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

Thu Jul 2 19:44:23 IST 2009

"Similarly, Indian constitution  presents  India as a "secular" nation, but some people don't like  that status and would like to change it."
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION! YES YOUR "ARGUMENT" IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE!
"And how people have interpreted it  differently in  the different times, sometimes exactly to make it egalitarian?"
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Please read all my emails one more time.WE CAN'T RELY ON THE GOODWILL OF THE MAJORITY TO MAKE A SYSTEM EGALITARIAN! THE SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE SHOULD HAVE INBUILT SAFEGUARDS SO THAT MAJORITY CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT!

--- 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, 7:26 PM
> 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/>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 