|
Series: Reflections on Shetubondhon |
|||||||||||
|
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq |
|||||||||||
|
[This series originally appeared in
Shetubondhon in June 2001. It was also published in News From Bangladesh.]
Dear Shetubondhon Friends,
Salam and greetings.
I wanted to undertake this writing quite some time ago,
but several other threads kept me preoccupied. This write-up is in
response to my dear and respected friend Dr. Shafi Khaled's earlier message
in May where he publicly expressed his inclination to unsubscribe from this
forum. Actually, he wanted everyone to follow suit. Then, he decided not to
do so, but still wanted the fellow subscribers to know about what he
originally wrote and felt.
Well, no one actually unsubscribed, and it is
gratifying that Dr. Khaled himself did not either. [Note: the number of
subscribers has actually gone up since his message was released] But his
message has certain points that deserve attention and scrutiny. While I
partially empathize with the basic and general thrust of his message, I
can't but categorically disagree with his articulation, especially in regard
to this forum. Of course, I can only speak for myself.
Let me also point out that my write-up here has
a mixed background. I am a subscriber of this forum, but I am also one of
the moderators. Some information that I share here is as a moderator.
However, my viewpoints here are my personal opinions, not necessarily
representative of the forum's management/moderation.
A few months ago, one subscriber, who has been
with the forum for nearly a year and has occasionally written to the forum,
decided to unsubscribe, stating that this forum seems like a forum dominated
by Awami Leaguers. No comment about this! We are all entitled to our
opinions. It is our fundamental, inalienable right. This unsubscription
would not have been notable, except for the very reason that was given for
the request to unsubscribe.
Several months ago, another subscriber/author
unsubscribed with a strong protest, stating that this forum has evolved into
basically an anti-secularist forum, where one particular
subscriber/moderator (Can you guess?) has taken up a strong role against secularism.
Indeed, he even felt that there is a hidden agenda of the adherents of a
particular religion behind this forum. Since some of the most capable,
articulate, and unflinching voices of secularism are present at this forum
among its subscribers, authors and, yes, moderators, who have EQUAL
PRIVILEGE to write and contribute - even the unsubscribing author had
the same privilege - one can only wonder about such perceptions and
decisions.
The latest case is with Dr. Khaled, who thinks
that the forum is entrapped in a singular focus against a particular
religion, examining and reexamining issues and topics that are of marginal
relevance and already exhaustive discussions and analyses on these issues
are present even on the net. In his view, these are more like nagging
distractions than anything else. However, without preparing the forum in
regard to his pent up frustration or sharing some thought about implications
of his perceived biases or problems, he decided to call it a quit,
characterizing this forum as a failure.
Is this forum a failure? I will deal with this
in the last part of this series. But before that let me deal with the
feelings underlying Dr. Khaled's disappointment, which for him has reached a
threshhold of patience. Even though I differ with him in regard to the
forum, I can understand the frustration and I do empathize with it. For
those who would at least like to TRY to understand this disappointment (of
some) and frustration (of others), they need to be familiar with the
"Carpet Bombing" approach.
Part II: The Carpet Bombing Approach
Let me take this opportunity to clarify a few
aspects that is related to the message of Fatemolla on "Four wives in
Islam", which was forwarded by Dr. Sen with generous comments about
Fatemolla, and it was that message that largely sparked all this.
Since I have also been writing on News From
Bangladesh, sometimes exclusive for NFB and sometimes sharing what I write
on Shetubondhon, I have been familiar with the writings of Fatemolla.
However, I have decided not to respond to any of his writings, and I have
publicly stated that on NFB. First, I don't respond to anyone who assumes
penname without revealing his/her identity. Indeed, on NFB one of the
most prolific authors has been PROVEN that he used to write under two
names and one would praise and build up the other name - the same person -
and also their like-minded ones. Using a penname is not uncommon. We
have authors on this forum, Mr. Masudur Rahman, who uses also a penname
"Aparthib Zaman". Azad was the penname of Mualana Abul Kalam.
But I don't engage in any exchange without knowing and understanding who the
person is.
Secondly, I don't respond to those people
who don't establish a "frame of reference" for themselves and
their writings. Dr. Sen, a friend as well as a fellow subscriber and
moderator, is an agnostic and secularist. I may disagree with him on
occasions and he does the same, but our frame of reference is clear and
public. Furthermore, despite having some rather strong and fundamental
differences, we are good friends and we have quite a few important things to
agree on. I am a Muslim; he is an agnostic/secularist. We know each other's
frame of reference. Fatemolla is one such author who won't
establish a frame of reference. Is he a Muslim? Does he believe in
Islam? He seems to have or want to have it both ways.
In contrast to three different groups of believers among Muslims, one of the secularists/agnostics, such as Aparthib Zaman, identifies Fatemolla as "SFT (Secular Free Thinkers ): These are people like Mr Fatemolla an others" ["On Trivialization, where Credit is due etc" http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/feb/12/gv4n482.htm#4] But that's Mr. Rahman's characterization of Fatemolla - one could argue. In the following excerpt, Fatemolla seems to be actually unhappy that "his religion" is being used "as the most dangerous tool to oppress the poor, especially women." How would one understand "his religion" in this context? Does he regard himself as a Muslim or does he not? He wrote:
Thirdly, (this is the context where his identity becomes really murky),
there is a new approach adopted by certain segments of secularists, who
believe that to shake up the Muslims and to "humanize" or
"secularize" them (which basically means to disconnect them from
Islam - i.e., the Islam of the Qu'ran and exemplified in the Prophet
Muhammad), there is a need to adopt a "carpet
bombing" approach. [Note: The expression "carpet
bombing" approach was mentioned to me by a secularist Bangladeshi
author in our private correspondence, where he described this approach of
his fellow secularists as such. Interestingly, his name is equally
promimently mentioned in the list of carpet bombing warriors below by one of
his fellow authors.] Though the methodology is quite sophisticated
and subtle, the approach is simple and straightforward: mount vicious and
virile attacks - deliberately. Thus, as part of the attack, the prophet
was a child molester or even a rapist; he was a heartless murderer who
committed genocide; he was a megalomaniac. Such attacks are intellectual as
well as purportedly based on their unmasking the real Islam. To them,
Mullahs like the Talibans are the true followers of Islam. Interesting
coincidence of their opinion with Talibans! Their attack is directly against
Islam. They are not trying to bring about or desiring any positive changes
in the Muslim society. Their approach is basically that Islam is the
problem. It is the enemy - to some, the only remaining enemy - of mankind.
The solution is simple: get rid of Islam, TAKE CARE of Islam. Islam needs to
be secularized and humanized. Only Islam that is tolerable is a personal
Islam - mostly Sufi/spiritual type. Barring that, Islam is like a
disease, which needs to be cured. It's like a cancer in human society, where
the bad cells need to be removed or destroyed.
Toward this goal, no holds barred. If this means annulling democratic
elections as was in Algeria and turning the country into military
dictatorship - that's fine with these freethinkers and humanists. These are
the same people who did not call or insist for an investigation as to who
killed police constable Badsha Mian in the mosque or how was he killed. They
had no qualm with the fact that based on mere allegation, people are
already in jail under Public Safety Act in Bangladesh. Then, just recently
some of the jailed people have been released after torture. They were
tortured to secure a confession. Did we hear any principled protest in this
regard from freethinkers/humanists. NOPE. These are the champions of modern
progress, humanism, secularism, democracy and so on, while clamoring for
taking care of Islam - the sole surviving enemy of mankind.
Just read the following comments from another such penname, Ali Sina,
presumably a "freethinker" of Iranian origin. [Note: I think Ali
Sina is a fictitious "Hotmail" identity, with a
"Dr." title. He does not have either the integrity or ability
to call a half-debate a half-debate. See my "Half-Marriage
and the Debate That Never Was".] Among several anonymous websites
dedicated to the "carpet bombing" approach by free-thinkers is http://free.freespeech.org/rationalthinking/.
Apparently, this brand of "rational thinking" has only one target:
Islam. That whole site under "rational thinking" is dedicated to
the sole surviving enemy of mankind: Islam.
a. Islam: The sole surviving enemy of human species
"With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Islamic
countries, Islam has become a serious and a real threat to the survival of
our species." [Ali Sina in same citation above]
"please understand that Islam is not like Christianity, Zoroastrianism
or any other religion. Islam is a religion that teaches hate. Hate is the
message of Islam. Hate is the essence of Islam. Every other thing in Islam,
all its rituals and dogmas are gearing you for this ultimate purpose, which
is hate." [Ali Sina, "My response to a Bangladeshi
Intellectual," http://bangladesh-web.com/news/may/23/gv4n575.htm#A1]
Please note the uniqueness of Islam. Also, everything in Islam is geared
toward one ultimate purpose: hate. How much hate and prejudice a person must
be harboring in his heart, one can only wonder!
b. Islam is like Nazism and the Prophet was a
"megalomaniac"
"Islam is like Nazism; both these doctrines preach hate. One stands for
the superiority of a race and the other of a religion. But in essence, they
both believe in the same precepts. They both advanced by war. They both are
divisive and sectarian. They were both born out of the minds of charismatic
but narcissistic megalomaniac mad men. How would you qualify the
intellectual Nazi who upholds that doctrine of hate and calls it teachings
of love?" [same citation above]
c. Islam must go
"... I think Islam is harmful and must go ... Islam must go
because it teaches hate, it orders killing the non-Muslims, it denigrates
women and it violates the human rights. Islam must go not because it is
false but because it is destructive, because it is a danger; a threat to
peace and security of humankind. With the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction in Islamic countries, Islam has become a serious and a real
threat to the survival of our species." [Ali Sina, Mission Statement
of Rational Thinking site, http://free.freespeech.org/rationalthinking/]
Please note that it's not that Islamic fundamentalism or extremism or
abuses in the name of Islam has to go. Islam must go. So, how might it
made "go"? Well, Ali Sina's candid call goes much further.
"I plead with you to withdraw your support from Islam, this doctrine
of hate. Let it die dear intellectual. Let us kill
it together. For it is either it or we." [http://bangladesh-web.com/news/may/23/gv4n575.htm#A1]
These people visit, revisit and then visit again the same issues, such as
polygamy (actually, polygyny), until, as they expect and hope, Islam dies or
it is killed. Thus, when these people open
their mouth about Islam and Muslims with a killer
instinct and keep talking about these same issues again and
again without the least effort to understand the pertinent issues, it is not
surprising that some people would just like to part their ways, instead of
engaging in perennially disputed issues. No conscientious Muslim would
dignify such discussion or exchanges by responding, except when they are not
aware of the whole game, where there is no rule. These people use fictitious
names and fictitious debates, such as the alleged debate between Ali Sina
and Ayatullah Montazeri, where there was only half-debate - meaning no
debate. Complete lies, half-truths, distortions, vilification, denial of
history or some combination of all these - name it and it's there. So what
do secularislam.org, free.freespeech.org/RATIONALTHINKING/,
and the Islamexposed archive of HINDUUNITY.org
have in common? Guess what? The Carpet Bombing squad Hall of Fame dedicated
toward taking care of Islam.
Well, who was sending those Half-debates of somone Ali Sina to NFB? One of
the luminaries of this squad, Dr. Jaffor Ullah - initially, of course,
withholding that piece of information, keeping the readers of NFB
in the dark as to who was sending it. Probably, Dr. Sen himself did not
know when he forwarded messages from Dr. Jaffor Ullah (earlier) and Mr.
Fatemolla (recently) that they are privileged members of the intellectual
"carpet-bombing" squad against Islam. Fatemolla, with his
alleged expertise in Islam (which means that he can quote and piece together
Qur'an and hadith at ease), is one of the vanguards of this
"carpet-bombing" approach against Islam; new home-grown crusaders
to take care of the only remaining enemy of
mankind: Islam. At one of the leading sites representing this approach, Mr.
Fatemolla is a distinguished person receiving high accolades for his
contribution. One person writes: "I whole heartedly support Fatemolla
in exposing the cruelty and double standards practiced in Islam. ... Long
live Taslima. Long live Fatemolla." [http://www.secularislam.org/visitors/guest29.htm]
Please don't take my word for it. Dr. Sen several times have categorically
condemned the Hindu extremists. However, he is probably not quite in tune
with the reality as far as the carpet bombing hall of fame. Interestingly,
these new age, home-grown crusaders have bed-partners that Dr. Sen has
conscientiously condemned and exposed. What might secularislam.org has to do with
hinduunity.org? You judge! See the following, interesting excerpt from
Hinduunity.org (FIGHTING FOR A HINDU RASTRA! JAI BHARAT MATA!):
I think my friend, Dr. Sen, now knows better about these people, including Fatemolla, whom he regarded as an "academician", not "missionary". However, I would like to leave it to him if he wants to share his experience or thought about this breed of secularists/humanists/freethinkers. Indeed, Mr. Masudur Rahman has quite a few times come to defense of such secular freethinkers. [see the earlier citation of Mr. Rahman's article in NFB] I would not be surprised if more inductees' name are added to that roomy hall of fame of "Carpet Bomb Squad". So what does all this have to do with the frustration and disgust in regard to messages pertaining to plurarity of marriages? Why do they consider such matters as "nagging tales?" Part III: Nagging Tale of Four Wives I don't want to engage in the discussion about the nagging tale of four wives. I am a Muslim. I have ONE wife. It won't be any other way for me. Of course, my beloved wife won't have any other way either. She knows her rights in this regard. All my Muslim friends in the USA and elsewhere have one wife. My father had one wife. All my relatives (Muslims) have one wife. The Maulana who taught me to recite the Qur'an had one wife. That does not mean that multiple wife is non-existent. What I am getting at is that the authors/discussants on forums like this ought to remember that they are not dealing with street-level, commoner, uneducated Muslims. If there are problems at the social level, and I believe that there is, that has to be understood and dealt with differently. Of course, that's for those who are interested in dealing with these problems, rather than using it as a tool of "carpet-bombing" approach with a killer mission and instinct. Thus, my discussion about Mr. Fatemolla and his article is merely to make the point that some people like us understand these articles crystal-clear and become merely disappointed. And, there are others who would be frustrated and have no part of those who are hell-bent (no pun intended!) to break "the manacle" of Islam. These are avowed bridge-destroyers.As far as the write-up of Fatemolla on "On 4 wives in Islam" in concerned, there was nothing new, though it is presented like that as if he really came up to the rescue of Islam by providing his analysis. Also, anyone who thinks that "Sura 4 (Nisa), Ayat 3. One of the most powerful laws mankind has ever experienced on this planet", contrary to the impression of Dr. Sen, he is more of a "missionary" than "academician". I don't even know what does "one of the most powerful laws" here mean. Islamic position is straightforward. By the way, it is polygyny, not polygamy or polyandry, that is permitted in Islam ONLY under special circumstances. In general, what really matters at this stage of human civilization, all sexual relationship in Islam is within the framework of marriage AND family. Islam does not prescribe, recommend or command polygyny. It only permits taking up to four wives under stringent conditions. Women are not required to enter a marriage to become a co-spouse. And I would educate my own daughters about their right and fact about such plurality of marriage, though most likely it won't even be necessary for them to be educated on this particular issue. A woman at the time of marriage can legally stipulate in the marriage contract that without her permission, the husband would not take another wife. It is a fact that there are serious abuses in our societies - just like in any other society. These abuses require education as well as appropriate legal framework and enforcement. All these are pertinent discussion. However, anything beyond this would lead civil and conscientious Muslims to say: Lakum dinukum waliyadin ["Yours is your faith or way of life; ours is ours."] A feeling that was being echoed by Dr. Khaled. This is because perennial bickering has no positive outcome, except increased alienation and estrangement, instead of bridge-building. The norm in Islam is marriage and monogamy. The permission under certain restrictive conditions is based on the Qur'an. Those who do not believe in God, even religion is a problem, a disease, a cancer, a weapon or tool to seek power and divide/dominate people. Well, if discussions are for mutual understanding and for fostering mutual respect and empathy for common good, there are plenty to be accomplished. But those who want to achieve this by "carpet bombing" approach, they would have only one thing to expect: "disappointment," as even the conscientious and open-minded Muslims would disengage from such meaningless and unproductive exchanges. Yes, in that particular piece, Mr. Fatemolla made a special case for the fact that the Qur'an does give permission, but NOT UNCONDITIONAL. Unfortunately, there are Muslims who have abused this for various reasons, including economic. If the motive of Mr. Fatemolla was to take a stance against the abuse, then we have common grounds. However, his article goes far beyond just dealing with the abuses and taking the Mullahs to task. Rather, by statements such as "One of the most powerful laws mankind has ever experienced on this planet," it leaves a distinct impression that like that SHAMEful doctor lady (the writer of Lajja), the verse itself needs some doctoring. Add to that (1) Mr. Famemolla's elusive persistence in not establishing a "frame of reference", whether he himself is a Muslim or not; (2) His mono-directional crusade against the Mullahs and Islamists, while conspicuous silence toward the "Carpet Bombing" Squad; and (3) His hard-earned place in the hall of fame of the Carpet Bombing Squad, with all the luminaries: Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin, Ali Sina, Dr. Jaffor Ullah and so on. While by creating awareness many conscientious and enlightened Muslims are trying to address the abuses in the Muslim society seriously, these people are not alienating merely the fanatical, orthodox, traditionalist Muslims. But their killer mission and instinct is also alienating those Muslims without whose constructive and positive role the problems can't be addressed. Moreover, these liberal, humanist, progressivist, freethinking, secularists don't have any problem with the promiscuity, marital infidelity, and freestyle of living/orientation, which is wreaking a havoc in the Western society, but they are trying to save the world by dealing with the "nagging tale of four wives", when probably not a single person on forums such as Shetubondhon or NFB is practicing polygyny. These people are showing the most amazing feat in their pursuit of saving the world through the declared, proactive mission of killing Islam: alienating virtually ALL Muslims, even those who are interested in and committed to bridge-building.However, do all these mean that this forum is a failure? That's where I categorically disagree with Dr. Shafi Khaled. Part IV: No one said that it's going to be easy Although Shetubondhon as a forum has already articulated and presented its primary objective, I would like to take this opportunity to further discuss it as I understand it. Others, including my fellow moderators, are welcome to share their thought and perspective, above and beyond the stated objective of this forum. By the way, this is another distinctive aspect of Shetubondhon that we have a moderation team the members of which subscribe to various ideology/religion/philosophy with a publicly known "frame of reference"; they are aware of the differences they have, many of which are fundamental; and yet, in regard to the forum, they are a team. Thus, except what is articulated officially on behalf of the forum, when individual moderators write, they are not necessarily representing the team's position. a. Being cognizant of our conflict-prone cultureHowevermuch modern our human civilization has become, one of the areas we have not made progress is our conflict-prone orientation. This has a special cultural dimension. I believe our conflict-prone culture is primarily shaped by our difference-emphasizing approach and attitude. We tend to be exclusivist: either you are one of us, or you are one of them. If you are one of them, then tare dekhte nari (we can't stand them); of course, Jare dekhte nari tar chalan baka (Those whom we can't stand have everything crooked). This is so universal at both macro and micro level. There are nations that have developed a deep sense of mutual antagonism. The same is true about different ideological camps. Within nations, camps, religions (i.e., at the micro levels), things are not much different. As a matter of principle, I believe I should not point finger at others, when there is plenty to share among my fellow Muslims. Indeed, when it comes to such characteristics, we all need to be less tolerant of our own fellows' contribution to conflicts. In certain societies, an institutionalized culture of civility has taken root, which is good. We should benefit and be enriched by others by emulating whatever good they have to offer. However, that culture of civility is only in regard to their own societies. When it comes to others or outsiders (aliens), civility has different shades. Ask the Japanese-Americans, how were they treated during the second World War. Do we need to point out how the "Gentlemen" of the Great Britain had to face Quit India movement before they would pack up and go home? Were the Japanese any better against their victims of aggression? What did West Pakistan to the people of former East Pakistan? How about the conflict between the two leading parties of Bangladesh: AL and BNP? Even Muslim groups have such antagonism that many of them have hurled kafir, fasiq, gomrah fatwa against those they can't stand. Indeed, everywhere it seems haat thakte mukh keno (Why mouth, when we have hands?). The chemistry of such difference-seeking approach is that it is "us vs. them" or "you vs. me." I am right and you are wrong. If we have 99 things out of 100 on which we agree, then the remaining 1 is the sticking part that keeps us away. Soon, as a snowball effect we find that, no, we have more to disagree than agree. Then, we have no common ground. Then, we can't stand each other. Finally, it's us vs. them. Remember the "Carpet Bombing" warrior Ali Sina's quip: "Let us kill it (i.e., Islam) together. For it is either it or we." [http://bangladesh-web.com/news/may/23/gv4n575.htm#A1]b. The other side of the same coin Once you are identified as one of us, our voices against each other are muted. There are so many Muslims who regularly fail to take an objective and principled position against their fellow Muslims' unjust or unacceptable acts or creeds. We also regularly see, including on this forum, where secularsts/humanists are so muted against each other. BOTH are equally unacceptable partisanship. Such partisanship to reinforce us (vs. them) without a sense of fairness and objectivity further exacerbates the problem as we support our own camp/fellows. We thus became defenders of each other. AL party-members have virtually no restraining influence as voices of conscience that there are wrong and unjust things happening by the party and its member. It is no different for the BNP or JP. Is Jamaate Islami any different? It does have an institutionalized process called Ihtisab. But on major political and strategic issues, it seems to end up on the wrong side, partly because there are powerful people in the party, whose voices carry a disproportionately greater weight. Voices of conscience are often marginalized, silenced or even thrown out as trouble-makers. When two leaders of IOJ issued Fatwa against the two judges, they did not even bother to duly consult (i.e., use the process of Shura) with others in their own fold. And, except a few lone voices, such as Mr. Esam Sohail, who is an avowed secularist, rarely any secularist raised any hoot about incarcerating Maulana Azizul Huq under PSA. If there were a genuine and viable case against him, he should have faced full weight of the judicial system under criminal penal code. No, NOT ONE secularist made a plea for a non-partisan, thorough probe into the issue as to who killed Badshah Mian, the constable. The luminaries of the "Carpet Bombing" squad, including Dr. Jaffor Ullah, have consistently provided boisterous support for the government action in this regard, knowing fully well that on such matters the government does not have any credibility to be relied on. If there is any such credibility, it MUST BE established in the court of law. Thus, on one side of the coin, we are seeking, emphasizing and accentuating our differences leading to worsening mutual alienation and antagonism. On the other side of the coin, we are supporting our fellows/camps in a blind, partisan manner. The results are not unpredictable. In the context of Bangladesh, it has reached such a terrible level that the insecurity now pervades the society. No one is secure. Those who contribute toward injustice and lawlessness of the nation can never be or feel secure as their hearts are darkened from inside. Rakkhi Bahini, a para-military instrument of authoritarian regime that was a part of the reversal of the democratic process during the earlier phase of Bangladesh, created a sense of fear and insecurity for all those who were opposed to the emerging Bakshal. Even those who have nothing to do with any political parties were not safe. The lesson of history is that Rakkhi Bahini could not save Sheikh Mujib. No such Bahini or any Safety Act would make his progeny safer. It would be the same for BNP or others if they follow the same path. c. The Need for Turning the Tide AL and BNP could have found a common ground in their love and devotion to their country, Bangladesh. They could have emerged as the Republican and the Democratic Party (not in any respective order) of Bangladesh to rebuild the nation and move it ahead, but that was not to be. Religionists could seek common ground with secularists and vice versa, only if they were interested. But no. It is Ali Sina-type or some extremist religious-type: we vs. them. Marxists could seek common ground with non-Marxists and vice versa, only if they were interested. But no. It is "Carpet Bombing" approach type: we vs. them. Muslims could seek common ground with non-Muslims and vice versa, only if they were interested. But no. It is the same type: we vs. them. The fact is that I haven't really seen us trying the common-ground-seeking approach. This requires a radical shift or transformation of our culture. This forum elicited my interest because I wanted to see something distinctive. There are now many fine forums catering to different interest. But this is what interested me, especially seeing at least a few other people of diverse background with similar interest. I had to reexamine myself, my attitude, my perspective to constantly be on guard. Not necessarily I succeed all the time. But I am committed to proactively seek common grounds and points of tangency with others. As a Muslim I CAN'T HAVE and I DON'T HAVE any conflict with anyone, except one kind of people. "Let there be no hostility except against those who practice oppression/injustice" [2/al-Baqarah/193] I have no conflict with an atheist/agnostic. I have no conflict with a capitalist or communist. I have no problem with a Hindu/Buddhist/Christian/Jew. But I would stand against oppression and injustice, even if it is committed by my parents, children, family members or my fellow Muslims. "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do." [4/an-Nisaa/135] My "frame of reference" is public and clear. I am stating a principled position here, not necessarily that I am always successful in upholding such principle - after all I am a human being. But I am conscious of the principle and I try to be on guard about my failures. I am also committed to help my fellow Muslims to better understand this principle of non-hostility, which, once understood, can help open up the mind in a big and fundamental way. While I am articulating this as a Muslim, I have no problem if similar positions are taken and articulated by others as long as the practical outcome is a broader mind and perspective toward each other. I am not going to argue that you are a Hindu, thus you can't be this; or, you are a Jew, thus you can't be this; or, if you are a secularist/atheist/agnostic, and therefore you can't be that. In the context of my own "frame of reference", for example, the narrow-mindedness and prejudice are so entrenched that anything positive, whether explicit or implicit, articulated from an Islamic perspective, there is an immediate denial, rejection, refutation, challenge to suggest that religion should be in museum; to be an adherent to any faith immediately evokes the suggestion that one can't be rational while being such an adherent; to have any kind of creed means that you can't be scientific. I look forward to better understand other religions, ideologies, and philosophies (yes, I may criticize or bring my point to the table about anything that I feel I must). However, my interest is in seeking common ground toward whatever is positive and better, in the narrower context of Bangladesh and in the broader context of the humanity. That's why in various series or articles, such as Toward a Marxists-Muslims Dialog: I-V, Bridge-building (Shetu-bondhon): The case of Rabindranath and Nazrul, The Uncivil War, Cooperation vs. Confrontation: A Reality Check, Hindu-Muslim Relationship and so on, I have proactively sought to identify and explore possible points of tangency. Once again, this is based on my "frame of reference". "... come to common terms as between us and you ..." [3/Ale Imran/64]d. Is this forum a failure? Failure or success of a forum depends on what the participants and management accomplish together. This forum has established a distinctive goal and mission: working toward building a culture and environment that seek common ground and build bridges. Its management and moderation team have committed to an open forum where all pertinent topics are accommodated as long as those meet the published guidelines that apply to ALL. What the contributors get out of this forum and what they bring to this forum are primarily up to the subscribers. The moderation team does bring some Topics of the Month on an irregular basis, but even those also are mostly contributed by the subscribers. Dr. Shafi Khaled is right that there is a general trend toward a kind of preoccupation with a particular religion. That's not what should have happened. It was expected that people who are knowledgeable about Hinduism would enrich this forum by sharing their perspective and understanding with others. Those who are knowledgeable about Christianity, Buddhism or other religions, they would enrich the forum with their input. Enlightened Muslims can help in the enlightenment and moderation of their fellow Muslims. Enlightened secularists can help in the enlightenment and moderation of their fellow secularists. Enlightened Bangladeshis or Indians can help in the enlightenment and moderation of their respective fellows. What seems to be happening is that instead of being a moderating influence on our own fellows, many of us are engaging in mutually-alienating nagging-tales. Shetubondhon is not achieved by feeling insulted at every possible thing and in turn helping others to learn how not to miss any insult. It is not achieved by constantly reminding the Hindus what they are not and what they can't be, or reminding the Marxists what they are not and what they can't be, or reminding the Muslims what they are not and what they can't be. Every time in a sentence Islam and democracy appear together, some keyboards become quickly animated how Islam and democracy are incompatible. Everytime in a sentence Islam, science and history appear together, well, leave Islam out: it had nothing to do with the scientific heritage. Turn it around, and I have my share of frustration with many Muslims who can't think of anything appreciable in secularism or Marxism, even though they know quite well that people can be over-religious and can go overboard, which sometimes does necessitate some moderating role of others. e. What does Shetubondhon mean to me? Shetubondhon to me is a new experiment toward a distinctive culture that is empathetic toward the "other" side. Bridge-building attitude constantly seeks - proactively - common ground with mutual respect and empathy. Barring that, it's Ali Sina-type "Carpet Bombing" Approach "Let us kill it (i.e., Islam) together. For it is either it or we." It does not have to be us vs. them.Those who want to see changes in the Muslim society so that polygyny is marginalized or minimized, they won't accomplish it by insulting the Mullahs or characterizing particular verses as one of the "most powerful verses on the planet" or wounding the feelings of the Muslims in "Carpet Bombing" style, or helping people not to miss any insult. Changes might be possible better by Playing the Right Tune.Those Muslims who want to see changes among the secularists and anti-Islamic camps, they won't accomplish it by dishing out fatwas. A better relationship is possible by Playing the Right Tune. Those Indians who desire better relationship with Bangladesh are not going to achieve it by being a big bully brother and perennially reminding the Bangladeshis how they should be EVER-grateful to India by complacently and meekly accepting everything that India wants to shove through the throat of Bangladesh. A better relationship is possible by earning mutual trust and respect, and seeking common ground. Those who desire better Hindu-Muslim relationship is not going to achieve it through mutually demeaning each other. But it is possible through seeking common grounds and building bridges. Sometimes our expectation can be too high - unrealistically high. If the criteria of success is that nothing negative or critical about anything would be said, whether that is Islam, Hinduism, AL, BNP, Marxism, Secularism, Orthodoxy, Freethinking, then this forum is definitely has not shown any success. But my personal criteria is different. I don't measure success by whether all criticisms toward what I believe in simply come to a stop. Rather, I believe that if the criticisms are empathetic, enlightened, informed and civil, compared to the way it is now, it is a success. If this forum can be a moderating influence on each other, especially on our own camp/fellows, it is a success. If people from a diverse background come together and can engage in a sustained dialog in an increasingly civil manner, that is a success. If an extreme view gradually becomes less extreme through such enlightened exchange, that is a success. My impression is that on the basis of the criteria like above, if this forum is not already a success, it is on the right track. Furthermore, whether it is identified in public or not, there are cases where some former antagonists have become close to each other. That is bridge building and it gives me hope for further bridge-building. It is, of course, quite possible that this whole notion of bridge building or Shetubondhon is simply irrelevant or useless. In that case, we all should try to come up with ideas that would help our society and culture that are deeply conflict-prone. As I said in the first part of this series, I can empathize with the frustration and alienation felt by Dr. Shafi Khaled. However, I categorically disagree with his assessment of this forum. I also must candidly mention that if this forum has to go to the next level, then we need to further discuss as well as better understand and appreciate the notion of Shetubondhon. Let me summarize my own perspective, while I invite others to share theirs.
As far as Shetubondhon is concerned, no one said it's going to be easy.
Again, others might have better ideas and approach, and I would like to learn
and benefit from those. I do believe that without positively affecting or
shaping our culture and outlook, we are trapped in a vicious cycle. If we are
all happy with this, then Shetubondhon might just be unnecessary as there are
already so many other fine forums and one more or one less
would not really matter. What do you think? |
|||||||||||
HOME
Index of my
writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi
Nazrul Islam?
Genocide
1971 Page?
Hadith
Humor Page?