Mohammed Azizuddin
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 248
- Reaction score
- 0
The Atelier Club in downtown Toronto was packed to capacity recently for the launch of Pakistan-born Tarek Fateh's book Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.
Fateh's book argues that Muslims have been force-fed lies about their history for over a millennium -- not by Islam's enemies, but by its imams.
Islam came to free humanity from the clutches of the clergy. Instead, the religion of peace has become a prisoner of war, held captive by the very priesthood it came to eliminate,' Fateh, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, writes in his book.
In an exclusive interview Rediff India Abroad Senior Editor Ajit Jain, the prolific author, broadcaster and columnist pointed out that in India "Muslims, who are 12 per cent of that country's population, thrive," while "next door in Pakistan and Bangladesh," which are Islamic States, "Muslims suffer.
Through the book -- written despite death threats against him -- Fateh wants Muslims to understand that their future lies in "models that are based in India, South Africa and Canada."
Many Muslims say Islam was supposed to be a way of life but it has become a dogma. That it has been politicised.
In some unfortunate way, it is correct. All the differences within the Muslim community, or the wars and the civil wars that have been fought, have never been about piety but about politics.
What is the solution to the increasingly political overtones to the perception of Islam?
We have to stand up to them (fundamentalists) and expose the ideology of hate. In the Indian context, this is the choice between Aurangzeb on the one side and Dara Shikoh on the other.
We know the catastrophe that happened after Aurangzeb weakened the whole of the subcontinent in his efforts to do what the Wahhabis (an ultra-conservative branch of Islam with roots in Saudi Arabia) are now doing. Aurangzeb killed his brother (Shikoh) who was the crown prince, because he (Shikoh) was very close to Hindus and Sikhs.
It is known historically how Dara Shikoh in the 16th century with the help of Hindu priests learnt Sanskrit and -- again, with their help -- he translated (50) Upanishads and the Bhagawad Gita into Persian, followed on what Akbar the great started, Din-e-Ilahi.
The entire thing became such a huge loss to India. Because of Aurangzeb and Islamic war, the whole country became feeble and the British were able to take over the country soon after his (Aurangzeb's) death.
Wherever Islam has become synonymous with violence and hate, Muslims have suffered tremendously. Of course, non-Muslims have also died by the hundreds, but the main victims have always been Muslims.
The traditional orphans of the Iran monarchs or the Indians recognised this was politics. This was not seriously about religion. Religion was merely a tool that allowed them to stay in power, whether it is Saudis or ayatollahs or in the Indian context, Aurangzeb, we had catastrophes, and repression, and secular Muslims had to fight political battles against these fascists.
You are making a distinction between such Muslims and secular Muslims.
About 50 to 60 per cent of the Muslim population is illiterate or semi-illiterate. They are not interested in political power. They barely exist, whether they are in Bihar or they are in Mauritius. They simply want to survive. This gain is for 1 to 2 per cent of the Muslim population. Through political power, they can send messages out.
Who are they?
Primarily the Saudi royal family, the ruling ayatollahs in Iran -- some ayatollahs are in jails in Iran -- and clerics everywhere.
Look at the structures of mosques in Toronto, or elsewhere in Canada. These are large properties. The imam is employed by the board and in many cases takes over the entire structures. I know one organisation that has a property worth $15 million accumulated by the congregation giving cash. Where does this money go? Anyone who controls that amount of money is in politics. He can manipulate lawmakers. He can buy memberships into political parties. He can hire buses and send them to demonstrations. This is what's happening.
It is in the interest of these people to keep Islam politicised so that they can be self-appointed leaders who can communicate with the Western politicians. The ordinary Muslim who is driving a cab or (is) even a physician doesn't have time for all this nonsense. These guys are taking advantage of it.
I have suggested, therefore, that donations given to religious institutions by Canadians shouldn't be in cash but by cheques or credit cards. The money from outside comes in cheques anyway, except there's no way for anybody finding out what's happening in the mosques, as there's no accountability of where this money goes.
There should be a maximum limit that an individual can donate in cash. He should give a cheque or a credit card, beyond that cash. The mosque will never accept that because it is then traceable.
Mosques have become places of politics, which is dangerous. Some mosques are openly defying their charters as charities because they indulge in politics. Every sermon is political because they invite politicians to speak and instead of looking after the affairs of the community and serving their spiritual needs, they [mosques] have become places of bargaining with political parties.
How do you distinguish between an Islamist and a Muslim?
An Islamist is someone who believes in invoking Islam for a political agenda. A Muslim, on the other hand, uses Islam as a moral compass for his betterment and the betterment of his family. An Islamist is also a Muslim but a Muslim is not an Islamist.
India's first education minister, Abul Kalam Azad, a most respected statesman in the country, was not an Islamist. He was against Islamists. Similarly, there are many ayatollahs in Iran who are in jails -- as they are not Islamists.
Some people say the Islamic world is divided into the privileged class of Saudis and ayatollahs and the 'second class' of ordinary Muslims.
It is more than that. The Saudi Muslim does consider a non-Arab Muslim as inferior. Saudi Arabia, sadly, is a racist State. It has salaries based on the colour of your skin, where an Indian Muslim is discriminated more than an Indian Hindu because a Hindu doesn't pray five times a day but a Muslim does.
It is purely commercial and racial. There's no element of spirituality. They have Kentucky Fried Chicken right around the house of god. It is an insult to the faith what the Saudis have done. And ayatollahs have become millionaires who are buying properties in Canada.
If you live in Pakistan, why should you care what the Saudis think of you?
Because I care what white people think of black people in the civil rights movement. It is an insult to me as a human being not to accept when racism, sectarianism and hatred of other human beings is being dressed up in my faith. It is an outrage.
Is Islamism confined within the borders of Saudi Arabia and Iran?
It is happening in Canada. It is happening because of Saudi money. The Islam of Indonesia, Malaysia or Bengal, Bihar, Punjab is different as the spiritual faith there is completely depoliticiced.
You go to any Muslim cemetery in Canada -- you will not see a single tombstone. Why? This is a culture that celebrates the Taj Mahal, and in Canada we are not allowed to put a stone on the head of a child or a parent or a grandfather. Who decided that? The Saudi funded imams. This is contrary to all Islamic traditions. Go to any other country and you can see beautiful mausoleums, but here in Canada the imams, through Saudi influence, the city councils, have decreed that cemeteries here will have no tombstones. This is all Wahhabi influence.
In your book you discuss the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the United Nations' human rights declaration.
The UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, enacted unanimously in 1948, allows freedom of choice of religion -- which means no coercion (on) who should believe in what faith. In many Muslim countries, they have decreed that if you choose to convert from Islam to any other religion, you should be punished by death. Second is the equality of man and woman. Such laws cannot be created from the divine text.
So, we have these 57 countries, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, who are controlled by the Saudis. Their head office is in Saudi Arabia. They fund the entire organisation. So, nobody can object to anything they want to do. They are principally involved in keeping the Muslim world in the era of darkness. Many Muslim States argue that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is part of the Judeo-Christian traditions and so it shouldn't be applicable to the Muslim world. It is astonishing.
In my point of view you are walking into a territory that's divine, reserved for god. Who is someone to tell me I am coming to your house and so you should convert your faith or I will kill you? That's what's happening because the moment a Muslim says that I think there's a problem here and what should we do, they issue a fatwa to kill you.
They expelled (Bangladeshi writer) Taslima Nasrin after pressure from Kolkata Muslims. It is horrible. It is a disgrace not only for Muslims but also for the Indian government to have done that. That woman had to run away and that shows how sometimes non-Muslims also become complicit, saying what do we care if one Muslim kills another Muslim.
If Muslims can live in peace and harmony in India, why can't they live in peace and harmony in Pakistan, a country supposedly created for them?
The movement for Pakistan was never by the people that comprise Pakistan today. The movement for Pakistan was essentially by upper class Muslims of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
Right up to 1946, Balochistan and Sindh were not voting for the Muslim League. They were voting for the (Indian National) Congress party. Balochistan was an independent state and they declared their independence three days before India's Independence. The coalition government headed by Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in Bengal was the result of Direct Action Day of August 16, 1945, which led to the massacre -- actually genocide -- of Hindus in Noakhali (now in Bangladesh). It happened when in fact Muslims and Hindus there lived happily for hundreds of years.
Why would a Muslim find living in Pakistan problematic?
Because the idea that some sort of an Islamic state has to be created can never function. It will result in failure when you set impossible targets from the first day. That is the problem. Pakistan as a secular country, like (Mohammad Ali) Jinnah said in his opening speech, never functioned. It resulted in the cleansing of all Hindus and Sikhs from Punjab.
Punjab is primarily 60 to 70 per cent of Pakistan. It was left completely wounded and destroyed. It is only now West Punjab is reconciling with its close links with East Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. It was a living organism that was cut into two.
India was so large that it managed to take those wounds but Pakistan, being comparatively a smaller country, its heritage was linked with northern India. You are trying to make Pakistan into an Arab country. It is never going to work.
Your thoughts on the India-Pakistan dynamics.
It is in the interest of the armed forces to continue to raise the bogey of an Indian threat to exploit the whole country. So, from 1954 they have dissolved the constitution, they have raped the country, they have created wars with India that nobody wanted. It is an open secret that what General Ayub Khan did in 1965 is exactly what Pervez Musharraf did in Kargil. There's no evidence of India ever attacking Pakistan. The people of Pakistan are quite aware of this.
The fact is that the army can only keep control over a large share of Pakistan's budget if it can continue to say that it is India that has its eyes on Pakistan and it will finish it off. That fear of India has been hammered to such a degree that it (the bogey of India) has been able to survive.
I believe the people of Pakistan are smart enough, and they have realised that their future is in friendship with India rather than Iran or Saudi Arabia. They have lived in these two countries. Indians and Pakistanis are treated in a shallow manner there.
When a Pakistani is visiting India, people won't let you pay for your meal. The same is true when an Indian is visiting Pakistan. Canadian Sikhs are going to Pakistan to visit Nankana Sahib. They come back and say that they couldn't believe it felt like home. In the heartland of Punjab and Sindh, you will not find anyone to say a negative word about India.
In India you might find people who are less aware of Pakistan but in Pakistan everybody knows that their brothers and sisters are Sikhs and Hindus who are on the other side of the border.
In my book I have stated my ancestors are Hindus. We migrated from Rajasthan to Punjab after a famine in early 1800 and we converted to Islam and our family settled there.
Despite different religion, people of Pakistan are smart and resilient. Sixty to 70 per cent of Pakistanis are Punjabis. So, as long as in Lahore and West Punjab there's goodwill towards India, the army cannot continue to create this myth that India is going to attack Pakistan.
Do you think one day Pakistan and India will be like the European Union?
Absolutely. I am 100 per cent sure it will happen because of goodwill. It will happen because of the laws of nature, because we are one people. We have common cuisine, common culture, common language, common clothes, common sense of humour, common geography, common weather -- except, some believe in Bhagwan, some believe in Khuda, some believe in Namokar Mantra, and some don't believe in anything.
There's no greater place on this earth to live as a human being than the subcontinent. India as a subcontinent is a marvel of god's creation. There should never be a communal clash because so much of Islam and Hinduism have been together. We need to bring Kabir's Bhakti movement back, which the British crushed in such a crafty manner that we were left paralysed.
Link:
rediff.com: Inteview/Tarek Fateh, author of a bold new book on Islam
This I found interesting and worth sharing.This comes from a Pakistani.....so what's your thought on this guys??
Fateh's book argues that Muslims have been force-fed lies about their history for over a millennium -- not by Islam's enemies, but by its imams.
Islam came to free humanity from the clutches of the clergy. Instead, the religion of peace has become a prisoner of war, held captive by the very priesthood it came to eliminate,' Fateh, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, writes in his book.
In an exclusive interview Rediff India Abroad Senior Editor Ajit Jain, the prolific author, broadcaster and columnist pointed out that in India "Muslims, who are 12 per cent of that country's population, thrive," while "next door in Pakistan and Bangladesh," which are Islamic States, "Muslims suffer.
Through the book -- written despite death threats against him -- Fateh wants Muslims to understand that their future lies in "models that are based in India, South Africa and Canada."
Many Muslims say Islam was supposed to be a way of life but it has become a dogma. That it has been politicised.
In some unfortunate way, it is correct. All the differences within the Muslim community, or the wars and the civil wars that have been fought, have never been about piety but about politics.
What is the solution to the increasingly political overtones to the perception of Islam?
We have to stand up to them (fundamentalists) and expose the ideology of hate. In the Indian context, this is the choice between Aurangzeb on the one side and Dara Shikoh on the other.
We know the catastrophe that happened after Aurangzeb weakened the whole of the subcontinent in his efforts to do what the Wahhabis (an ultra-conservative branch of Islam with roots in Saudi Arabia) are now doing. Aurangzeb killed his brother (Shikoh) who was the crown prince, because he (Shikoh) was very close to Hindus and Sikhs.
It is known historically how Dara Shikoh in the 16th century with the help of Hindu priests learnt Sanskrit and -- again, with their help -- he translated (50) Upanishads and the Bhagawad Gita into Persian, followed on what Akbar the great started, Din-e-Ilahi.
The entire thing became such a huge loss to India. Because of Aurangzeb and Islamic war, the whole country became feeble and the British were able to take over the country soon after his (Aurangzeb's) death.
Wherever Islam has become synonymous with violence and hate, Muslims have suffered tremendously. Of course, non-Muslims have also died by the hundreds, but the main victims have always been Muslims.
The traditional orphans of the Iran monarchs or the Indians recognised this was politics. This was not seriously about religion. Religion was merely a tool that allowed them to stay in power, whether it is Saudis or ayatollahs or in the Indian context, Aurangzeb, we had catastrophes, and repression, and secular Muslims had to fight political battles against these fascists.
You are making a distinction between such Muslims and secular Muslims.
About 50 to 60 per cent of the Muslim population is illiterate or semi-illiterate. They are not interested in political power. They barely exist, whether they are in Bihar or they are in Mauritius. They simply want to survive. This gain is for 1 to 2 per cent of the Muslim population. Through political power, they can send messages out.
Who are they?
Primarily the Saudi royal family, the ruling ayatollahs in Iran -- some ayatollahs are in jails in Iran -- and clerics everywhere.
Look at the structures of mosques in Toronto, or elsewhere in Canada. These are large properties. The imam is employed by the board and in many cases takes over the entire structures. I know one organisation that has a property worth $15 million accumulated by the congregation giving cash. Where does this money go? Anyone who controls that amount of money is in politics. He can manipulate lawmakers. He can buy memberships into political parties. He can hire buses and send them to demonstrations. This is what's happening.
It is in the interest of these people to keep Islam politicised so that they can be self-appointed leaders who can communicate with the Western politicians. The ordinary Muslim who is driving a cab or (is) even a physician doesn't have time for all this nonsense. These guys are taking advantage of it.
I have suggested, therefore, that donations given to religious institutions by Canadians shouldn't be in cash but by cheques or credit cards. The money from outside comes in cheques anyway, except there's no way for anybody finding out what's happening in the mosques, as there's no accountability of where this money goes.
There should be a maximum limit that an individual can donate in cash. He should give a cheque or a credit card, beyond that cash. The mosque will never accept that because it is then traceable.
Mosques have become places of politics, which is dangerous. Some mosques are openly defying their charters as charities because they indulge in politics. Every sermon is political because they invite politicians to speak and instead of looking after the affairs of the community and serving their spiritual needs, they [mosques] have become places of bargaining with political parties.
How do you distinguish between an Islamist and a Muslim?
An Islamist is someone who believes in invoking Islam for a political agenda. A Muslim, on the other hand, uses Islam as a moral compass for his betterment and the betterment of his family. An Islamist is also a Muslim but a Muslim is not an Islamist.
India's first education minister, Abul Kalam Azad, a most respected statesman in the country, was not an Islamist. He was against Islamists. Similarly, there are many ayatollahs in Iran who are in jails -- as they are not Islamists.
Some people say the Islamic world is divided into the privileged class of Saudis and ayatollahs and the 'second class' of ordinary Muslims.
It is more than that. The Saudi Muslim does consider a non-Arab Muslim as inferior. Saudi Arabia, sadly, is a racist State. It has salaries based on the colour of your skin, where an Indian Muslim is discriminated more than an Indian Hindu because a Hindu doesn't pray five times a day but a Muslim does.
It is purely commercial and racial. There's no element of spirituality. They have Kentucky Fried Chicken right around the house of god. It is an insult to the faith what the Saudis have done. And ayatollahs have become millionaires who are buying properties in Canada.
If you live in Pakistan, why should you care what the Saudis think of you?
Because I care what white people think of black people in the civil rights movement. It is an insult to me as a human being not to accept when racism, sectarianism and hatred of other human beings is being dressed up in my faith. It is an outrage.
Is Islamism confined within the borders of Saudi Arabia and Iran?
It is happening in Canada. It is happening because of Saudi money. The Islam of Indonesia, Malaysia or Bengal, Bihar, Punjab is different as the spiritual faith there is completely depoliticiced.
You go to any Muslim cemetery in Canada -- you will not see a single tombstone. Why? This is a culture that celebrates the Taj Mahal, and in Canada we are not allowed to put a stone on the head of a child or a parent or a grandfather. Who decided that? The Saudi funded imams. This is contrary to all Islamic traditions. Go to any other country and you can see beautiful mausoleums, but here in Canada the imams, through Saudi influence, the city councils, have decreed that cemeteries here will have no tombstones. This is all Wahhabi influence.
In your book you discuss the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the United Nations' human rights declaration.
The UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, enacted unanimously in 1948, allows freedom of choice of religion -- which means no coercion (on) who should believe in what faith. In many Muslim countries, they have decreed that if you choose to convert from Islam to any other religion, you should be punished by death. Second is the equality of man and woman. Such laws cannot be created from the divine text.
So, we have these 57 countries, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, who are controlled by the Saudis. Their head office is in Saudi Arabia. They fund the entire organisation. So, nobody can object to anything they want to do. They are principally involved in keeping the Muslim world in the era of darkness. Many Muslim States argue that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is part of the Judeo-Christian traditions and so it shouldn't be applicable to the Muslim world. It is astonishing.
In my point of view you are walking into a territory that's divine, reserved for god. Who is someone to tell me I am coming to your house and so you should convert your faith or I will kill you? That's what's happening because the moment a Muslim says that I think there's a problem here and what should we do, they issue a fatwa to kill you.
They expelled (Bangladeshi writer) Taslima Nasrin after pressure from Kolkata Muslims. It is horrible. It is a disgrace not only for Muslims but also for the Indian government to have done that. That woman had to run away and that shows how sometimes non-Muslims also become complicit, saying what do we care if one Muslim kills another Muslim.
If Muslims can live in peace and harmony in India, why can't they live in peace and harmony in Pakistan, a country supposedly created for them?
The movement for Pakistan was never by the people that comprise Pakistan today. The movement for Pakistan was essentially by upper class Muslims of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
Right up to 1946, Balochistan and Sindh were not voting for the Muslim League. They were voting for the (Indian National) Congress party. Balochistan was an independent state and they declared their independence three days before India's Independence. The coalition government headed by Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy in Bengal was the result of Direct Action Day of August 16, 1945, which led to the massacre -- actually genocide -- of Hindus in Noakhali (now in Bangladesh). It happened when in fact Muslims and Hindus there lived happily for hundreds of years.
Why would a Muslim find living in Pakistan problematic?
Because the idea that some sort of an Islamic state has to be created can never function. It will result in failure when you set impossible targets from the first day. That is the problem. Pakistan as a secular country, like (Mohammad Ali) Jinnah said in his opening speech, never functioned. It resulted in the cleansing of all Hindus and Sikhs from Punjab.
Punjab is primarily 60 to 70 per cent of Pakistan. It was left completely wounded and destroyed. It is only now West Punjab is reconciling with its close links with East Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. It was a living organism that was cut into two.
India was so large that it managed to take those wounds but Pakistan, being comparatively a smaller country, its heritage was linked with northern India. You are trying to make Pakistan into an Arab country. It is never going to work.
Your thoughts on the India-Pakistan dynamics.
It is in the interest of the armed forces to continue to raise the bogey of an Indian threat to exploit the whole country. So, from 1954 they have dissolved the constitution, they have raped the country, they have created wars with India that nobody wanted. It is an open secret that what General Ayub Khan did in 1965 is exactly what Pervez Musharraf did in Kargil. There's no evidence of India ever attacking Pakistan. The people of Pakistan are quite aware of this.
The fact is that the army can only keep control over a large share of Pakistan's budget if it can continue to say that it is India that has its eyes on Pakistan and it will finish it off. That fear of India has been hammered to such a degree that it (the bogey of India) has been able to survive.
I believe the people of Pakistan are smart enough, and they have realised that their future is in friendship with India rather than Iran or Saudi Arabia. They have lived in these two countries. Indians and Pakistanis are treated in a shallow manner there.
When a Pakistani is visiting India, people won't let you pay for your meal. The same is true when an Indian is visiting Pakistan. Canadian Sikhs are going to Pakistan to visit Nankana Sahib. They come back and say that they couldn't believe it felt like home. In the heartland of Punjab and Sindh, you will not find anyone to say a negative word about India.
In India you might find people who are less aware of Pakistan but in Pakistan everybody knows that their brothers and sisters are Sikhs and Hindus who are on the other side of the border.
In my book I have stated my ancestors are Hindus. We migrated from Rajasthan to Punjab after a famine in early 1800 and we converted to Islam and our family settled there.
Despite different religion, people of Pakistan are smart and resilient. Sixty to 70 per cent of Pakistanis are Punjabis. So, as long as in Lahore and West Punjab there's goodwill towards India, the army cannot continue to create this myth that India is going to attack Pakistan.
Do you think one day Pakistan and India will be like the European Union?
Absolutely. I am 100 per cent sure it will happen because of goodwill. It will happen because of the laws of nature, because we are one people. We have common cuisine, common culture, common language, common clothes, common sense of humour, common geography, common weather -- except, some believe in Bhagwan, some believe in Khuda, some believe in Namokar Mantra, and some don't believe in anything.
There's no greater place on this earth to live as a human being than the subcontinent. India as a subcontinent is a marvel of god's creation. There should never be a communal clash because so much of Islam and Hinduism have been together. We need to bring Kabir's Bhakti movement back, which the British crushed in such a crafty manner that we were left paralysed.
Link:
rediff.com: Inteview/Tarek Fateh, author of a bold new book on Islam
This I found interesting and worth sharing.This comes from a Pakistani.....so what's your thought on this guys??
