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

Thu Jul 2 19:26:04 IST 2009

Rahul, I have read those links, I hope you read them too (and I said
these are only examples - there can be more). Through these I simply
wanted to show you that some people will never be happy with a system
of governance because it doesn't suit them. And some people will
always take advantage of it, or even twist it in their interest. Its
not a specific article of Panchayati raj that's important. We are made
to believe that Panchayati raj is the people's local governance that
empowers them. But in reality it does not allow to them to rise above
the feudalism and casteism. Similarly, Indian constitution presents
India as a "secular" nation, but some people don't like that status
and would like to change it.

If my arguments are sounding here and there, lets close the discussion here.

I would however be curious to know (as you say that "sharia has no
place in the egalitarian society"), have you read shariah yourself? Do
you know what it is? And how people have interpreted it differently in
the different times, sometimes exactly to make it egalitarian?

J

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Rahul Asthana<rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Javed,
>
> 1.What is the point of posting this article?"Seers Demand Dropping of Word Secular from Indian Constitution!"Are you trying to prove your own assertion that "Indian constitution does not keep everyone happy" ? Can you explain how that relates with this discussion?
> 2.The second series of articles that you have posted are about Panchayat Raj.I am assuming you would have read all these articles.I will repeat the question I asked earlier.Can you explain which article of Panchayati Raj gives most of the power to high caste goons?
> 3.I am not advocating to adopt Indian Constitution BECAUSE IT IS A FRAMEWORK! So your contention that Sharia is also a framework is neither here nor there.Please pay more attention to my earlier mails to you.My contention is that Sharia does not have inalienable principles that can safeguard minorities and women against majority interpretation.So it has no place in an egalitarian society!
>
> Thanks
> Rahul
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: M Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Who gives muftis the right...
>> To: "Rahul Asthana" <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "Shuddhabrata Sengupta" <shuddha at sarai.net>, "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 4:57 PM
>> 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/>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>