Shared by Azeem Farooki
Subject: Muslim Brotherhood’s Words on Women Stir Liberal Fears – NYTimes.com
Shared by Azeem Farooki
Subject: Muslim Brotherhood’s Words on Women Stir Liberal Fears – NYTimes.com
An insightful and inspiring article by Sophia Chawala
Islam vs. “islam” –An Expat’s Perspective on Religion and Pakistan
When I came home for spring break, my father urged me to read a pile of novels. One that I am reading right now is called “Moving the Mountain” by Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf. Responsible for the plans to build a mosque three blocks away from ground zero, Rauf seeks to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West with his novel by speaking on behalf of disenfranchised Muslims in America and around the world and by calling for a progressive, pluralistic kind of religion as a bedrock of tolerance and understanding, one that would melt away hateful stereotypes like stubborn iced snow sliding off an onrushing car and collapsing into glittery dust upon impact.
Few nights ago, amid the bombastic syncopated beats from my sister’s drum playing, the hissing of the pressure cooker from the kitchen, and the belting of debaters from Pakistani news, I was particularly engrossed by Rauf’s first chapter, which explored two sides of the Muslim-based religion: capital “I” Islam and lowercased “i” islam. The former is the one Rauf believes many Muslims today inadvertently act upon: a proper noun that calls for a solid state-of-mind, a construct of mere belief to give followers that extra pizzazz of identifying themselves from the point of view of outsiders. The latter, conversely, is the one Rauf champions. It is a verbal noun, the more humanistic approach of the religion that consists of a set of actions people should utilize as a supplement to every sect of their life. To explain the actions needed in islam, Rauf sets up an interfaith dialogue between the actions and first two commandments of the Christian faith. To believe in one God and to love others as ourselves are the core principles and intentions Muslims should always keep in mind when doing any kind of action—religious or non-religious—to ensure the best spiritual experience as possible for not only themselves, but for others as well. We gain understanding through our actions and through understanding, we could finally achieve the entity of “us”, defined not by otherness, but by inclusiveness of believers, one that steers away from establishing differences between “us” and “them” as a cause of hostility, one that fosters communities of faith as opposed to sectarian hierarchies situated in a vacuum, tightly sealed from any kind of interfaith dialogue or interaction.
Now, I am new to the realm of questioning religion. Nevertheless, Rauf’s connection managed to dazzle me to a point where all the surrounding drumming, hissing and yelling lowered to a sedative hum. For a second, I actually imagined a scene of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other faiths convening and confiding in one another to create tighter-knit bonds, deeper understandings, new crucial layers of meaning to morality and righteousness. I thought of a scene where for once political disagreements did not trump relationships with faith, which runs much deeper than any opinion or fact. Even further, I thought of a religion not named Islam, Christianity or Judaism, but just a religion known as the Religion of God.
But all of a sudden, a glare fires up in the periphery. Caustic red font splashed across the flat screen screaming “BREAKING NEWS.” It was there when I learned about mobs burning over 40 Christian houses in the Badami Bagh area of Lahore in response to alleged blasphemy towards the Prophet Muhammad. From there, my sister’s drumming crescendos into a seismic tremble, my mother’s pressure cooker hiss turns into a deafening sizzle, the voices of the news anchors became more rapt with loud, chaotic excitement. Ears shot, I looked up and down frantically from Rauf’s words to the TV screen, from islam to an obnoxiously capitalized ISLAM plastered in front of me. Then I thought to myself, where do Muslims go from here? Or put generally, where do Pakistanis go from here?
Call this coincidence painfully convenient, but it shows something that I am trying to make sense of when it comes to Pakistan, to religion, to the ways of human nature in general. I am only an expat witnessing at the periphery, fathoming the land of my parents through limited media sources and a plethora of books. I am only the novice inspector under the bridge trying to see what beams are deteriorating. I can only say so much about these riots and religious hate-based attacks on Pakistan, for the arguments against such a crime is as implicit as the dangers of fire. But what I can say is that Muslims are not the only ones marginalized in this world. Muslims victimize themselves too much and accredit themselves too much pity. Culture and colonialism has infiltrated the religion, morphing it into a fuzzy adjective. No wonder non-Muslims also extend Islam to include terrorism. These terms hurt, but we Muslims are partly responsible for their creation.
This country was founded as an “Islamic Republic”, a place where Muslims could become the majority by basking in a land of the religious free and by creating ideas and fostering innovations they never had the chance to do in British India. But just by looking at this title—a title that hangs above Pakistani heads like a shrill fluorescent light bulb—Islam is indeed capitalized, not only orthographically but politically as well. Pakistanis need to regain the true grasp of faith. But in order to do that, they must de-capitalize literally and figuratively, their views of religion and most importantly, their pride.
Sophia Chawala
Shared by Marwan Majzoob
Brief excerpts of an article appeared in Times of India are given below. For further details you may access www.TimesOfIndia.com
MUMBAI: Lord Shiva, Hanuman and goddess Durga do not represent any particular religion but are regarded as supernatural powers of the universe, the Nagpur income tax appellate tribunal has said.
The observation came when the tribunal was hearing an appeal by Nagpur-based Shiv Mandir Devstan Panch Committee Sanstan against an income tax commissioner’s order denying it tax exemption on grounds that more than 5% of its expenditure was incurred on religious activities.
The I-T act stipulates that for the purpose of tax exemption, an institution or trust must not be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.
Differing with the I-T commissioner’s order, the tribunal said, “Expenses on worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, Goddess Durga and on maintenance of the temple cannot be regarded as having been incurred for religious purposes.”
The tribunal went on to say that Hinduism was neither a religion nor a community. It consisted of a number of communities having different gods worshipped in different ways. Even the worship of god wasn’t not essential for a person who had adopted the Hindu way of life, it said.
“Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called as the fundamentals of Hinduism,” the tribunal observed.
According to it, the word ‘community’ meant people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or Islam but not to Hinduism. “Technically, Hinduism is neither a religion nor a community,” the tribunal said.
In 2008, the sanstan had spent Rs 82,977 on maintenance of its building, providing free food, festival prayers, training people in tailoring and yoga, and free distribution of spectacles. The I-T commissioner had said that expenses for building maintenance, providing free food, festival prayers and daily expenses related to ‘religious purposes’. This added up to more than 5% of the organization’s expenditure. Only Rs 6,700 was spent on non-religious activities, the taxman said.
The sanstan had countered this, saying its temple was open to everybody, irrespective of caste and creed. “The temple does not belong to a particular religion. Installing idols is not a religious activity,” the counsel for the sanstan said.
The I-T tribunal’s accountant member K Bansal and judicial member D T Garasia agreed. They said the word ‘religion’ meant belief in, and worship of, a “superhuman controlling power”, a particular system of faith and worship.
“It means the trust should not be for the benefit of any particular group of persons having common belief in worshipping of superhuman controlling power or having common system of faith and worship. If the trust is for the benefit of any particular religious community, it would include the advancement, support or propagation of a religion,” they said, adding that no evidence or material had been placed on record to prove that the sanstan was promoting a particular religion.
Entered by Noor Salik
The concept of a secular Jew has always fascinated me.
Why a secular mind would cling to his/her Jewishness?
May be it is persistence of tribalism in human existence. A need to belong to some identifiable group. This point can be discussed later on. I did some Google searches. I found out that 44% of American Jews identify themselves as Secular. The next group with highest percentage is Buddhism. 22% of Buddhists in America classify themselves as secular. I wonder what % of Muslims classify themselves as secular?
I could not create a hyperlink for this article. But if you copy and paste the following link in URL, you may read this article about Secular Jew. An interesting article with important information about religious and cultural identities.
Here is the link: (Copy/Paste in URL) http://m.forward.com/articles/162290/untangling-the-oxymoron-of-the-secular-jew/?p=all