State Police heads from across the country had a 3-day conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah wherein they highlighted, among other things, that radicalization in the country was owing to the role of Islamist and Hindutva organisations. The meeting that took place between January 20 to January 22 in Delhi and papers submitted during the conference were posted on the website of the conference but they were removed on Wednesday, reported Indian Express.

Among the several issues raised, was the issue of radicalisation by extremist organizations. One of the papers described the organisations, such as VHP and Bajrang Dal, as radical while another listed the Babri Masjid demolition, growth of Hindu nationalism, cases of beef lynching and the “ghar vapsi movement” as breeding grounds for radicalisation of youth, reported IE. Several officers are known to have batted for greater representation of minorities in polity and reservations for Muslims, as measures to curb radicalisation.

One officer even stated in his report that far-right groups were pushing the country towards majoritarianism, these include And Marg, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Sena etc. even Islamic fundamentalism was raised as an issue, for being a “looming threat”. The report described the “Islamic outlook” as being one that divides the world into “Muslims” and “others”. These Islamist radical groups included PFI and frontals, Da’wate-Islami, Towheed, Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen etc.

One of the reports even pointed out that Islamophobia in Britain festered due to sensationalist reporting and conspiratorial websites. And thus, the officer recommended that there should be platforms for people to vent their grievances.

Another report associated radicalization with “Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiyat Ahle-Hadith, alienation and mistrust… advent of social media, role of global Islam, role of mainstream media, Hindu extremism, and civil society activists”, reported the publication.

Another officer equated the Islamist and Hindu radical organizations to outfits like ISIS. Another report cited the incident of BJP’s Nupur Sharma making objectionable comments on Prophet Mohammad and that “all should refrain from making religious comments and hate speeches”. The paper further said, “the inciting videos and messages that poured in from within the country and abroad played a major role in the radicalisation of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder at Udaipur”. The report also highlighted instilling a strong sense of ‘rule of law’ among the people and advocated for deterring events of demeaning religious sentiments.

The solutions for the same were recommended which suggested that there should be equal opportunities for minorities and they should be actively made part of political and administrative processes; as also modernization of madrassas and employment opportunities in minority areas. It also suggested community engagement of Muslim youth and reservation for them in education and jobs as well.

Despite such pertinent issues being raised and real time legislative and [polity solutions being offered by police heads, these reports were removed from the websites and not made available to public access for too long. The reason behind such a move is questionable and against the interest of the public at large who have every right to know the opinions and points of view of the Police heads, who are responsible for maintaining law and order, regarding what they view as major issues in maintaining harmony and lawful behavior in their jurisdiction.

The issue of radicalization includes incidents of hate speech, inciteful speeches, distribution of weapons, lynching in the name of cow protection, harassment of minorities alleging forceful conversion, demeaning minority religions, establishing hegemony of majority religion, incidents of violence against minorities alleging “love jihad”. Such incidents have seen a steep rise in the country in the past few years whereby radicalized groups seem to have gotten a free hand at spreading lawlessness with little reprimand from the police forces too. While pointing out these issues, it is important the police heads introspect within their jurisdictions and find out how many of such incidents have been dealt with an iron hand by the local police.

In recent incidents, one can point towards the criminal trespass by Bajrang Dal goons who entered a house in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, where a birthday party was going on and they detained Muslim friends of the Hindu girl and at one point even forced her to file a complaint of forceful religious conversion. When she refused, they took the Muslim boys to the police station, where the police kept the Muslim boys under preventive detention and let the Bajrang Dal men go scot free!

Even in a Congress ruled state of Rajasthan, right wing outfits continue to fester their ideology openly where they carry out ‘trishul diksha’ or trishul distribution ceremonies. This amounts to arming the youth and brainwashing them with radical thoughts to take up violence against minorities. This is openly propagated and no action whatsoever is taken by the local police in such matters.

It is a relief to know that State heads of Police see these as one of the major issues in law and order. As identification is the first step towards resolving an issue. It remains to see what steps they take, in their immense and vast scope of powers to curb such incidents and to curb such radicalization among Islamist and Hindu extremist organizations.

Related:

NBDSA: Complaint filed against Times Now’s inciteful ‘Ram mandir’ show

21 years later, 14 acquitted for murder in one of the many 2002 Gujarat riots cases

Who is to be blamed for the consistently low Muslim representation in the police force?

Bajrang Dal barges into a birthday celebration, thrashes Muslim friends, hands them over to police

Marching through a Muslim dominated area, a mob raises provocative and communal slogans

The post DGPs reports flag radical Hindu and Islamist outfits as issues in law and order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I just read this report which says the responsibility has been claimed by the Islamic State and that it was their way of taking revenge on the New Zealand mosque attacks.

Seriously, Islamic state militants? Who are you taking revenge for? You and your Islamist predecessors are one of the major causes of Islamophobia all over the world (since 1979, you have been using Islam’s name to fight wars sometimes for America, sometime against America but always against the people!). You are one of the crucial partners in creating the refugee flood. You have killed the hopes of literally millions in your mad dance of blood and death! You are brutal, you are sick, you are blindly selfish and mindlessly destructive!

You killed them because they were Christians? You killed them because you wanted to make a point on an Easter morning??? You church bombers and the mosque attackers look the same, you think the same way, you are the same. Those killed, dismembered and terrorised in both these murderous attacks, they are the brothers and sisters.

As a human being, as the citizen of a neighbouring country, I completely oppose your blood thirst and war lust and as a Muslim, I disown you. Categorically. Point blank. Not in my name. Never in my name!

Know one thing: the Sri Lankans, the Christians, they are us!

#notinmyname
#howmuchbloodweneedtospill

The post #NotInMyName a heartfelt cry with the Christians of Sri Lanka appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The true understanding of Islam in contrast to this has been presented by this writer in his treatise Mizan. This understanding actually constitutes a counter narrative. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this writer that when in a Muslim society anarchy is created on the basis of religion, then the remedy to this situation is not advocacy of secularism.

On the contrary, the solution lies in presenting a counter narrative to the existing narrative on religion. Its details can be looked up in the aforementioned treatise. However, the part of it which relates to Islam and the state is summarized below.

Read full report here: pakobserver.net/islam-and-state-a-counter-narrative/
 

The post The evil consequence of the ideology taught in our religious seminaries: Islamic scholar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Groups like Hefazat and Jamaat are slowly starting to lose significance in politics

Earlier this month, as the coalitions for the upcoming battle on December 30 took more solid shapes, a curious feature became apparent. There are about 70 Islamist political parties in Bangladesh, 63 of them are now with the Awami League-led coalition, while only five are part of BNP-led alliance.

The massive irony of religious parties flocking under the wings of the “protector” of secularism in Bangladesh, could not escape even the most obtuse. However, as the popular saying goes, it’s not how many Islamist parties you have got, it’s about which Islamists you have.

Once again there is the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments from the usual suspects about the fact that BNP has given nominations to leaders of Jamaat. Once again, BNP acted as the last shelter of evils that stand between Bangladesh and all that is good.

However, the massive gathering of Islamic parties under the ruling regime generated furious alarms in the sincerer quarters also. They are regarding this as a definite sign of the inexorable Islamization of politics and society.

The mullahs are not just coming, they’re here.

I think that political developments in recent years in Bangladesh, and also in the Muslim world, are showing that political Islam is not a rising tide but may be an ebbing flood past its peak. Shafi Huzur and Hefazat accepting the patronship of the ruling party and joining the coalition show that ambition of madrassa-based organizations has remained at the bread and butter level.

They do not aspire to take charge of the large and complex polity, of whose gears and levers they have little understanding. Jamaat, the Islamic organization that has ambition of achieving reigning power one day near or distant, is now a shell of its former self.

The braggadocious Jamaat of the 90s and early 00s, when it claimed that the dedication and professionalism of its members made Jamaat sui generis of political organizations in Bangladesh, is no more.

Its pantheon of top leadership has been annihilated, the vaunted member-base couldn’t do anything to stop it despite suffering grievously in all-out efforts. Jamaat rank and file are confused, shell-shocked still. Obtaining state power, always a long-term ambition, has been postponed indefinitely into the future. 

Nothing could display the inherent disarray of Islamic forces within Bangladesh more starkly than the chaotic-but-deadly clash of Tablig factions that occurred on the first of December.

Tablig, which was mostly known for its detachment in this world in preparation for the next, showed that it can be as scrappy as any other organization when fighting over worldly possessions. All these recent incidents only underscore the fact that nobody in Bangladesh regards political Islam ready for taking up governance any time soon.  

In this age, one cannot separate the domestic from the international, especially for movements with global pretentions like political Islam. Internationally, we are also witnessing an ebbing of Islam’s march on political power.

In Egypt, brutal state repression has broken and scattered the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the global organization with which Jamaat have a long-standing affinity.

It’s not that MB is going away in Egypt or in other Arab countries, it is still the main non-government political organization in most of these countries. It is that MB supporters throughout the middle east and the world are introspecting why the suppression of the organization was so successful.

Why they couldn’t raise a groundswell of popular support for them and against the traditional rulers. In Tunisia, the main Islamist party, Ennahda, has compromised so much on secular governance that it is hardly distinguishable from a mainstream conservative party, rather than a political Islam project.

In Turkey, the Erdogan regime is increasingly transforming into strongman populism rather than embarking on political Islam. 

A common theme behind the evolution and current state of MB and all affiliated organizations in various countries is that, while they invested decades in developing organizational and theological support, they did not invest in developing any form of “governance thinking.”
More honesty, more justice, more welfare, these platitudes do not make coherent political and economic thoughts capable of dealing with the modern world.

Unlike capitalism, liberalism, East-Asian authoritarianism, or even populist nationalism, political Islam has not yet been able to present successful governance systems. No rational leader or thinker in the Muslim world try to inspire fellow countrymen.

There is no denying that religion is becoming more important and influential in Muslim societies all over the world.

However, political organizations are discovering that support for religious principles and identities do not automatically translate in to support for religious politics, policies, and organizations. Most Muslims, in the modern world, also generally render unto Caesar things that are Caesar’s, and unto Church the things that are Church’s.

This article has so far been full of gross generalizations. After Fukuyama’s debacle, no one should be unaware of how tenuous it is to extrapolate current trends into long-term projections. 

However, it is not shaky to argue that institutionalizing Islamic organizations into regular politics, particularly when they are weak and small, is a better way for the development of Muslim polity than excluding them or confining them into unconventional politics.
Political organizations don’t just dabble in politics — politics also make them. The crucial thing is the way of doing politics. 

Shafiqur Rahman is a political scientist.

The post Bangladesh: Islamists in the backseat, not in front appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Indonesia, the world’s biggest Muslim-majority country, has a constitution that recognizes other major religions, and practices a syncretic form of Islam that draws on not just the faith’s tenets but local spiritual and cultural traditions. As a result, the nation has long been a voice of, and for, moderation in the Islamic world.

Yet Indonesia is not without its radical elements. Though most are on the fringe, they can add up to a significant number given Indonesia’s 260-million population. In the early 2000s, the country was terrorized by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a home-grown extremist organization allied with al-Qaeda. JI’s deadliest attack was the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202 people. While JI has been neutralized, ISIS has claimed responsibility for recent, smaller terrorist incidents in the country and has inspired some Indonesians to fight in Syria — Indonesians who could pose a threat when they return home. The country has also seen the rise of hate groups that preach intolerance and violence against local religious and ethnic minorities, which include Shia and Ahmadiya Muslims.

Among Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders is Yahya Cholil Staquf, 51, advocates a modern, moderate Islam. He is general secretary of the Nahdlatul Ulama, which, with about 50 million members, is the country’s biggest Muslim organization. Yahya. This interview, notable for Yahya’s candour, was first published on Aug. 19 in German in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here are excerpts translated from the original Bahasa Indonesia into English.

Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?
The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.

A Western politician would likely be accused of racism for saying what you just said.

I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor.

And Muslims and the state?
Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

So, the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as Shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.

How can that be accomplished?
Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behaviour in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives.

Is it so elsewhere too?
Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.

There’s a growing dissatisfaction in the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear … The West cannot force Muslims to adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.

They don’t want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims.

I share this desire — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work. If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it. One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.

Who and what are responsible?
Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behaviour … I admire Western, especially European, politicians. Their thoughts are so wonderfully humanitarian. But we live in a time when you have to think and act realistically.

The last time I was in Brussels I witnessed some Arab, perhaps North African, youth insult and harass a group of policemen. My Belgian friends remarked that such behaviour has become an almost everyday occurrence in their country. Why do you allow such behaviour? What kind if impression does that make? Europe and Germany in particular, are accepting massive numbers of refugees. Don’t misunderstand me: of course, you cannot close your eyes to those in need. But the fact remains that you’re taking in millions of refugees about whom you know virtually nothing, except that they come from extremely problematic regions of the world.

I would guess that you and I agree that there is a far right wing in Western societies that would reject even a moderate, contextualized Islam.

And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.

Marco Stahlhut is a Jakarta-based German academic and correspondent.
 

The post Stop Pretending That Orthodox Islam and Violence Aren’t Linked, Says Top Indonesian Muslim Scholar Yahya Cholil Staquf appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Blasphemy Laws: Militant Islamists Define A Fanatic Strain within Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That opportunity was provided by the case of Aasia Bibi, the Christian woman wrongly accused of blasphemy. After spending nearly a decade on a false charge, the woman was set free by the Pakistan Supreme Court which in itself was an unprecedented move of courage and sagacity. The judges, unmoved by the threats of narcissistic mullahs hell bent on creating trouble, calmly asserted that the bedrock of any modern state is that the rule of law is equally applicable to all citizens, including religious minorities. Pakistan has come to such a pass that for even this simple pronouncement, the judges had to take extraordinary caution and in fact gave interviews afterwards justifying their decision. They argued clearly that there was no evidence against the accused and under the circumstances, they cannot do anything but set her free. Her decade long incarceration was thus illegal, but then compensation for loss of productive years is too much to ask in many parts of the world. The judges were bold and they must be congratulated for reading the law to the mullahs: Pakistan should be governed by modern law and that law should be equally applicable to everyone irrespective of their religion. A modern nation state cannot be governed by the archaic demands of the mullahs.

While the pronouncement proved beyond doubt that the law of blasphemy is inherently designed to punish religious minorities, what escaped attention was how little Islam has impacted on the caste system despite its supposed egalitarianism. Most Christians in Pakistan are from the ex-untouchable castes, a legacy of the undivided subcontinent. Aasia Bibi suffered not just because she was a Christian but also because she was from an ex-untouchable caste. That Muslims practice untouchability in a land where Islam rules the roost should shame all Muslims. But then, this is hardly an issue for a country obsessed with Islam and its supposed enemy the Hindus.  

Partial congratulations are also in order for the new Prime Minister of Pakistan: the way he addressed the nation soon after the verdict while the mullahs were threatening judges and rampaging the streets of Pakistan calls for a different kind of bravery, something which Pakistan has not seen in a long time. But then, I say it is partial because soon he entered into an agreement with the same set of mullahs who were holding Pakistan to ransom. The terms of that agreement will only be counter-productive to establishing a secular Pakistan but then in the short term, it did give relief to the state. However, the cost of this short term relief appears to be too high. First it has brought an equivalence between the mad mullahs who refuse to stand with the highest court of the land and the government which should have ideally upheld that legal pronouncement without coming to any compromise. The agreement between the Pakistani government and the Tahreek Labaik tells us categorically that with the slogan of Islam in danger, the cunning mullahs can get away with almost anything. Secondly, by apparently agreeing that the government will not block a review of Bibi’s case, the government has ceded its fundamental authority to the mullahs: that of being the sole custodian to decide what should be the best interest of the state. In becoming amenable to outside influence and that too of a fundamentalist kind, the present Pakistani government has set a very dangerous precedent.

But then what can be expected from a government whose prime minister actually cut a deal with the same fundamentalist not very long time ago. While in opposition, the same Imran Khan was in alliance with the mullahs who were then baying for the blood of Nawaz Sharif. There are ministers who have paid obeisance at the grave of the killer of Salman Taseer. Also, while in opposition, Imran Khan’s position on the question of blasphemy has been no different from those of the fundamentalists. It is rather rich of Imran Khan that while in power, he now sings a different tune and expects the same mullahs to obey the rule of law. Fundamentalists have never shown any deference to existing rule of law, rather their idea is to change the law according to their radical interpretation of Islam. Appeasing them will not serve any purpose. What is needed is that they be dealt with an iron hand. But this is better said than done. After all what can be expected from a government which unceremoniously removed a brilliant economist from a government position just because he happened be an Ahmadi and somebody from the mullah community made it into an issue.

This is not just an issue for the current establishment of Pakistan. The roots of intolerance towards other religious traditions go very deep in its history and we must start at the time when this ‘nation of the pure’ was supposedly constructed as the new Medina. It was Jinnah and Muslim League’s articulation that they could no longer live with the Hindus which started a seemingly new narrative for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Jinnah’s obstinacy flew in the face of history: India being one of the few places where religious pluralism was a fact of everyday life rather than just a mere academic construct. In making Islam as an exclusivist religion, Jinnah wrenched the Muslims of this country of centuries pluralism and coexistence. Not content with this religious division of hearts and minds, the new state of Pakistan sought to proclaim the Ahmadis as the new enemy now that they could no longer blame the Hindus for everything. It is another matter that the leading stalwarts of the Ahmadi movement were themselves big leaders of the Muslim League and Punjab would not have been delivered to the League without the active support of this community. It is almost as if that Islam needs a perpetual enemy to survive. And that perhaps is the original question which the Pakistanis need to confront. In their attempt to refashion themselves as a more tolerant and diverse country, they must deal and interrogate with their past. Only then perhaps a genuine beginning of a new Pakistan can be made.

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist

Courtesy: New Age Islam
 

The post Aasia Bibi: Why Pakistan Needs to Confront Its Ideological Origins appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post How Bangladesh is winning the war on militancy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post How moderate Barelvis turned to radical Islam in Pakistan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is sad that another progressive author-cum-publisher has been assassinated in Bangladesh. According to press reports, Shahzahan Bachchu, 60, an outspoken proponent of secular principles and owner of the publishing house ‘Bishaka Prokashoni’ that specialised in publishing poetry, was gunned down in his ancestral village Kakaldi in Munshiganj district in central Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has turned into a huge killing field for creative personalities who uphold the democratic-secular ideology as authors, poets, dramatists, social activists, artists, bloggers and publishers. Bangladesh which happened to be the most secular society in the subcontinent, though being ruled by a non-Islamist party, is under the complete sway of the criminal Islamists. These human bloodthirsty sadist killers claim that only they know the truth and only they have the franchise of the divine path. The fact is that these criminals are cowards who are scared of a poem, an essay, a drawing, a drama, a poster or a book. Their truth is so vulnerable and weak that it falls down on the ground by any creative expression of dissent.

In last five years, almost 300 progressive authors, poets, artists and social activists have laid down their lives resisting the Islamist juggernaut.

It may be noted that the Hindutva organizations which continuously cry foul of Islam/Muslims and miss no opportunity to denigrate the latter keep mum on these killings. The most likely reason is that these bigots are undertaking such killings in India and do not want to embarrass their Islamist brothers-in-crime. A similarity between killings by the Islamists in Bangladesh and Hindutva terrorist organization in India has been that, all the victims are those who uphold dreams of democratic-secular, progressive and egalitarian society. These are the progressive intellectuals who are in the vanguard of the fight against the religious zealots.   

The author taught at Delhi University. He is a researcher of religious nationalism, persecution of women, Dalits and is a street theatre activist.
 

The post Another sacrifice at the altar of Islamist bigotry in Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.