Gay rights, American Muslims and religious laws

American Muslims! do you want American Laws to be based on religion? if not then why all the arguments against gay marriage are coming from religion?

If you have been to Muslim gathering, especially for Jummah namaz, you would have met many concerned muslims and heard ceremons from the pulpits. I did…..

Recent declaration by Obama to end descrimination against Gays marrige rights have stirred quite a bit of uneasynes among religious leadership (if there is something like that in Muslim community of America)

In masajids you might be Imam mentioning gay rights and getting angry on that. You will hear things like they are going to indocternate the children, if we alow gays getting married then next they will going to allow sex with animals, and even you might hear the argument it is slippery slop if we tolerate gays getting married next it might be having sex with kids (yup, for a second i could not believe when I heard such arguments), one Imam pointed out that your child might come home and say dad today my teacher Ms. Jeniffer’s husband came to visit her and her name was Andrea, what you are going to say to them.

I will not go in details about “question of consent” which an animal can’t give. Or Muslim children grow in America where most of the kids are having sex (straight or not) or atleast know that kids around them have boy friends or girl friends. So how traumatic their teacher having gay husband would be?

I will not even go and discuss that in this society people of any inclination are having sex with who ever they want and are open about it, so is big fuss is just giving them legal rights (which as a human they must have) not the physical act itself?

Keep all these aside, and acknowledging that all Ibrahimic religions (Jeudaism, Christianity and Islam) view being gay a sinful act. Question is which one of these wants to have American laws defined according to the religion? Do jews and muslims want America to have Christian laws? If not then why the reasoning they are presenting is coming from the religion?

Why I only hear God has forbiden this act, Allah destroyed a nation for that, ……. where are other detailed reasonings. Because if we start having religious argument here, where it will stop. Why not next have discussion about who could actually be called Christian or Jew or Muslim? Why not go ahead and ban any criticism of any religion? But then who will define religion? Why should Christians accept Islam to be religion? if they do then why not some Spagheti God? Should punishments be also derived from Bible, old and new Testaments?

American Muslims should know better, religious arguments about laws will lead to religions laws and those laws might not be ones that let minorities flourish.

 

Governor Salman Taseer assassinated by intolerance

Governor of Punjab Pakistan Salman Taseer has been murdered by his own guard citing that Governor called Blasphemy laws black laws. How much intolerance we can live with? Where is freedom of expression? Can we not criticize a law made by humans?

Killer Mumtaz Qadri is not sole responsible, we all are. Our media anchors, our columnist, our religious scholars and our intellectuals, we all are.

One of the the worst part is there was rumor (according to the TV. Channels) that Salman Taseer was about to removed from Governor’s post. The guy who should have been thrown out of the govt. has now become Pakistan’s hero.

I never liked this guy not because he was vocal against the Blasphemy laws, I respect him for that, but his overall behavior was more of the bully than a respected governor.  Now it’s really hard time for me to say anything against him; he is dead and has been killed for one thing I hold dear, Freedom of Expression.

Let’s not let this person’s spilled blood go waste, let’s start pushing for more open attitude, making people realize that no one will be safe if we let this intolerance attitude prevail.

 

After Fort Hood Shooting; a Muslim view

Everyone right now must have heard the news that a Muslim Army officer went on shooting rampage at Fort Hood. I first thought it could be any person having Arabic name, but then it became apparent that he is Muslim. And Guardian is reporting that He shouted Allahu Akbar before shooting.

This is sad and worrying day, 13 lives have been lost and about 28 people are injured. This is worrying not only because such shooting are becoming repetitive event in which some normal looking guy walks in with gun and start shooting. It happened at mall, it happened at school and it happened at university campus; now at military base.

It is worrying also because an involvement of a Muslim will open door for more prejudice, bias and hate towards Muslims.  As a Muslim I am concerned that instead of viewing this event as an action by mentally ill person much like previous shootouts, people will try to put in the picture of Islamic Terrorism. This will give people tool and opportunity to speak against the Muslims.

There is going fear in online community that this might trigger religious or atleast geographical profiling. One of the interesting discussion of which I was pointed out is going on over article by Hirscfield on Washington Post  http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brad_hirschfield/2009/11/fort_hood_massacre_no_indictme.html

Ironically, those who will use this event to disparage all Muslims or Islam in general, even to the point of violence, will prove themselves no different from those they oppose. In fact, they will prove how much they share with Mr. Hasan. Such generalized hatred is precisely the animating approach of anyone who opens fire on a collection of individuals who pose them no immediate threat.

But in b/w he asks that question should be asked from Community he came from. Interesting reply came from one of the poster

kjohnson3′s Reply:

When you refer to “the community from which the murderer came,” why do you look only at the religious community from which he came? He also came from the military community and the medical community.

I personally have not viewed till now any discrimination, I can feel that heat is increasing, someone on Fox News just asked that whether Muslims in Military should go through Special Screenings.

I will like to ask; was some Special Screening arraigned for the people belonging to ethnicity or religion or community of previous shooters? But then we all know about the Fox News, if you don’t know much about Fox News,  you can assume they are Big Version of Zaid Hamid.

In response to these hate messages there are lots of messages talking about not to use Guilt By Association, and are for supporting American Muslims. I have personally found Americans to be friendly and never came face to face with anti-Muslim person. One of the reason might be because I live in University Town, but I believe this is general feature.

As for with such event, I ask people to not to let their fears, biases and pain make them hate other people. And as for every such case one of the critical question that should be raised is how he was able to take gun inside a secure area? Why was there such security lapse?

Other critical question is Why was this person not flagged as a risk person?

If his views, as being told by some news agencies, were extremists he should have been separated, where was negligence? An extremists person should not have a place in any Army, this is true for any extremists, be it religious or social.

If it becomes visible that his motivation was not only PTSD but also religious, then it will be quite worrying part. It is critical that we should recognize that there are thousands of extremists who think their motivation comes from the religion.  Hundreds have died in Pakistan from the hands of extremists who think their actions are justified from Religion, about 2 decade back there were groups going for extremists activities because of their political (which were non-religious) views. Just few months ago Tamil tigers were killing their own people and still in regions of India Maoist have been accused of mass killing.  In America there are White Supremest and religious conservative who think they will one day have to go on war with others. In Europe there has been rise of BNP.

These all form of extremisms are to be condemned but understood that they don’t define communities, religions or ethnicity. I wish everyone good luck, it is difficult period on this world.

I am just a visitor in America, soon I will be back to my homeland Pakistan; the one thing I love about America is Equal Rights for everyone. But such rights can not just be dictated by Law they have to be implemented by society. I hope American society keeps on implementing that.

 

Why Quaid-e-Azam Only?

Recently during one debate a religiously minded member of the group (not this one) referenced Quaid-e-Azam’s State bank speech for the basis of Islam for Pakistan. But that member is not alone in this. I have seen many secular minded people quoting Quaid-e-Azam’s speeches and his life to state that Pakistan should be secular. These arguments are mostly ranging from his chosen speeches, his dress, his choice of language, his food, his pictures with dogs, etc…. The religious ones will totally ignore all other aspects and stick to some of their chosen speeches, our text-books quote his sherwani, when he read Namaz, etc…

And I always end up questioning Why are these people only referencing this one person?

Why is not any one else, who was part of ML, important?

Why dont people quote how the population felt, what were their demands?  If Quaid-e-Azam wanted secular Pakistan, did people wanted Secular Pakistan, did they voted for secular Pakistan. Or people were not thinking in terms of religion but in terms of economics and administration? Did Quaid-e-Azam told them 3 years before independence that it will be secular country?

What was Muslim League promising, a religious state, a secular one, or just a state for Muslims and not of Muslims?

Most importantly Why is not anyone talking about what people want now? Why should I stop demanding something because Quaid-e-Azam did or did not wanted it?

America is similar, they mostly end up having their discussions what their Founding fathers said and why America was created. Abortion Law, same sex marriages, immigration, poor souls get dragged every time. But atleast they quote about 7 people. Even some of them go to extent of including many others of the era as the key people in framing the constitution. Their reasons are discussed, the time, atmosphere and the results are discussed. You hear “What Founding Fathers meant”  when they stated this or that. Most importantly not every idea of every Founding-Father is welcomed today. It is their joint wisdom that is relished.

On the other hand, we have everyone else on back-stage, the lime light is only on one person Quaid-e-Azam. Not that he does not deserve that light, if we have to pick only one person as leaders of modern Muslim world I will pick him; rather I will say everyone will pick him. But we are not nominating someone for the presidency here, many people can share the stage.

I know only one can be hero but there can be many strong supporting roles, instead we have made all the rest as the extras. Their faces are blurred up, their voices are just the background noise representing busy street.

Some how, Our beloved Jinnah has been evolved into alone Samurai, a James bond, a Warrior who can himself defeat the enemy, he only needs the foot-soldiers no commanders.

Being Pakistani, I see the plans and wrong intentions everywhere, just part of nature I think. I suspect we have given him center stage only because postthumously he cannot sue us for mis-representation and so we can manipulate the situation. By having his colleagues up there with him, will make more difficult of misrepresenting the history. By having mood of hundreds of thousands of people represented will make us understand better what people wanted not what few leaders wanted and that might not be what we want to hear.  Why is there deficiency of quotes from the articles and editorials of that time?

I am not against quoting Quaid-e-Azam, I do all the time, I am requesting to quote other people also.

Having Founding Fathers as guidance is good, it works a inertia that keeps society from wiggling around here and there, as the situation changes. It keeps you solid on the ground, but it should not be restricting force. We should take their word as what their meant given the situation and atmosphere of that time, they are direction for future, not as dictation of future.

Why we should not have religious state, if people want it? And why we should not have Secular state if people want it? Are we not Democracy?

Most importantly if we want a mixture of Religious and Secular State, like the society we have, why dont we get it?

 

Naming the Terrorists

{Wrote this blog about two months ago, revised some of it today}

One of the most difficult matter with which Muslims have to deal with is,  naming the terrorists.The enemy that is killing them.

This problem is unique for Muslims. No other nation or group has to deal with this problem with so much complication.

For, rightly or falsely, American public ‘might” assume these are terrorists are Extremists Muslims or extremists Arabs (anyone watching 24 can figure this out), Europe can assume these are groups who are threatened by their civilization and way of life, their intellectuals can describe that these are results of their leaders policies, India can say that these are terrorists sent by Pakistani’s, Russians can put blame on Chechans, Sirilankan’s can say they are Tamil.

What should Muslims do? Whom should Pakistani’s point out if the schools are blown in Swat?

Where should they put blame if the Civilian-Guards are rounded up and their ears are chopped of?

Whom they protest if people living in Swat are killed and thrown in the choks.

How you label and describe the enemy that is among you?

The basic failure of the American and Pakistani agencies is label these groups simply Taliban. They failed to explain how these entities threaten the core of the country and society.

Western societes can more easily accept and define names like Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc… as terrorists or extremists  because these words are alien to them. They are not part of their vocabulary. To them they clearly label some foreign entity. Some bearded person wearing Imama on head and Shalwar Kameez (oh! he looks like khoomenies in Iran), sitting in some crazy looking place planning to destroy everything. He speaks in the description of history that is alien the them. He uses words that are gibrish to them. His interpretations of events, current affairs, etc… is not what they used to. Their mind can relate such persona more easily to evil, because they are strangers to them. {you will find many Americans who belive that Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of Mideleast}

For muslims this is quite difficult.

A bearded person wearing Shalwar Kameez, having chadar on his shoulder is not some foreign thing to Pakistani’s.  Even in Lahore a bearded Pathan wearing Shalwar Kameez, having gun on his shoulder and guarding some street is not so foreign thing. The person arrested by police during attack on the Police Training Camp at Lahore looked similar to many of the Pathans at local tandoor ( basically Tandoor is word for oven but used at synonym for the shops having Oven and selling fresh bread/ROTI ).

Pack of bearded people shouting Anti-American slogans does not make them terrorists. In a country where protests mostly result in destruction of public property, picture of Maulvis burning a bus does not mean that religious theocracy is overtaking.

In sum, they cannot completely relate their outlook, words, interpretation of history to the evil. Previously evil to Paksitani’s was related to India, Communists of Russia, etc… They were people defined by their nationality, by their religion; Indian’s were Hindus (even when they had largest Muslim population), Russian’s were God Less communists trying to invade Muslim Pakistan, …. This time People are from within our region, they are Muslim, they look like us!

Someone has to do lot of work to define what makes people and organization that unacceptable; even when their outlook is similar to yours.

To do that you need people who speak in the same language as them. That’s where both American and Muslim intellectuals have failed.  They have used people appearing foreign to the Muslim public, in defining what the Terrorist is.  Unfortunately many of these people trashing terrorists appears to be equivalently trashing Islamists-political movements. They fail to grasp that people who are not supporter of Taliban might not be supporter of  Secular forces also. People who will not lift finger for Taliban might be too much protective to the Madrassas.

This creates a conscious and unconscious effort in the society to protect or atleast not protest agianst the acts which even they will not support. This current event of the lashing of girl in SWAT is clear example. No one wants this to happen but no one is coming up to protest against  it. Any debate on this run into the same dead end, where both Taliban claiming their actions to be Islamic and their aggressive so-called moderanists also giving this benifit.

One must also recognize that the threats that have been posed to Pakistan for more than 50 years were not by these people. They came from other side, quite different side I may say.  For example the recent attack in Lahore, where it was easy for Indian media to describe it as act of Taliban, because they have only one thought about Islamic militants, taliban etc, that these are chaotic forces, terrorists which can do anything. But it will be difficult to convince Pakistani for that; and not surprisingly to every other logical mind. Why will muslim-militants attack Srilanka? and why Cricketers? They dont have to do anything with any of the political agenda these people have.  It is more easy to assume that India’s RAW or some other agency might be involved than to assume that someone from North will kill the people playing the game loved by it’s countrymen.

This failure on part of the society to recognize the enemy within is creating the rift. It is creating a tension, where one part is too much in anger to hear other side.  We have to Name the Terrorist , define it with clear understanding that they have nothing to do with religion.

 

Respect me!

Today I recieved an email on one of University Email groups in Pakistan. The emailer sent a attached email about the Fatwa regarding the working of the women; “Aurton Ki Mulazmat” it said. Yes that Fatwa was allowing them to work but only when there is no one to feed them. In just 4 to 5 lines it took away a right of women to work unless if she has no “MAN” to take care of her (what a horrible woman that be!).

It gave no explanation, no refrences to Quran, no citations of Hidats; no nothing; few words and puff the freedom of the woman’s intellect to be more than than maid is gone.

Even the people who are hanged are given more than that, people incarnated for less than a week are told why their freedoms are being taken away. But no! that fatwa from Jamia Binoria did not did that, because it will be giving respect to the reader, the listener. Because then the banished-ones will be able to challenge it, then ‘it’ can give the counter arguments, ‘it’ can point out the weakness in the arguments.  Oh, how could it give you such a respect, how can you think more than what you are told.

I might not be scholar, but I can take that to other Lawyer to challenge your line of arguments.

But this will weaken the Mufti, it will open him to be questioned, it will open judge to be judged. It is the Mufti (the one who gives Fatwa) that is hiding not Islam, it is Mufti that is using and trying to deface Islam.

So Mr. Mufti (Mr. Abdul Aziz ), repect me just enough to be regarded as accused who has right to know under what law he will be thrown in the jail.

Respect me just enough for being a living being, if not a human being.

Tell me what will you do with the women who worked in the life of Hazrat Muhammad? like Hazrat Halima,

What will you do to many of them women who work in Farms with their husbands, fathers  and brothers, because you are saying they can only work if there is no one to feed them.

And yes tell me what shall I tell a woman of family crying in pain to do because due to this fatwa there will not be Lady Doctors.

Yes atleast I will not have to worry about educating my daughter more than house-schooling because there will be no women teachers.

Oh right! I dont have any right to ask question, what a waste of your time.

 

Swat and Pakistan; Question of Shariah or Emotional Blackmail?

I think while discussing Swat we go off the track.

Question here again is not the Islam and Shariah, question is the path that is being followed to get it.

Should ends justify means?

Should we allow people to kill other people who dont want their format of Shariah (or any law) ?
Should government bow down to one violent group without trying to understand what people of that region actually want? Will it resolve the issue or further ignite the people.

We have clouded this discussion by using the sacred names and religion, smoke screening the acutal situation with emotions. Lets do one exercise.

For one moment I want you replace word Shariah with Christianity or Jewish Laws in all the news you have read about the Swat.

Tell me will you be comfortable that a violent group is trying to implement a Jewish Law in SWAT region?
Replace word Taliban with the Israeli-Soldiers (IDF) and think this news of blowing up the school makes you feel what? or Members of RSS attacked and killed a woman they think was immoral; makes you say police should arrest these people or not?.

But this makes it more emotional only now it has -ve feeling due to the IDF, RSS etc..

For neutrality replace word Taliban with word some ZKF-force. Now think about the news paper saying ZKF blew up the girls school in region of Cambodia. ZKF is killing and throwing people on the choaks. ZKF wants some ABC laws that will provide justice more quickly, for that they have cut the ears of civilian guards.

Dont you get the -ve feeling associated with them, even when ABC Laws they are trying to get are better but they are being blaimed for killing Police officers, members of elected party, civilians?

Ends never justify the deeds especially when the cost of deed is being paid the person other than one persuing the ‘Ends’.

Whether it’s military, mullah, so called moderate-secular-foces; decisions by few and their insistance on applying their wishes on everyone is recipe of disaster; even when their wishes are good ones.

 

Eglishized Arabic; America a melting pot

Today I read Namaz behind an Imam whose Qirat could be describe as Eglishized Arabic. It was quite nice experience.  I have never heard anyone recite in that way. Words were being pronounced correctly sounding slightly in different tone.

His ceremon was quite interesting. He criticized people who say that US is Kafar country;  he described it as a melting pot, where different people come and become one. A country where everyone is free to pursue their dreams, follow their faith.

He was quite true in it. Where laws cannot remove the biases people carry in their mind, they force people not to use them.  You can still find those biases present, perhaps unconsciously visible. If you see Turlington Plaza in UF from above you can find how it is devided in black and white, not by some lines but by some unconscious behavior.  But here you will not find any person being disallowed opportunity due to his/her color, religion or race.

This multi-cultural face of America has allowed me to meet many different types of people, even of my own faith. I read namaz behind African American, Arab American, White American, Desi American, etc… . Each having different style of Qirat, different style of praying.

And I thought in which country you will find so many different types of people. Some time I feel Muslims are more free here than their own country.

Freedom: That’s What Makes America.

 

Democracy And Islam

I was asked question why people in Pakistan are fighting for Democracy. Are there intentions to get Islamic society or they just want more ‘free society’ or in other way do they want more westernized society?

My take on this topic is

Democracy is the tool to make an Islamic Society. ‘Democracy’ is a civilized method to decide what you want for your society.

So if people in majority want Islam (which I believe is true in Pakistan) then achieving democracy will be only way to make laws favoring Islamic Society. Otherwise you will end up with the version of Islam which dictators want or you will end up with no Islam if the dictator is un-religious in nature.

If however people dont want Islam (democracy is only way to know if they want it or not) , then we should be less worried about the ‘Islamic Society’ but more about how to make people understand Islam.

In both cases Democracy is the only way because
1) in first case it allows for making Islamic rules
2) in second case it allows you to change the views of Public

In religious theocracy or in dictatorship, Islamic society does not have any chance of survival.

Because there is no way  he/she  (self proclaimed ruler) can know what the people want, he/she will always think that what he/she is thinking is the what every body wants. Or as our rulers;  he can think what he is deciding is the right way and right thing to do even if whole nation is against it.

So he will either end up making people anti Islamic which our Zia-ul-Haq did or end up making them anti-west/anti-modernization which our dear Musharaf has successfully done.