing in many fields — within academia, on the social ground, in the arts, in music, in entertainment, in sports and in anything which has to do with culture as well. So, yes, of course, the contribution is huge.
Considering the misunderstanding and even conflicts between Islam and the West, is it about the clash of cultures or perceptions?
This is what I am saying. This is not a clash of civilizations; this is a clash of perceptions. So people perceive the other in an essentialist way. This is the West and this is Islam. Well this is wrong. There are lots of things that have come from Islam in the West, and there are lots of things from the West in Islam. So they intertwine, and I would say that this perception that there are two blocs and two entities that are striving and conflicting is wrong. It is much more our perceptions that are problematic.
Do you find the Alliance of Civilizations [AoC] useful in terms of people understanding each other?
It is always useful to have platforms where you have dialogue. Now you have to ask what the intentions are and where they lead us. The first thing is that while we were talking about the clash of civilizations before, people are now talking about dialogue and alliance, saying we have to work together, and that’s fine. I was involved in this and I was invited to a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations two weeks ago in Cordoba. My point here is really beyond that. We have to remind ourselves that dialogue and alliances should not only be symbolic and far removed from the people. So if you talk to Muslims at the grassroots level today, Europeans and Westerners at the grassroots level, these people don’t even know what is happening. So these are specialists talking to each other that are far removed from the grass roots and it has no impact. I would say dialogue and alliances are fine but we have to ask the questions of “where” and “with whom.”
Do you find Turkey to be a complex country on the basis of the idea that concepts such as modernism, secularism, Islam and women’s issues are still controversial subjects and are not likely to be settled?
I think it is not going to settle for the next two generations. There may be more controversy in Turkey than in other countries, but still it is the same everywhere. Turkey is really at the crossroads of being involved in the EU, being involved in the West and being faithful to Islamic principles. This is exactly what we see within society. So how do you deal with this? By being faithful to tradition, to practices and to principles. There are tensions, and they are difficult to overcome. This is why, as you said, Turkey has not yet settled; but it is a necessary process, and my hope is for Turkey to lead or pave the way for Muslim-majority countries to show that it is possible to have democracy and transparency but still to remain faithful to Islam. It is possible not to impose anything on women, not to push people to remove the headscarf and to be able to be fully Muslim and completely modern. This is possible, and I think that Turkey is under pressure because some in Europe want Turkey to forget much more about their principles and some other Muslims are saying you are betraying and forgetting Islam. Sometimes, you know, when you are walking down the streets in İstanbul you can feel the tension between modernization and tradition and this is part of the Turkish identity today. You are facing the challenges of your time.
Some people in Turkey support the French style of secularism, while others feel closer to the American style. What are your thoughts on the application of secularism on Turkey?
I think that Turkey should find its own way. It is not going to follow the footsteps of the French or the American system. Now we need to put things into context. The secular system was imposed on this country in a way which was very very tough. So there are developments and steps that we have to take into account. There is no way for Turkey to go ahead and push forward to find new solutions in the future if it does not question the kind of secularism that it has. You cannot just come out and say that everything which is religious is wrong. That’s not going to work. I think that Turkey should, step-by-step and in a very patient way, find its own way to solve the problem. The rule of law? Yes. A secular system? Why not, if no one is prevented from practicing her or his religion according to his or her understanding?
You are also saying that there is one Islam but many interpretations of Islam. Do you think that much of the responsibility falls not to the system in which we are living but to the individual herself to learn the original sources of Islam?
There are two things. Any individual, whether that person is a man or a woman, needs to have a basic knowledge of Islam. This is a personal commitment and responsibility. I mean you have to do that. You have to know why you pray, how to pray, what the meanings of the five pillars of Islam are and what the meanings of the six pillars of faith are. All of this is basic knowledge. Now when it comes to interpreting the Quran, you can’t. It is not for everyone to do that. Worshipping is the way for everyone to be close to the spiritual text. Your heart is moved by what you are reading. When it comes to extracting rules, not everyone can do this.
Is the Muslim world falling away from the original text and teachings of Islam?
Oh yes, in many ways. As I said today, when we speak about women, when we speak about politics and corruption, we are forgetting many of the ethical teachings and lessons that are given by Islam. So, I think that we have cultural distortion coming from the Turkish and the Arab culture, the Asian culture and even the Western culture, and we also have reductionism, which is a very literal way of reading the text but not contextualizing the text. Once again, there are things which are immutable; they are not going to change in our religion. Not everyone can just read the Quran and interpret the very meaning of it. Scholars can do that.
You say “Don’t just talk to the West, talk among yourselves.” There is a huge Muslims population but they are weak in power. Is this about their lack of confidence?
Yes, I think that is completely right. I think what is missing for Muslims today is self-confidence. We don’t lack power. We have lots of power. The Muslim-majority countries have money and the petro-monarchies have money. Even if you look at what is happening in Turkey, there are lots of opportunities. So let us use these opportunities to do something which is more important with confidence, by being more assertive and in line with our principles and understandings. The psychological factor is so important.
Source: Today’s Zaman
http://www.tariqramadan.com/The-new-We-is-a-manifesto-for.html
An interview with Today’s Zaman
Monday 21 June 2010, by Tariq Ramadan
You have an article called “Manifesto for a new ‘We’” which was published in The Independent. I would like you to explain what “We” means?
I describe it as a manifesto for a new “We.” We live in pluralistic societies in the West, as well as in Muslim countries like Turkey. We are not even clear about what it means to be a pluralistic society. Instead of speaking about our differences, the principle at the beginning is to accept that these are pluralistic societies. We have no choice. The West now is full of pluralistic societies. Islam is a Western religion as well as a religion for Muslim-majority countries, and we are bound by the laws of the country, we speak the language of the country, we are loyal to the country and we have our objective. And this objective is that you and I, Muslims, non-Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews are to come together and do something to work together. So a new “We” is a vision for more contribution and to stop talking about integration.
When we look at Europe, we see some problems occurring one after the other in countries such as Greece and Spain. It starts with an economic crisis and a social crisis and then transforms into hatred and the exclusion of foreigners. Is this really the case in Europe?
The situation in Europe and in the West by and large is not very good. We have trends coming from far-right parties and populist parties targeting Muslims because they are undermining the homogeneity of the society, the culture and living together. I am Swiss by nationality, and in my country we voted against the minarets, we are talking about the burqa and headscarves. Any visible symbol of Islam is perceived as a danger, and the parties are building on that. At the same time, what is happening at the grassroots level is much better because you have Muslims settling down, working, contributing and doing their jobs. So I think that there is a state of tension within society because we are facing an identity crisis within the Muslim communities, who are asking “who are we?” and within the surrounding society. Now what we have to do is to be much more involved in society and not let far-right parties and populist parties set the political agenda. We should be much more involved in society to create a new “We.” We are citizens. We are not minorities and we are not the victims of a minority mentality. We should be involved in society; this is the best way in fact to react to the trends that we see today in Europe.
Is Islamophobia still an issue in Europe?
Yes, I would speak about racism against Muslims. Muslims are targeted if they wear a headscarf, if they have a Muslim name or if they appear to be like a Muslim. It is still difficult to get a job, to get a house, to be respected and the atmosphere is very difficult. So I would say yes, there is Islamophobia. Many people are really experiencing phobia, which means fear. Muslims should respect people’s fear by responding to their questions and should also resist the instrumentalization of fear in what I call emotional politics. Emotional politics uses this fear just to win the next election.
The integration of Muslim immigrants and Europeans was considered a challenging issue in Europe. Today can we talk about the contribution of the third and fourth generations to European society rather than their integration into society?
I would say that we have to differentiate between the discussion on Islam and Muslims in Europe, or European Muslims, with immigration, because immigration is an ongoing process. We keep speaking about immigration. Now we have millions of Europeans and we are reaching the fifth generation, not only the third one. Regarding the fifth generation in some countries such as France and the UK, we still speak about British citizens of immigrant backgrounds, of French citizens of immigrant backgrounds. These are now citizens and it means that for many people Islam is still a foreign religion and a religion of immigrants and we have to show now that it is not true. As you said, the success of integration is to stop talking about integration. It is now to speak about contribution and living together. Still, we will have immigration problems but they are not connected to Islam, they are connected to the fact that Europe cannot survive if there are no people coming from the outside. We need migrants and immigrants to help us in the economic field but we deny this. So there is an economic need and a cultural resistance. But this is another situation, it is another discussion. We have to distinguish between European Muslims living in the country as citizens and contributing and how to deal with the new immigrants who are coming in, and we have to deal with them on political, social and cultural grounds, of course.
Do you find the dialogue between Muslim immigrants and Europeans sufficient?
I speak about citizens talking to their governments. I think that at the local level it is much better than what we see. At the national level we have controversies like in the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany and Norway. So I would say it is not enough and we have to improve the dialogue, but if we look at the local level we can find that there are very interesting processes and trends. It is going to be a very long process. It will take at least two generations before we settle down. So we have to be patient, we have to work for the future and for the next generation, not for the next election. This is something to be made very clear. We are not something to be bought and we are not to be sold. We are subject citizens, we want to be respected and we will contribute to a better future for our countries. This is our loyalty to the country; we want the best for our countries.
Can we say that the young Muslim immigrants are contributing more to European society?
Not only the new generation, not only the third generation. We have to keep in mind and to remind people that the first generation contributed to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. We have to say this, we have to say that mothers and fathers, even grandfathers and grandmothers, came and they contributed to society. They built France, Germany, Britain, Sweden and Belgium. These countries needed these people and they were even asking these people to come. I was with Jack Straw, the previous UK secretary of state for justice, who said, “We went there to bring them here.” So we brought them to Europe. The first generation contributed, the second generation contributed and the third generation is contributing in many fields — within academia, on the social ground, in the arts, in music, in entertainment, in sports and in anything which has to do with culture as well. So, yes, of course, the contribution is huge.
Considering the misunderstanding and even conflicts between Islam and the West, is it about the clash of cultures or perceptions?
This is what I am saying. This is not a clash of civilizations; this is a clash of perceptions. So people perceive the other in an essentialist way. This is the West and this is Islam. Well this is wrong. There are lots of things that have come from Islam in the West, and there are lots of things from the West in Islam. So they intertwine, and I would say that this perception that there are two blocs and two entities that are striving and conflicting is wrong. It is much more our perceptions that are problematic.
Do you find the Alliance of Civilizations [AoC] useful in terms of people understanding each other?
It is always useful to have platforms where you have dialogue. Now you have to ask what the intentions are and where they lead us. The first thing is that while we were talking about the clash of civilizations before, people are now talking about dialogue and alliance, saying we have to work together, and that’s fine. I was involved in this and I was invited to a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations two weeks ago in Cordoba. My point here is really beyond that. We have to remind ourselves that dialogue and alliances should not only be symbolic and far removed from the people. So if you talk to Muslims at the grassroots level today, Europeans and Westerners at the grassroots level, these people don’t even know what is happening. So these are specialists talking to each other that are far removed from the grass roots and it has no impact. I would say dialogue and alliances are fine but we have to ask the questions of “where” and “with whom.”
Do you find Turkey to be a complex country on the basis of the idea that concepts such as modernism, secularism, Islam and women’s issues are still controversial subjects and are not likely to be settled?
I think it is not going to settle for the next two generations. There may be more controversy in Turkey than in other countries, but still it is the same everywhere. Turkey is really at the crossroads of being involved in the EU, being involved in the West and being faithful to Islamic principles. This is exactly what we see within society. So how do you deal with this? By being faithful to tradition, to practices and to principles. There are tensions, and they are difficult to overcome. This is why, as you said, Turkey has not yet settled; but it is a necessary process, and my hope is for Turkey to lead or pave the way for Muslim-majority countries to show that it is possible to have democracy and transparency but still to remain faithful to Islam. It is possible not to impose anything on women, not to push people to remove the headscarf and to be able to be fully Muslim and completely modern. This is possible, and I think that Turkey is under pressure because some in Europe want Turkey to forget much more about their principles and some other Muslims are saying you are betraying and forgetting Islam. Sometimes, you know, when you are walking down the streets in İstanbul you can feel the tension between modernization and tradition and this is part of the Turkish identity today. You are facing the challenges of your time.
Some people in Turkey support the French style of secularism, while others feel closer to the American style. What are your thoughts on the application of secularism on Turkey?
I think that Turkey should find its own way. It is not going to follow the footsteps of the French or the American system. Now we need to put things into context. The secular system was imposed on this country in a way which was very very tough. So there are developments and steps that we have to take into account. There is no way for Turkey to go ahead and push forward to find new solutions in the future if it does not question the kind of secularism that it has. You cannot just come out and say that everything which is religious is wrong. That’s not going to work. I think that Turkey should, step-by-step and in a very patient way, find its own way to solve the problem. The rule of law? Yes. A secular system? Why not, if no one is prevented from practicing her or his religion according to his or her understanding?
You are also saying that there is one Islam but many interpretations of Islam. Do you think that much of the responsibility falls not to the system in which we are living but to the individual herself to learn the original sources of Islam?
There are two things. Any individual, whether that person is a man or a woman, needs to have a basic knowledge of Islam. This is a personal commitment and responsibility. I mean you have to do that. You have to know why you pray, how to pray, what the meanings of the five pillars of Islam are and what the meanings of the six pillars of faith are. All of this is basic knowledge. Now when it comes to interpreting the Quran, you can’t. It is not for everyone to do that. Worshipping is the way for everyone to be close to the spiritual text. Your heart is moved by what you are reading. When it comes to extracting rules, not everyone can do this.
Is the Muslim world falling away from the original text and teachings of Islam?
Oh yes, in many ways. As I said today, when we speak about women, when we speak about politics and corruption, we are forgetting many of the ethical teachings and lessons that are given by Islam. So, I think that we have cultural distortion coming from the Turkish and the Arab culture, the Asian culture and even the Western culture, and we also have reductionism, which is a very literal way of reading the text but not contextualizing the text. Once again, there are things which are immutable; they are not going to change in our religion. Not everyone can just read the Quran and interpret the very meaning of it. Scholars can do that.
You say “Don’t just talk to the West, talk among yourselves.” There is a huge Muslims population but they are weak in power. Is this about their lack of confidence?
Yes, I think that is completely right. I think what is missing for Muslims today is self-confidence. We don’t lack power. We have lots of power. The Muslim-majority countries have money and the petro-monarchies have money. Even if you look at what is happening in Turkey, there are lots of opportunities. So let us use these opportunities to do something which is more important with confidence, by being more assertive and in line with our principles and understandings. The psychological factor is so important.
Source: Today’s Zaman
http://www.tariqramadan.com/The-new-We-is-a-manifesto-for.html
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Irael and india ties.EPW
Israel: Defeat in Its Victories?
The global upsurge of anger at Israel’s criminality may turn its military victories into political defeats
EDITORIALS 9
Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 19, 2010 vol xlv no 25
The recent Israeli military attack on the six-ship “Gaza peace flotilla” – carrying medical, food, educational and civil supplies to Gaza to break the illegal and inhuman blockade by Israel – has been met with shock and condemnation globally.
Much of the facts relating to this case are well known by now. Israeli armed forces attacked and boarded these ships in international waters, killing as many as 19 people. Israel claimed the soldiers were “forced” to fire when they were attacked by passengers on the ship Mavi Marmara, but subsequent testimonies by journalists and activists on the ship have shown this to be another example of the infamous Zionist Hasbara or spin-doctoring of public opinion through half-truths and outright lies. Autopsy reports of those killed indicate that many were shot in the back or the top of their heads, from helicopters flying above. It appears that the Israeli military attacked the ship at about 4 am when most of the Muslim passengers of the ship were on the top deck for the morning prayers.
When armed men attack civilian vessels in international waters, kill people and confiscate the goods, it is known either as piracy or an act of war. Israel has the dubious distinction of having the maximum number of United Nations resolutions against it, but this has made not the slightest of difference to its behaviour. It has attacked its neighbours, occupied territory in Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt; it has massacred refugees and assassinated its political opponents; it has undeclared nuclear weapons; it has continued building illegal settlements in Palestinian lands. Just recently it used forged passports of British, Australian, French and other citizens to send its agents to murder a Palestinian official in Dubai. Yet Israel remains Teflon-coated against even the most basic international censure or punishment. This is, as is well known, almost entirely due to the blanket protection provided by the United States (US).
This close embrace by the world’s only superpower has meant that many governments have found it profitable to deal with Israel, which has been only too willing to pander to demands for arms, technology and funds. India has emerged as a significant trade and military partner of this rogue state in recent years. The policy shift – from unequivocal support for Palestine to warm ties with Israel – was inscribed in the economic and geostrategic shift made by the Indian state in the early 1990s. It was, however, under the Hindutva-inspired foreign policy regime of the National Democratic Alliance that ties with Israel were ramped up from mere “pragmatism” and given an ideological and cultural basis. Given sanctions and other legal and political restrictions, Israel supplied India with much of the arms and technology that the US could not directly supply, and thus served a useful proxy for defence relations with the US for India’s security establishment.
In the aftermath of the India-US nuclear deal and the removal of restrictions on transfer of technology and defence equipment, Israel has lost its position of being a conduit for US arms and technology that could not be accessed directly. Further, in the past few years, the Indian state’s economic and geostrategic clout has increased considerably. It was, perhaps, a combination of these and other factors, which enabled the Government of India to condemn the Israeli action on the Gaza flotilla in clear terms. This is a welcome move, after many years of prevarication. The Government of India should follow this up with an increase in its aid to Palestine and by working together with other countries to reach humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Israel is testing the patience of even its old, trusted allies. Even the US has had to publicly rebuke Israel over continued settlement activity in the West Bank, while Turkey, whose ships and citizens were targeted in the recent attack, has now taken a very strong stand against its policies on Palestine. It should be remembered that Turkey was one of Israel’s closest military and economic allies in the region. Right wing governments in France and the United Kingdom, traditionally close to Israel, have come out with some of the strongest statements against Israel’s aggression. Sections among American Zionists are questioning Israel about “occupation” and a policy of “racism” and “discrimination” against Palestinians, which is “akin to apartheid”. Popular coalitions are emerging in all countries to support the Palestinian freedom struggle. It is time that, independent of the government, India’s lively and large political and social movements come forward to become an active part of this global upsurge of popular support for Palestine.
http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/14874.pdf
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Bhopal gas tragedy: Centre arranged Anderson's release, says Ex-US diplomat
Bhopal gas tragedy: Centre arranged Anderson's release, says Ex-US diplomat
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bhopal-gas-tragedy-centre-arranged-warren-andersons-release-says-ex-us-diplomat-tells-ndtv-32186.php?u=0750
A former Deputy Chief of Mission of the US embassy in New Delhi in 1984 has told NDTV that Warren Anderson's release from house arrest in Bhopal and his flight to Delhi was arranged by the Ministry of External Affairs.
In an exclusive interview, Gordon Streeb said the US did not want any action to be taken against Anderson and that the then Foreign Secretary M K Rasgotra assured him that nothing would happen to Warren Anderson during his visit.
A crucial point of the controversy over the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict has been the exit route offered to Anderson, who was the American CEO of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in 1984 when a gas leak from the company's plant choked Bhopal.
Anderson's departure from Bhopal was not a stealthy one. He flew out on December 7, hours after landing in Bhopal, on the official plane of the then Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister, Arjun Singh. He then stopped in Delhi before leaving the country. But the verdict delivered last week, which offered a nano-punishment to seven Carbide executives, all of them Indian, has led to a new public anger pivoted on why Anderson has never faced trial.
Here are the excerpts from the interview with Gordon Streeb:
NDTV: Can you elaborate on what circumstances Warren Anderson decided to come to India?
Gordon Streeb: We got a call from Union Carbide suggesting that Mr Anderson would like to come to India to show the concern of the corporation at the highest levels for the victims and to get some sense of what had happened at the plant. But both Union Carbide and I were concerned that there be no action taken against Mr Anderson. We did not want to have Mr Anderson come to India to make this gesture and to assess the situation and put himself at risk of being arrested or whatever.
So, based on that I checked with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and to the best of my knowledge, most of my conversations, or all of them were with the Foreign Secretary. They got back to me and said yes, they agree that it would be useful for Mr Anderson to come to display and demonstrate Union Carbide's concern and that they would provide him assurance that nothing would happen to him during this visit.
When he got to Bhopal, obviously, the local officials thought differently. I personally have no idea whether there had been any communication from the Central government to the state government...how this all evolved. The only thing is, the next thing I was aware of from New Delhi was I got a call and was told he was under house arrest at which point I got back in touch with the MEA and asked what we could do to get his release. They told me they'd check into this. The next thing I knew, they had arranged for his release and transport to New Delhi. When he got to New Delhi, he came to the US embassy where we all agreed it would be best he keep a low profile, not get involved with the public, the media, anybody and that the best thing to do at this point was to depart India in accordance with the agreement we had had, in which case he stayed at the embassy until the next flight to the US and he then went to the airport and left. And that was the extent of the arrangements we had made and my own involvement at that time.
NDTV: You have spoken of a safe passage to him. Who assured him of this safe passage?
Gordon Streeb: That I got from the MEA, the Foreign Secretary. Now there's a lot of speculation in India as I'm seeing in the press right now about who actually made that decision. That I cannot tell you. I have no idea where this went up the chain of command in the Indian government. My interaction was strictly with the Foreign Secretary. I, to the best of my recollection, never talked to the FM or the PM. I dealt exclusively with the ministry. Who made that decision, I cannot tell you.
NDTV: Did you get the sense that this was a decision taken by the Center or state?
Gordon Streeb: The only people I dealt with were at the ministry so as far as I know this was a decision by the Government of India at the federal level, at the central level.
NDTV: The Congress says Anderson got bail because he was meant to return. Was this Anderson's understanding?
Gordon Streeb: Oh yes, definitely, otherwise we would've advised him not to come to India. We were in the very early stages of this event and emotions run high as we saw with the Madhya Pradesh government, understandably they were very concerned about who was going to be held accountable but from our standpoint, at this point in time, I advised and agreed with Union Carbide that he should not be coming to India if he was going to be subjected to arrest or any other actions at this point.
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bhopal-gas-tragedy-centre-arranged-warren-andersons-release-says-ex-us-diplomat-tells-ndtv-32186.php?u=0750
A former Deputy Chief of Mission of the US embassy in New Delhi in 1984 has told NDTV that Warren Anderson's release from house arrest in Bhopal and his flight to Delhi was arranged by the Ministry of External Affairs.
In an exclusive interview, Gordon Streeb said the US did not want any action to be taken against Anderson and that the then Foreign Secretary M K Rasgotra assured him that nothing would happen to Warren Anderson during his visit.
A crucial point of the controversy over the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict has been the exit route offered to Anderson, who was the American CEO of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in 1984 when a gas leak from the company's plant choked Bhopal.
Anderson's departure from Bhopal was not a stealthy one. He flew out on December 7, hours after landing in Bhopal, on the official plane of the then Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister, Arjun Singh. He then stopped in Delhi before leaving the country. But the verdict delivered last week, which offered a nano-punishment to seven Carbide executives, all of them Indian, has led to a new public anger pivoted on why Anderson has never faced trial.
Here are the excerpts from the interview with Gordon Streeb:
NDTV: Can you elaborate on what circumstances Warren Anderson decided to come to India?
Gordon Streeb: We got a call from Union Carbide suggesting that Mr Anderson would like to come to India to show the concern of the corporation at the highest levels for the victims and to get some sense of what had happened at the plant. But both Union Carbide and I were concerned that there be no action taken against Mr Anderson. We did not want to have Mr Anderson come to India to make this gesture and to assess the situation and put himself at risk of being arrested or whatever.
So, based on that I checked with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and to the best of my knowledge, most of my conversations, or all of them were with the Foreign Secretary. They got back to me and said yes, they agree that it would be useful for Mr Anderson to come to display and demonstrate Union Carbide's concern and that they would provide him assurance that nothing would happen to him during this visit.
When he got to Bhopal, obviously, the local officials thought differently. I personally have no idea whether there had been any communication from the Central government to the state government...how this all evolved. The only thing is, the next thing I was aware of from New Delhi was I got a call and was told he was under house arrest at which point I got back in touch with the MEA and asked what we could do to get his release. They told me they'd check into this. The next thing I knew, they had arranged for his release and transport to New Delhi. When he got to New Delhi, he came to the US embassy where we all agreed it would be best he keep a low profile, not get involved with the public, the media, anybody and that the best thing to do at this point was to depart India in accordance with the agreement we had had, in which case he stayed at the embassy until the next flight to the US and he then went to the airport and left. And that was the extent of the arrangements we had made and my own involvement at that time.
NDTV: You have spoken of a safe passage to him. Who assured him of this safe passage?
Gordon Streeb: That I got from the MEA, the Foreign Secretary. Now there's a lot of speculation in India as I'm seeing in the press right now about who actually made that decision. That I cannot tell you. I have no idea where this went up the chain of command in the Indian government. My interaction was strictly with the Foreign Secretary. I, to the best of my recollection, never talked to the FM or the PM. I dealt exclusively with the ministry. Who made that decision, I cannot tell you.
NDTV: Did you get the sense that this was a decision taken by the Center or state?
Gordon Streeb: The only people I dealt with were at the ministry so as far as I know this was a decision by the Government of India at the federal level, at the central level.
NDTV: The Congress says Anderson got bail because he was meant to return. Was this Anderson's understanding?
Gordon Streeb: Oh yes, definitely, otherwise we would've advised him not to come to India. We were in the very early stages of this event and emotions run high as we saw with the Madhya Pradesh government, understandably they were very concerned about who was going to be held accountable but from our standpoint, at this point in time, I advised and agreed with Union Carbide that he should not be coming to India if he was going to be subjected to arrest or any other actions at this point.
UPA-I opposed increase in Bhopal payout
UPA-I opposed increase in Bhopal payout
NEW DELHI: The alacrity shown by the government in setting up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to look into all issues of the Bhopal gas tragedy - including adequacy of compensation - was clearly missing just three years ago when the UPA government opposed tooth and nail any enhancement of payment to the sufferers.
Two applications by NGOs - Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan (BGPMUS) and Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS) - were filed before SC seeking "re-examination of the inadequacy of Bhopal Gas Settlement and to direct Union of India to compensate the settlement fund five times the initial fund" among other relief.
The NGOs argued that neither had all eligible victims been identified nor had adequate compensation been paid to them. They alleged that the estimate used to create the settlement fund was based on a conservative figure, and compensation paid to the kin was woefully inadequate.
These groups had asserted that the magnitude of the disaster in terms of death as well as injuries was at least five times larger than what was assumed in 1989. It was then estimated that at least 3,000 people died and 30,000 were injured. The toll now stands at five times the 1989 estimate.
The UPA government had opposed the plea saying it was based on "assumptions, surmises and conjecture and on misreading of the judgments of the Supreme Court".
The Centre had said, "NGOs were trying to reopen the issue of compensation which had been settled with the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and the Union of India and that the SC had approved the said settlement." It had argued that adequacy of compensation can't be reopened either.
The SC recorded the admissible compensation scheme under the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which provided Rs 1-3 lakh for death, Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh for permanent disability, upto Rs 4 lakh for severe injury, upto Rs 20,000 for minor injuries, upto Rs 15,000 for loss of belongings and upto Rs 10,000 for loss of livestock.
Besides opposing the applications, the Centre had told SC that "several false and vexatious claims under death and injury category had been lodged". It also argued that it would not be appropriate for the apex court to express any opinion one way or the other and that the aggrieved victims could move the Welfare Commissioner in Bhopal under the 1985 Act for adequate compensation.
The SC agreed with the Centre and dismissed the applications saying there was a framework available for the aggrieved victims to seek enhancement of compensation, but not without reminding it of the 1991 judgment of the apex court holding Centre liable for pitching in with additional funds if the money paid by UCC was found inadequate.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/UPA-I-opposed-increase-in-Bhopal-payout/articleshow/6056538.cmsTwo applications by NGOs - Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan (BGPMUS) and Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS) - were filed before SC seeking "re-examination of the inadequacy of Bhopal Gas Settlement and to direct Union of India to compensate the settlement fund five times the initial fund" among other relief.
The NGOs argued that neither had all eligible victims been identified nor had adequate compensation been paid to them. They alleged that the estimate used to create the settlement fund was based on a conservative figure, and compensation paid to the kin was woefully inadequate.
These groups had asserted that the magnitude of the disaster in terms of death as well as injuries was at least five times larger than what was assumed in 1989. It was then estimated that at least 3,000 people died and 30,000 were injured. The toll now stands at five times the 1989 estimate.
The UPA government had opposed the plea saying it was based on "assumptions, surmises and conjecture and on misreading of the judgments of the Supreme Court".
The Centre had said, "NGOs were trying to reopen the issue of compensation which had been settled with the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and the Union of India and that the SC had approved the said settlement." It had argued that adequacy of compensation can't be reopened either.
The SC recorded the admissible compensation scheme under the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which provided Rs 1-3 lakh for death, Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh for permanent disability, upto Rs 4 lakh for severe injury, upto Rs 20,000 for minor injuries, upto Rs 15,000 for loss of belongings and upto Rs 10,000 for loss of livestock.
Besides opposing the applications, the Centre had told SC that "several false and vexatious claims under death and injury category had been lodged". It also argued that it would not be appropriate for the apex court to express any opinion one way or the other and that the aggrieved victims could move the Welfare Commissioner in Bhopal under the 1985 Act for adequate compensation.
The SC agreed with the Centre and dismissed the applications saying there was a framework available for the aggrieved victims to seek enhancement of compensation, but not without reminding it of the 1991 judgment of the apex court holding Centre liable for pitching in with additional funds if the money paid by UCC was found inadequate.
Pune blast investigations by ATS have gone wrong: Maharashtra DGP
Pune blast investigations by ATS have gone wrong: Maharashtra DGP
UNE: The Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) D Sivanandan has admitted that the investigations by the state ATS into the February 13 German Bakery terror attack have gone wrong."The ATS has to study the case scientifically and collect evidence to identify the group behind the attack", he said, talking to reporters on the sidelines of a function on Tuesday night.
Sivanandan said he was aware that four months had passed since the incident but stressed that the investigating agency should not be put under pressure of time frame.
"The first mistake was the blast and second wrong investigation. What we need is right investigation at right time," the police chief who was here to inaugurate an induction course for the state CID officers, remarked.
A Sessions court in Mumbai on Tuesday granted bail to Abdul Samad, arrested by the ATS in an arms case and for suspected involvement in the Pune terror attack.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Pune/Pune-blast-investigations-by-ATS-have-gone-wrong-Maharashtra-DGP/articleshow/6053294.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
