Bukhari calls stir anti-Islam, tells Muslims to stay away

[rollindays]

This is a very weak reason and bad excuse to form Pakistan.Pakistan was formed so that the rich Muslims of UP etc didn't have to share power and scuttle with Hindus elites.Thats all.Gandhi favoured muslims a lot and asked the hindus to compromise to keep India together.

If he had to tell the Hindus to compromise for the Muslims, that just goes to show the 'imbalance' in the society, & all the more reason for Muslims to create a separate homeland. But the reason why Pakistan was formed by Jinnah was not for Islam, but in fact, for the opposite reason. Jinnah feared India would turn out to be an ideologically Hindu state (which is why he strove for independence); while he wanted to make Pakistan to be a state along secular lines with a Muslim majority, free for all religions.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

Short takes: Why Imam Bukhari is SO wrong

It is the era of short messages, and in keeping with the times we kick off a new feature where our writers tell it like it is, in just a few words. Today, Faisal Kidwai tells us why Imam Bukhari is wrong in calling on Muslims to boycott Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement

The Imam Bukhari of New Delhi's [ Images ] Jama Masjid has proved that you need real commitment to preach sheer stupidity.

In a statement carried he has appealed to Muslims to stay away from Anna Hazare's movement because the protesters are raising slogans such as 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' and 'Vande Mataram' which, according to him, are un-Islamic.

Well, first things first. The incumbent, Syed Ahmed Bukhari's father Syed Abdullah Bukhari has always supported the government in power. He has a long history of backing the administration, whether it is VP Singh's government, the BJP or the Congress.

These days the Congress is in power, so Imam Bukhari is supporting them by taking a stand against Anna Hazare.

His views are not based on religion, the Holy Book or even principles. All he cares about is maintaining his ever-dwindling power base.

His political stand can be summed up by the statement made by Groucho Marx: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Contrary to perceptions created over years by the media regarding Imam Bukhari, he does not even represent the Muslims of Delhi, let alone Muslims of India [ Images ].

He was created by the Congress, helped by the media and his support base has always been limited to areas surrounding the Jama Masjid.

Apart from those who want to ride on his coattails, Muslims around the country have never paid any attention to his statements or his diktats.

Now, in an effort to remain in the news, he has called on Muslims to not support a protest movement, not because the movement might lack merit or that the Jan Lokpal Bill might have glaring shortcoming.

No, sir, his stand, like always, is not based on rational reasons, but on headline-grabbing.

By the way, how is 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' un-Islamic? As far as I can see, it is just a slogan in praise of your country. If anything, having an imam like Bukhari is un-Islamic.

If Imam Bukhari has such a problem with 'Vande Mataram' or 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' then he should, frankly, leave India and live somewhere else, preferably in Pakistan, where he would feel very comfortable among the religious nuts ruling the streets.

Faisal Kidwai

Short takes: Why Imam Bukhari is SO wrong - Rediff.com India News

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

^^^^Very well said Faisal Kidwai

Who the hell is Faisal Kidwai?

 

[Subramanian]

If he had to tell the Hindus to compromise for the Muslims, that just goes to show the 'imbalance' in the society, & all the more reason for Muslims to create a separate homeland. But the reason why Pakistan was formed by Jinnah was not for Islam, but in fact, for the opposite reason. Jinnah feared India would turn out to be an ideologically Hindu state (which is why he strove for independence); while he wanted to make Pakistan to be a state along secular lines with a Muslim majority, free for all religions.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------



Who the hell is Faisal Kidwai?

No,the muslims always expect the impossible.Basically Muslims and also christians feel anyone who is not following their religion to be inferior but thats alright,they are free to have a superiority complex but then socially they demand impossible things and have a very less tolerance.

For example i am a hindu and i live in a cosmopolitan area and if there is say a procession on the road for a dead muslim man or for that matter a religious affair during one of the festivals,i wouldn't mind.I would go out or shut my doors or be cool even with the current situation.

But if there is a vinayak chaturti procession or anything like that going through a muslim street,then there ll a huge hue and cry over it.They ll go to any extent to prevent it,i am talking about such things.

There are of course lot of muslims who are not that bothered about these things,they r devout and religious but dont expect anyone else to agree or disagree with their line of thought.

This is what i am talking about.You can see that the subcontinent's muslims most of them are quite used to living side by side to non muslims and going about their business peacefully.

This is the situation in south and infact even in a few places in the north of india.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

If he had to tell the Hindus to compromise for the Muslims, that just goes to show the 'imbalance' in the society, & all the more reason for Muslims to create a separate homeland. But the reason why Pakistan was formed by Jinnah was not for Islam, but in fact, for the opposite reason. Jinnah feared India would turn out to be an ideologically Hindu state (which is why he strove for independence); while he wanted to make Pakistan to be a state along secular lines with a Muslim majority, free for all religions.



---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------



Who the hell is Faisal Kidwai?

How does it matter who he is?why dont u just retort to his arguments?

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

Have you got any clue about Muslim fundamentals about Prostration?

Muslims prostrate in front of God, they painstakingly ensure during the namaz their sajood befalls at an angle to Makkah, they make sure, no living person crosses in front of them during the sajda. During the namaz each time you bow in the ruku or the sajda you acknowledge Allah's greatness in actions and in words.

I don't know how you can sport that name and sport that belief that its secular that you can be forced to say "okay I bow to motherland too, what the hell, Hindu majority". If you want to do it do it, don't lecture everyone else that your name is getting sullied by not being such a conformist. The Ali I know, would have a few things to say about his name being sullied if he were alive today.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------



It's no shame its how our mothers raised us. We don't need to see god, we believe in him and its enough.

Thats not issue,you are free to follow anything in your religion as you wish and there is no need to justify it to anyone but if someone else and in this case,the majority of the country dont agree with you,it should not be a big deal for you.

 

[jayron]

In any mixed society your slogans should remain secular in nature. This was the initial thing that irked Muslims to form a Pakistan, when Gandhi started talking about the glorious principles of Sachagra and Ahimsa.

A Hindu leader glorifies non-violence and you people wanted a separate country for that??? This is beyond intolerance.

 

[Subramanian]

You're mixing apples and oranges, its the same old BS about whether nation comes first or religion. If you had two children and you had to pick one to live how would you choose?


In fact the terms are misused by theocrats and pseudo-secularists alike. You serve your nation, you bow to God. Even if you're an atheist... it will be really dumb to bow to a piece of real estate.

No,it is not like that.You can bow to god and serve your nation,which is fine but if it came to a matter of taking the side of a person who thinks like you(not god again,just a believer like you who believes in the same god) or your country as two opposite choices,what choice will you make?

This is a serious dilemma for muslims who stayed back in india and still a lot of them yearn to be in pakistan and celebrate when your team win in cricket.

 

[Subramanian]

You know you guys had a chance to impress us all. As soon Imam sahab rose the objection you guys should have come forward and said "no problem, lets use a secular term". Sab ki bolti bandh hojati. That would have been evolution. By raising a stink about it, you're showing that you're no where.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------



It's called putting things into perspective. Nation is made of people, btw, you bow to a people and then you're really screwing up the fundamental principle of Muslims of not bowing to anyone.

Impress you for what?What do you mean by a secular term?Sanskrit is a language made by hindus,thats all.Once the language goes out of the mouth,it belongs to the world.It is nobody's personal property.

You can hate india and say it in sanskrit also,it is not a big deal.

Sanskrit language or its terms are not the monopoly of hinduism and hinduism doesn't own sanskrit or any damn thing it invented.

It is you guys who are desperately trying to associate language,culture,cuisine,dress etc etc to be the monopoly of a religion and try to portray that outside.

In Hinduism the thought alone matters,frankly even that doesn't matter,it is all free will.

 

[jetti]

A Hindu leader glorifies non-violence and you people wanted a separate country for that??? This is beyond intolerance.

Gandhi was not a 'hindu leader' he was a world leader who was from the hindu community. he should be declared a saint / messenger of god for his method of inspiring and guiding the unfree to freedom in many parts of the world (like america and south africa)

 

[Subramanian]

A very interesting point in the Lokpal Bill is the selection of chosen people to administer everyone, who can police everybody, from the PM, the judiciary, members of Parliament, and all of the bureaucracy.

The Lokpal has the powers of investigation, surveillance, and prosecution. Except for the fact that it won't have its own prisons, it functions as an independent administration, meant to counter the bloated, unaccountable, corrupt current regime. Two oligarchies, instead of just one.

This is not a way a country can govern itself. This is just a bandwagon movement, nothing else.

No it is perfectly possible for a such system to exist.There is an election commission which is independent and there is a judiciary which is supposed to be independent.There is nothing wrong in incorporating such a panel into the system.

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

I don't know much about Vande Mataram - and I don't know if Tagore was a bigot or not - what little I do know, is that since his book in which Hindus burnt the homes of Muslims, while singing Vande Mataram, there has come to be associated with this poem/song, a strong disassociation for Muslims.

which book is that?Can u tell me more?

 

[rollindays]

A Hindu leader glorifies non-violence and you people wanted a separate country for that??? This is beyond intolerance.

This is the answer to your question:

The fact that Gandhi had to tell the Hindus to compromise for the Muslims goes to show the 'imbalance' in the society, & all the more reason for Muslims to create a separate homeland. But the reason why Pakistan was formed by Jinnah was not for Islam, but in fact, for the opposite reason. Jinnah feared India would turn out to be an ideologically Hindu state (which is why he strove for independence); while he wanted to make Pakistan to be a state along secular lines with a Muslim majority, free for all religions.

 

[rollindays]

No it is perfectly possible for a such system to exist.There is an election commission which is independent and there is a judiciary which is supposed to be independent.There is nothing wrong in incorporating such a panel into the system.

Actually, the Lokpal would oversee the PM, Judiciary, members of Parliament, everyone. Besides its own prisons, it would have the power of investigation, surveillance & prosecution. This is almost equal to a parallel (& a stronger one too) system to India's current system, not just a panel that oversees the current system. Such a model is not feasible for a country to govern.

 

[Subramanian]

Someone should read this amazing article by Arundhati Roy on the flaws in Anna Hazare's movement. If you read what she has to say with an open mind, you'll see she's right on money with everything, & quite correct with everything she says. These are my favorite parts of her article:



The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : I'd rather not be Anna

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------



The fact that has his movement has huge support from Deoband & Srinagar tells me that.

well,what she says is a special situation and in such situation,the hawkers are free to get together make a votebank and the parties will be interested in offering a solution to it.She is as usual talking bullshit and inventing remote ways to counter Anna's movement.Well,noone gives a fvck abou what she thinks.

Decentralisation of power?Why should Anna Hazare believe in everyting Gandhi says?He is a Gandhian because he is trying to fight in the same way the Mahatma did.Thats all,why should be try for political changes and there is enough decentralisation of powers already and the structure will change as deemded necessary.

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

Meaning this movement is being hijacked by everyone, good & bad people, with completely different objectives, to show their frustrations against the government. I'm sure you know what happened in 1977 in the Jaya Prakash Narayan movement.

well what happened?

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------

Actually, the Lokpal would oversee the PM, Judiciary, members of Parliament, everyone. Besides its own prisons, it would have the power of investigation, surveillance & prosecution. This is almost equal to a parallel (& a stronger one too) system to India's current system, not just a panel that oversees the current system. Such a model is not feasible for a country to govern.

No it is not impossible and it wont be easy but why not?

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

This is the answer to your question:

no that is an irrelevant reply,you did not understand what i said.

 

[Subramanian]

Read this, written by a secular Indian Muslim.

Why I didn’t join Anna Hazare:

A few weeks ago, I received a call from Mayank Gandhi, Mumbai coordinator of ‘India Against Corruption’, invting me to be part of a panel in Mumbai to address a press conference on the then upcoming fast by Anna Hazare. “Your name has been suggested to me by Swami Agnivesh. We want Muslims like you, not fanatical Muslims. So please join us and suggest other Muslim names”, I was told.

Great, I thought: Which Indian is not sick of corruption? Here was a budding movement, clearly focused on a single issue but not blind to related concerns. The Mumbai coordinator of the campaign was very clear that they were only interested in “good Muslims” like me and did not wish to get mixed up with the fundamentalist lot. So I thanked him for the invitation and promised to get back in a day or two.

But something I read in the newspapers the next morning made me uneasy, a question popped up from nowhere. Who is presently facing the heat over corruption and who is leading the charge against this malaise? No prizes for getting it right: tainted by scam after scam, the Congress and its DMK ally are the sinners, the BJP are the saints (forget the kalyug in Karnataka).

One doubt led to another. Haven’t we lived through two nationwide anti-corruption movements before, the JP movement in the early ’70s, the V.P. Singh movement in the late ’80s? Neither of them succeeded in rooting out corruption. But both, however innocently and unwittingly, contributed to the poisoning of national politics. JP’s movement and the Janata government that followed gave respectability to Hindu communalism. The V.P. Singh government, opportunistically supported by the BJP from the outside, paved the way for the meteoric rise of the BJP — from two seats in the Lok Sabha in 1984 to 79 in 1989 — which in turn laid the foundation for the first ever Hindutva-led government in New Delhi. No one in his right mind would accuse JP or V.P. Singh of being communal. I admired and identified with the movements they led. But do ponder the outcome of their movements.

So I called back two days later and said I was keen on joining the movement against corruption but conditions apply: I would be keen on the company I would be required to keep. For example, I was happy to know we wouldn’t have to rub shoulders with “bad Muslims” but what about “bad Hindus”? Or, for that matter, would I find myself sharing a platform with people known for their promotion of “Mr Clean” Modi as prime ministerial candidate? If so, do I have the freedom to declare from the same platform that to me, sponsorship of mass crimes was the worst form of corruption?

The answer was unhesitating, clear and precise: “We are only concerned with ending corruption. No one will be allowed to talk politics from our platform. Beyond that we are not concerned with people’s political affiliation.” Why then the concern about “fanatical Muslims”? But that seemed like a rude question. So I wished the movement success while expressing my inability to join.

That was then. I do not wish to spoil the show for those celebrating the “second movement for Independence” that Anna has won for us. But I cannot hide the fact that I with my missing foreskin continue to feel uneasy about the Anna revolution, for more reasons than one.

Though V.D. Savarkar and Guru Golwalkar thought otherwise, we are all her children. So I am okay with “Bharat Mata” providing the backdrop to the fasting Anna. But did the mahatma in our midst have no problems with the Hindu Mahasabha jumping onto his bandwagon? Did he have to apologise to Uma Bharti (who had jumped on Murli Manohar Joshi’s back in ecstasy as the domes of the Babri Masjid were knocked down), when his own supporters showed the good sense of preventing her from joining the dharna at Jantar Mantar? Did Anna feel any discomfort on seeing Baba Ramdev descend on Jantar Mantar in the company of Ram Madhav of the RSS? If he did, why did he not speak his mind?

Nor did Anna speak when Gujarat’s chief minister Narendra Modi proclaimed that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement on Anna’s fast had “created an Emergency-like situation in the country.” Since Modi is no political ignoramus what could that statement possibly mean?

But thank you, Anna, for speaking up now. I was assured that no one would be allowed to make political use of your anti-corruption platform. But who can stop the leader from speaking? So we know now that in your post-corrupt utopia, we should look forward to leaders like Narendra Modi.

Am I being unfair to you since you have quickly clarified that you are against “communal disharmony”. Modi never proclaimed himself in favour of “communal disharmony” either. But your own close associates, lawyers Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan and Swami Agnivesh could tell you more. Interested?

The writer is general secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy

Why I didn’t join Anna Hazare - Indian Express

His arguments are very vague and he believes too much in the cause and effect theory.But he is free to support or not support anyone,but then Anna is just leading the movement and anyone is free to join him.

But whenever anyone says the word secular,i automatically assume he is connected to the congress and indirectly to christian missionaries.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

People are deploring Bukhari sahab for raising the religion issue and totally discounting that they themselves are persisting with the religious issue.

Bukhari pointed out clear cut that a Muslim can't stand and sing Vande Mataram in good conscience and remain loyal to his faith as well. Its against the tenets of secularism demand it.

The persistence of the religious issue is that people here are "No we WILL sing it". Then what can Muslims do, they are disqualified by default.

Not to mention the needless name-calling of an otherwise moderate figure only exacerbates the issue and underscores that Muslims have no role to play in such a national issue of India.

Okay let me tell you this,the muslims need not sing vande mataram and still be a part of the movement.It is more important to be connected ideologically to the movement,not any jingoistic stuff.

 

[Bang Galore]

You know you guys had a chance to impress us all. As soon Imam sahab rose the objection you guys should have come forward and said "no problem, lets use a secular term". Sab ki bolti bandh hojati. That would have been evolution. By raising a stink about it, you're showing that you're no where.

You know what, we can't be bothered impressing the likes of you. Vande Mataram is our national song & while I'm not bothered if Muslims don't sing it, I'm not going to allow anyone to take the right of singing my country's national song & the song that inspired millions of people in the freedom movement away from me. Bharat Mata & Vande Mataram are secular terms to us, I'm sorry but if hailing or bowing to the mother is unislamic, so be it, people who hold that perception are welcome not to use those terms. I see no reason why the rest of us should be barred from using such slogans.

It's called putting things into perspective. Nation is made of people, btw, you bow to a people and then you're really screwing up the fundamental principle of Muslims of not bowing to anyone.

Well, it didn't stop them from bowing to every king & I'm sure the Saudi king does not share your view since he seems to have no problem with people bowing to him, fundamental principles be damned.

 

[divya]

For the time being

Delhi sex workers lend support to Anna Hazare


NEW DELHI: Scores of women working in the capital's red light area, G B Road, have extended support to Anna Hazare's fast demanding Jan Lokpal Bill, an NGO working for their welfare said today.

According to Bhartiya Patita Uddhar Sabha, sex workers have met Hazare's team at Ramlila Gaidan and vowed cooperation till all the demands raised by 73-year-old Gandhian are met.

"The Bhartiya Patita Uddhar Sabha supports the task undertaken by fasting Anna Hazare to get the Lokpal Bill passed from the Parliament. On August 20, a number of sex workers visited Ramlila Maidan and met the team of Anna Hazare and indicated their full support," said Khairati Lal Bhola, President of the NGO.
Delhi sex workers lend support to Anna Hazare - The Times of India

 

[rollindays]

well what happened?

Opponents accused Indira Gandhi & the Congress of electoral fraud in 1971. Jayaprakash Narayan wanted a provincial government change in Bihar. It resulted in the 'Total Revolution', got a lot of opportunistic extreme elements (such as the RSS) in their movement, & as a result of it, the movement got out of hand & control, & the declaration of emergency in India from 1975-77.

 

[Bang Galore]

I don't know much about Vande Mataram - and I don't know if Tagore was a bigot or not - what little I do know, is that since his book in which Hindus burnt the homes of Muslims, while singing Vande Mataram, there has come to be associated with this poem/song, a strong disassociation for Muslims.

Tagore did not write Vande Mataram, it was Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. tagore wrote the National anthem.