[Reader-list] Who gives muftis the right...

[M Javed]

Dear Rahul, I will give a few examples here:

For "Indian constitution does not keep everyone happy", please see:

Seers Demand Dropping of Word Secular from Indian Constitution!
http://www.pluralindia.com/issues-in-secular-politics.php?id=205

For Panchayati system, see the following reports that refer to the
exploitation of low-caste people and women under panchayat:
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/panchay.htm
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/panchayati-raj.htm

For your last point (constitution...is supposed to provide a basic
framework...), let me say that shariat is also nothing but a basic
framework. Literally, sharia means a way or path. And you can get
strayed from the path.

J

On 7/1/09, Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ok so its time for truisms and platitudes now.
> "Indian constitution does not keep everyone happy."
> Can you elaborate?
> "The panchayati system in  rural India still gives most power to the
> high-caste goons."
> Can you elaborate? Can you quote the relevant articles of the panchayati
> system which "give most power to high-caste goons"?
>
> Let me add that the function of constitution is not to "keep everyone
> happy",whatever that means.It is supposed to provide a basic framework and
> some non amendable laws.The basic framework and non amendable laws cannot be
> altered,even if there is  majority will to do so.
>
> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Who gives muftis the right to give fatwas?
>> To: "Rahul Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>, "sarai list"
>> <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 11:09 PM
>> Dear Rahul
>> No law or system of governance is ideal for all. Indian
>> constitution
>> does not keep everyone happy. For all practical purposes,
>> democracy
>> does not guarantee justice (and even equality) to all,
>> although it
>> maybe the most ideal system today. The panchayati system in
>> rural
>> India still gives most power to the high-caste goons.
>> Afghan mujahids (or criminal gangs) would have used some
>> other law to
>> suppress women and kill innocent people if shariat was not
>> there. Its
>> how you use the law in your favour, even if it looks the
>> most
>> innocuous or balanced.
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Rahul Asthana<rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Javed,
>> > Yes this answers my query. Now we can discuss
>> further.
>> > 1.Do you think laws are made on a best case scenario?
>> > 2.Do you think we can rely on the better judgement of
>> the majority when we choose to be governed by a law?
>> > 3.Can you tell me if it is POSSIBLE or not for the
>> Shariat to be interpreted in a Taliban kind of way?
>> > It is precisely for the reason that many
>> interpretations are possible (a Taliban kind of
>> implementation is one of them) that non Muslims,women etc
>> should reject Shariat.Hypothetically, suppose your support
>> for Shariat passively enables an entity like Taliban to come
>> to power.I am assuming you in a democracy you would vote for
>> a political party who stands for Shariat) then would you
>> accept some responsibilty for that or call them "non
>> Muslims" or "bad Muslims" and shrug your shoulders?This is
>> exactly how the rise of Taliban has played out in Pakistan.
>> > This discussion may be academic because as you have
>> already said that owing to  allegiance to your religion
>> abiding by Shariat is your duty.No secular jurisprudence can
>> provide you an alternative to that.So I thank you for
>> discussing this with me anyway.
>> > See, the thing is,that liberal interpreters of Shariat
>> want the ideology behind their islamic identity to be just
>> another secular humanist philosophy so badly that they think
>> they can just shut their eyes, click their heels together,
>> and it will all happen just as they want to.Other liberals
>> like Shuddha should realize the danger inherent in this kind
>> of exercise.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Rahul
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Who gives muftis the
>> right to give fatwas?
>> >> To: "Rahul Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> >> Cc: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>,
>> "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> >> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 10:26 AM
>> >> Rahul, which shariat are you
>> >> referring to when you ask my opinion.
>> >> What is the definition of shariat which I want to
>> be
>> >> governed with? I
>> >> have my own definition of shariat, and I would be
>> very
>> >> happy to be
>> >> governed under that. My shariat is very much from
>> Islam,
>> >> but it gives
>> >> queers the right to live happily.
>> >>
>> >> Hope that answers your query.
>> >>
>> >> Javed
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Rahul
>> Asthana<rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Dear Javed,
>> >> > I don't think you have thought this
>> through,which is
>> >> why you are unable to make the distinction between
>> "adopt
>> >> something from the shariat" and "being governed
>> by
>> >> shariat".I just wanted to know whether you are in
>> favor of
>> >> making "Shariat a basis for governance" or
>> not.This is the
>> >> key .Everything else is just gravy.
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > Rahul
>> >> > --- On Tue, 6/30/09, M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Who gives
>> muftis the
>> >> right to give fatwas?
>> >> >> To: "Rahul Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> >> >> Cc: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>,
>> >> "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> >> >> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 10:40 PM
>> >> >> Dear Rahul
>> >> >> Here is my clearer position: I have been
>> brought
>> >> up in an
>> >> >> orthodox
>> >> >> Muslim family where shariat was/is
>> considered the
>> >> ultimate
>> >> >> law/norm to
>> >> >> follow for a Muslim. But in my childhood
>> days it
>> >> wasn't
>> >> >> considered
>> >> >> such an evil thing (as Taliban has made
>> it to be).
>> >> Let me
>> >> >> tell you,
>> >> >> following shariat in our daily lives is
>> very
>> >> different from
>> >> >> making it
>> >> >> as a basis for governance. Shariat as a
>> basis of
>> >> governance
>> >> >> is not
>> >> >> something fixed any way - it has been
>> interpreted
>> >> >> differently in
>> >> >> different Islamic countries. Indonesia,
>> Malaysia
>> >> or Turkey
>> >> >> also follow
>> >> >> shariat but their systems are much more
>> liberal.
>> >> That is
>> >> >> why I insist:
>> >> >> please don't see shariat only through the
>> eyes of
>> >> the
>> >> >> Taliban/Afghanistan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Whatever name you give it, the point is,
>> is your
>> >> system of
>> >> >> governance
>> >> >> favourable for you. At the moment I am
>> governed
>> >> by
>> >> >> democracy, whether
>> >> >> I like it or not. There are many things I
>> hate in
>> >> >> democracy, and would
>> >> >> love to change them one day (if I could),
>> even
>> >> adopt
>> >> >> something from
>> >> >> the shariat. Is there something wrong
>> with that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Javed
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Rahul
>> >> Asthana<rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dear Javed,
>> >> >> > Could you make your position clearer
>> on this
>> >> issue?
>> >> >> You say-
>> >> >> > "My second minor difference is: when
>> you say
>> >> "We are
>> >> >> not governed by
>> >> >> > the Shariat, and I hope we never
>> will be". I
>> >> am not
>> >> >> sure if Shariat is
>> >> >> > all evil."
>> >> >> > So, do you wish or do you not, to be
>> governed
>> >> by
>> >> >> Shariat?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > (Not wishing to be governed by
>> Shariat does
>> >> not mean
>> >> >> that it is evil.It also does not mean
>> that we
>> >> can't adopt
>> >> >> good things from it.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> > Rahul
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --- On Tue, 6/30/09, M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> From: M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Who
>> gives
>> >> muftis the
>> >> >> right to give fatwas?
>> >> >> >> To: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta"
>> <shuddha at sarai.net>,
>> >> >> "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> >> >> >> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009,
>> 3:46 PM
>> >> >> >> Dear Shuddhabrata
>> >> >> >> Actually I have a slight
>> digression from
>> >> your
>> >> >> answer. I
>> >> >> >> don't care
>> >> >> >> what fatwas the muftis give
>> within their
>> >> own
>> >> >> coterie (I'm
>> >> >> >> sure
>> >> >> >> homosexual behaviour exists in
>> the
>> >> Deoband madrasa
>> >> >> too),
>> >> >> >> but the
>> >> >> >> problem comes when this news is
>> flashed
>> >> on the
>> >> >> front-page:
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> basically sends a clear signal
>> that
>> >> "Muslims" in
>> >> >> general
>> >> >> >> are against
>> >> >> >> homo-sexuality and this is yet
>> another
>> >> example of
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> >> bigoted the
>> >> >> >> entire community is, and there
>> are
>> >> absolutely no
>> >> >> liberals
>> >> >> >> (or
>> >> >> >> queer-friendly) people among the
>> Muslims
>> >> and so
>> >> >> on, which
>> >> >> >> is not the
>> >> >> >> case. In a way, any
>> controversial fatwa
>> >> from the
>> >> >> Deoband
>> >> >> >> (whichever
>> >> >> >> damn topic) is taken by the
>> media as a
>> >> hot saucy
>> >> >> news to be
>> >> >> >> flashed to
>> >> >> >> show the backwardness of
>> Muslims. But my
>> >> question
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> (especially to
>> >> >> >> the mainstream media), do these
>> damn
>> >> fatwas
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> >> represent the
>> >> >> >> entire Muslim community? Are
>> they so
>> >> important
>> >> >> that you
>> >> >> >> have to flash
>> >> >> >> them as headlines.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My second minor difference is:
>> when you
>> >> say "We
>> >> >> are not
>> >> >> >> governed by
>> >> >> >> the Shariat, and I hope we never
>> will
>> >> be". I am
>> >> >> not sure if
>> >> >> >> Shariat is
>> >> >> >> all evil. Although I don't
>> practice it
>> >> strictly,
>> >> >> but I know
>> >> >> >> it has
>> >> >> >> many good things in it which
>> make at
>> >> least the
>> >> >> good part of
>> >> >> >> Islam
>> >> >> >> alive. Don't see it only through
>> the eyes
>> >> of the
>> >> >> Taliban.
>> >> >> >> Whether we
>> >> >> >> get governed by the shariat or
>> not, I
>> >> hope we
>> >> >> could at
>> >> >> >> least adopt the
>> >> >> >> good things about it. And
>> Shariat is not
>> >> a fixed
>> >> >> set of
>> >> >> >> rules; it can
>> >> >> >> be and should be open for
>> interpretation,
>> >> which
>> >> >> these
>> >> >> >> muftis have
>> >> >> >> stopped doing.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks any way.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Javed
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53
>> PM,
>> >> Shuddhabrata
>> >> >> >> Sengupta<shuddha at sarai.net>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Dear Javed,
>> >> >> >> > Thank you for forwarding
>> this. I
>> >> don't know
>> >> >> who gives
>> >> >> >> these muftis and
>> >> >> >> > tuftis the right to give
>> fatwas, I
>> >> think they
>> >> >> give it
>> >> >> >> to themselves. And
>> >> >> >> > since they routinely issue
>> fatwas on
>> >> all
>> >> >> manner of
>> >> >> >> ridiculous matters, we
>> >> >> >> > might as well treat this
>> one too
>> >> with the
>> >> >> lack of
>> >> >> >> seriousness that it
>> >> >> >> > deserves.
>> >> >> >> > We are not governed by the
>> Shariat,
>> >> and I
>> >> >> hope we
>> >> >> >> never will be. Since we
>> >> >> >> > are not governed by the
>> Shariat, it
>> >> hardly
>> >> >> matters
>> >> >> >> whether or not Maulana
>> >> >> >> > Abdul Khalik Madrasi
>> thinks
>> >> homosexuality is
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> >> offence under Shariat Law.
>> >> >> >> > Not even the relevant (and
>> >> anachronistic,
>> >> >> misogynist
>> >> >> >> and patrarchal)
>> >> >> >> > sections of Personal Law in
>> matters
>> >> of
>> >> >> marriage and
>> >> >> >> inheritance that govern
>> >> >> >> > the lives of Indian Muslims
>> have
>> >> anything to
>> >> >> say about
>> >> >> >> sexual relations in
>> >> >> >> > private between consenting
>> adults.
>> >> So, not
>> >> >> even from
>> >> >> >> the completely
>> >> >> >> > unacceptabe (to me)
>> standpoint of
>> >> defending a
>> >> >> separate
>> >> >> >> civil code for
>> >> >> >> > Muslims is it relevant to
>> discuss
>> >> the fate of
>> >> >> Section
>> >> >> >> 377. Maulana Madrasi
>> >> >> >> > is barking up the wrong
>> legal tree.
>> >> >> >> > Finally, a small
>> historical
>> >> digression.
>> >> >> Section 377
>> >> >> >> was introduced by the
>> >> >> >> > British Colonial
>> Administration in
>> >> India.
>> >> >> Which, as
>> >> >> >> far as i recall, was not
>> >> >> >> > exactly a model Islamic
>> state. In
>> >> fact, the
>> >> >> British
>> >> >> >> Colonial authorities
>> >> >> >> > presided over the decline
>> and
>> >> destruction of
>> >> >> >> 'nominally' Muslim political
>> >> >> >> > power in India. if, for the
>> roughly
>> >> seven
>> >> >> hundred
>> >> >> >> years preceding the advent
>> >> >> >> > of British rule in India,
>> when the
>> >> territory
>> >> >> happened
>> >> >> >> to be ruled largely by
>> >> >> >> > Muslim rulers, (some of
>> whom claimed
>> >> to be
>> >> >> guided by
>> >> >> >> the Shariat) it was not
>> >> >> >> > found necessary to invoke
>> a
>> >> draconian law
>> >> >> like section
>> >> >> >> 377, are we to then
>> >> >> >> > understand that the
>> British
>> >> Colonial
>> >> >> authority was
>> >> >> >> more 'Islamic' than the
>> >> >> >> > Mughal rulers, than the
>> rulers of
>> >> the Delhi
>> >> >> sultanate,
>> >> >> >> and many other kings
>> >> >> >> > and princes of a Muslim
>> persuasion.
>> >> >> >> > And finally, how exactly
>> would we
>> >> remember a
>> >> >> figure
>> >> >> >> like the great Ghazi of
>> >> >> >> > Islam - Mahmud of Ghazna
>> and his
>> >> love for
>> >> >> Ayaz, or
>> >> >> >> Razia Sultana and her
>> >> >> >> > love for women, or the
>> distinctly
>> >> queer
>> >> >> ecstasies of
>> >> >> >> Amir Khusrau and
>> >> >> >> > Sarmad. Each one of these
>> people
>> >> saw
>> >> >> themselves as
>> >> >> >> devout Muslim. And there
>> >> >> >> > was nothing unusual in
>> their being
>> >> queer
>> >> >> Muslims.
>> >> >> >> Islamicate societies all
>> >> >> >> > over the world have been
>> >> historically far
>> >> >> more
>> >> >> >> tolerant of various different
>> >> >> >> > kinds of same-sex
>> relationships both
>> >> male and
>> >> >> female,
>> >> >> >> and transgender
>> >> >> >> > identities, than societies
>> largely
>> >> anchored
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> Christian values have been.
>> >> >> >> > Islam is a sex positive
>> religion.
>> >> It
>> >> >> celebrates the
>> >> >> >> dignity, beauty and
>> >> >> >> > diversity of the human body
>> and all
>> >> its
>> >> >> desires. There
>> >> >> >> is (and always has
>> >> >> >> > been) a strong case for a
>> queer
>> >> theology of
>> >> >> liberation
>> >> >> >> that is rooted within
>> >> >> >> > the Islamicate cultural
>> universe,
>> >> and it has
>> >> >> had a
>> >> >> >> long history, and it will
>> >> >> >> > have a long future.
>> >> >> >> > Maulana Madrasi is probably
>> just as
>> >> ignorant
>> >> >> of the
>> >> >> >> traditions he claims are
>> >> >> >> > his own as Praveen Togadia,
>> the
>> >> firebrand
>> >> >> leader of
>> >> >> >> the Vishwa Hindu
>> >> >> >> > Parishad, is. They would
>> probably
>> >> make an
>> >> >> excellent
>> >> >> >> couple, locked happily
>> >> >> >> > together within their
>> private closet
>> >> of
>> >> >> paranoia.
>> >> >> >> > Meanwhile, let us hope that
>> Veerappa
>> >> Moily's
>> >> >> supposed
>> >> >> >> u-turn is only a
>> >> >> >> > digression, and that the
>> provisions
>> >> in
>> >> >> Section 377
>> >> >> >> that criminalize the
>> >> >> >> > behaviour of consenting
>> adults in
>> >> private
>> >> >> (which
>> >> >> >> should not be the business
>> >> >> >> > of the state)  are
>> consigned
>> >> finally to
>> >> >> where they
>> >> >> >> belong - the dustbin of
>> >> >> >> > history.
>> >> >> >> > And congratulations to all
>> those who
>> >> paraded
>> >> >> on the
>> >> >> >> streets of Delhi,
>> >> >> >> > Bangalore, Madras and
>> Calcutta. The
>> >> future
>> >> >> belongs to
>> >> >> >> you (and us all) not
>> >> >> >> > to the likes of Maulana
>> Madrasi.
>> >> >> >> > regards
>> >> >> >> > Shuddha
>> >> >> >> > On 29-Jun-09, at 3:54 PM, M
>> Javed
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Gay sex against tenets of
>> Islam:
>> >> Deoband
>> >> >> >> > 29 Jun 2009, 1353 hrs IST,
>> PTI
>> >> >> >> > MUZAFFARNAGAR, UP: A
>> leading Islamic
>> >> seminary
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> Monday opposed
>> >> >> >> > Centre's move to repeal a
>> >> controversial
>> >> >> section of the
>> >> >> >> penal law which
>> >> >> >> > criminalises homosexuality
>> saying
>> >> unnatural
>> >> >> sex is
>> >> >> >> against the tenets of
>> >> >> >> > Islam.
>> >> >> >> > "Homosexuality is an
>> offence under
>> >> Shariat
>> >> >> Law and
>> >> >> >> haram (prohibited)
>> >> >> >> > in Islam," deputy vice
>> chancellor of
>> >> the
>> >> >> Darul Uloom
>> >> >> >> Deoband Maulana
>> >> >> >> > Abdul Khalik Madrasi said.
>> >> >> >> > Madrasi also asked the
>> government
>> >> not to
>> >> >> repeal
>> >> >> >> section 377 of IPC
>> >> >> >> > which criminalises
>> homosexuality.
>> >> >> >> > His objection came a day
>> after law
>> >> minister
>> >> >> Veerappa
>> >> >> >> Moily said a
>> >> >> >> > decision on repealing the
>> section
>> >> would be
>> >> >> taken only
>> >> >> >> after
>> >> >> >> > considering concerns of all
>> sections
>> >> of the
>> >> >> society,
>> >> >> >> including
>> >> >> >> > religious groups like the
>> church.
>> >> >> >> > Terming gay activities as
>> crime,
>> >> Maulana
>> >> >> Salim Kasmi,
>> >> >> >> vice-president
>> >> >> >> > of the All-India Muslim
>> Personal Law
>> >> Board
>> >> >> (AIMPLB),
>> >> >> >> said
>> >> >> >> > homosexuality is punishable
>> under
>> >> Islamic law
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> section 377 of IPC
>> >> >> >> > should not be tampered.
>> >> >> >> > Maulana Mohd Sufiyan Kasmi,
>> an
>> >> AIMPLB member,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> Mufti Zulfikar,
>> >> >> >> > president of Uttar Pradesh
>> Imam
>> >> Organisation
>> >> >> have also
>> >> >> >> expressed
>> >> >> >> > similar views on the
>> issue.
>> >> >> >> > Kasmi said it would be
>> harmful for
>> >> the
>> >> >> society to
>> >> >> >> legalise gay sex.
>> >> >> >> > Buoyed by the news that the
>> Centre
>> >> is
>> >> >> considering
>> >> >> >> repealing the
>> >> >> >> > controversial section of
>> the IPC,
>> >> members of
>> >> >> the gay
>> >> >> >> community on
>> >> >> >> > Sunday held parades in
>> several
>> >> cities.
>> >> >> >> > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Gay-sex-against-tenets-of-Islam-Deoband/articleshow/4715517.cms
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> _________________________________________
>> >> >> >> > reader-list: an open
>> discussion list
>> >> on media
>> >> >> and the
>> >> >> >> city.
>> >> >> >> > Critiques &
>> Collaborations
>> >> >> >> > To subscribe: send an email
>> to reader-list-request at sarai.net
>> >> >> >> with subscribe
>> >> >> >> > in the subject header.
>> >> >> >> > To unsubscribe:
>> >> >> >> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> >> >> >> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Shuddhabrata Sengupta
>> >> >> >> > The Sarai Programme at
>> CSDS
>> >> >> >> > Raqs Media Collective
>> >> >> >> > shuddha at sarai.net
>> >> >> >> > www.sarai.net
>> >> >> >> >
>> www.raqsmediacollective.net
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> _________________________________________
>> >> >> >> reader-list: an open discussion
>> list on
>> >> media and
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> city.
>> >> >> >> Critiques & Collaborations
>> >> >> >> To subscribe: send an email to
>> reader-list-request at sarai.net
>> >> >> >> with subscribe in the subject
>> header.
>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe:
>> >> >> >> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> >> >> >> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>