Being ‘Anti-Muslim’

‘I wonder why you write such a column replete with hate and vengeance’ alleged a protagonist, who calls himself as a ‘secularist’, on reading my previous columns. But when I asked him to aid me in finding those words of ‘hate and vengeance’ he wasted no time to enjoin ‘I don’t have time for that’! When an allegation is levelled, one cannot but seek elucidation. Not even once have those allegers took some time to warrant those allegations.  

Because, for past few months, I have been inditing columns critical of Islam with purports from Holy Koranand Hadith, I am being branded as ‘anti-Muslim’. ‘You [hate] Islam’ many have already declared. But hate is such a strong word. It’s opposite to love and thus, when you hate you just end up perverting. I have time and again advocated that ‘Seed of hatred begets nothing but destruction.’ I have never abused Islam nor have I, e’er, used derogatory words against Muslims. How can I speak fetid against anyone when I disown ‘hate’ in the first place? I am not a phoney.  

Though I may have written critical analysis on Islam, I have seldom ‘branded’ an entire Muslim community as terrorist. I have never called for seizing of their right to practice their faith, their right to exist. The people who allege me of saying so have never read my columns.                               

Criticism isn’t a bad, neither is critic worth considering a pariah. He is not an inevitable foe. He is a person who is trying to give in his stimuli and notions on certain issues. Distinguished journalists and intellectuals in this country have spoken so critically of Hindus and Hinduism at large, but they aren’t tagged as ‘anti-Hindu’. And I, very strongly, believe that just because someone has criticized Hindus or Hinduism, he cannot be labelled as anti-Hindu. It’s injudicious. 

If you take a look at Hinduism you will find that it has been ever evolving. It has never lazed. It’s true that: Dalits were suppressed here, widows (in some parts of this country) were being burnt alive, child marriage was rampant and lower caste people were never allowed inside the temple.  

But today how many of such evil practices do you find in Hinduism now? Isn’t it virtually extinct? It is. But how was this made possible? When so many people began criticising Hinduism umpteen, within the faith, began questioning and thereby sought revision. Renaissance was made possible primarily due to criticism, and Hindus became forward thinking people because of it.  

The critics didn’t write with the intention of uplifting Hindu but with an objective of endorsing religious conversion and also, at times, with the view of defaming it. But Hindu leaders were relatively prompt to react and thus something good happened. ‘Don’t debunk criticism and critics blindly.’ an old maxim of Hindus, came for them handily. There was of course resistance for change but it was weakened by resolve of the men who sought reform. But when similar situation was put forth Muslims they began playing their ‘anti-Muslim’ label. Anyone criticizing them is today an ‘anti-Muslim’.  

If, by bringing to light unpleasant reality from Islam’s Holy Scripture, I wish to do anything, it would be to ask Muslims to rethink on it. I want them to rethink on parts of their faith for their own betterment. 

Another allegation thrown against me by my Muslim brethren is that ‘I am built in the mould of Sangh Parivar.’ I am not sure what they mean when they say ‘built in the mould’. Yes, I have been associated with Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). I have read their books, for sometime I have complied, or better put, tried to follow, their discipline. I have many friends within the organization of whom I am proud of. But, if my friendship is to be a deciding factor then I also have friends within Jamat-e-Islami, Students Islamic Organization and even from Churches of Southern India. Until two days back from penning this column I did also have a Communist friend who, somehow, himself disowned me by branding me as a ‘fascist’. Interestingly he is yet to prove as to why I should be branded so.  

My background is diverse. I have read Bible before reading Bhagavad-Gita. I am a product of a Christian Missionary school established by the German Bassel Mission. I have attended classes on Koran by a competent Maulvi. My favourite teacher was a Communist, and thus I can fairly explain communism – first-rate. My close friends during school and college days have been Muslims, who preferred to offer Namaz five times a day. I have been to Mosque and can even imitate actions of Namaz. My most favourite writer is M J Akbar and though I disagree with him on numerous aspects I am equally proud of him and also of my friends who come from so many diverse faiths. Many of my friends, even today, are the ones who prefer to disagree with me. Given this, I would like to know from my critics as to how could I possibly be an ‘anti-Muslim’ or go against fundamental rights of any religion for that matter?  

The greatest diplomat and statesman from India, after whom I have named this column, says in his brilliant work, Arthashastra, that “It’s better to have an intelligent & criticizing enemy than a foolish and all-agreeing friend.” It’s important that our Muslim brethren stand up and respond to such criticism proactively and think candidly of a socio-economic renascence within the community.  

Fanaticism is dangerous because it blocks logical thinking and wisdom. It isn’t healthy and can be a primary cause for one to perish. And history is a testimony to this fact.   

Author is co-founder and Editor-In-Chief of upcoming illustrated family magazine FOLKS (http://www.folksone.com) and also a Fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain andIreland, London (UK). 

Thoughts on Happiness

There are precisely two reasons for which everyone, living in the world, is working for: 

1. To increase one’s happiness and
2. For sustaining it. 

Staying happy, for everyone, is imperative. But what makes one happy? And having once attained that ‘happiness’ how is he to sustain it? Since time immemorial our civilizations have been in pursuit of happiness. All the religions and social systems discovered or invented were intended to make us happy. But, regrettably, even after ‘conquering’ the moon and deploying satellites on other planetary bodies in our solar system, we, the mankind, are yet to attain that incessant happiness in our daily lives. 

Because everyone likes to be happy they are in pursuit of being ‘rich, beautiful, knowledgeable and strong’. These are, however, some of the several attributes everybody is clambering to accomplish – at least to some degree. But riches and beauty, among them, appears to be the often coveted, while the rest are little cared for. 

To go affluent everyone have their own plan. This contriving often leads to dispute between those who intend to achieve a common objective(s). It further paves way for envy and jealousy. Rivalry between those athletes, movie stars, authors, politicians, musical groups or even those within businesses and corporations testify this fact. It is also the very same jealousy and envy which leads to discrimination, persecution and enmity in the society, which in turn makes us to loose track of the ‘perpetual happiness’ and thereafter land ourselves in a state of misery, with mind filled with utter frustration.

These frustrated minds knowing not what to do end up trying ‘to make the very best of it.’ These men thus end up working more and enjoying less, while the primary goal of life, i.e. of being happy, slips off softly. This is the very reason for discontent of every single soul living on this very planet.  

I have a friend who’s a multi-millionaire and yet he continues to work recklessly along with his wife in their respective offices. They are so busy that finding time for their only child is virtually impossible. I asked them once the reason for which they were working so hard. I found no reason valid enough to force them to work so hard. ‘It’s not like that pal we are working arduously to ensure that our daughter get what we have failed to get – Happiness!’ he said, furthering, ‘I want her to have every thing she desires and aspires for. I want her to be happy.’  

Did he say ‘Happy’? His girl is hardly five years old and passes most of her time with a nanny, who, somehow, isn’t happy with her own job. The kid, the way I see it, is completely missing love and affection. It’s very much evident that given the ‘tight’ schedule of her mommy and daddy she hardly gets to have a glimpse of theirs, forget spending some quality time. Of what use is their wealth when it can’t even buy a bit of love and time of their own to that child? 

Continuing with I am compelled to recall a quite sickening feature gripping the mind of many – world over. People today are unhappy not because of lack of resources with them. They are unhappy because others are happy! So many are unhappy today not because they aren’t earning well but because their peers are earning more than them! They aren’t sad because they don’t have a home, but for the reason that their neighbour has got a new flat in a very posh area! Hilarious? Sorry, it’s nauseating to me. The logic of comparison is good, but not in such a way.   

I am trained in management. The only saddening characteristic of this profession is that it compels people to be ‘unhappy’. ‘If you are happy then you are bound to perish’ is an undeclared axiom here. This too is no less noisome. 

I am of the conviction that ‘Happiness is to be found nowhere else but in you. No one can ever make you happy. If at all someone could… it’s you – yourself.’ 

As a patriot when I think of felicity I am recalled of those wise words by a great son of our land, JRD Tata, who had once declared, and very righteously, that ‘I don’t want India to be a powerful country… but I want it to be a happy country.’ How true? If in power laid happiness of a nation, then why isn’t America happy? 

If we don’t want to be happy there is nothing to make us felicitous and if we want to be happy, we can be so with most modest of our resources. 

Author is co-founder and Editor-in-chief of upcoming apolitical family magazine FOLKS and also a Fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London (UK)

Obama’s tryst with Islam

If you think Obama’s full name is ‘Barack Obama’ then you are half right. His middle name, which is hardly flashed in the media, is ‘Hussein’. Thus his complete name is ‘Barack Hussein Obama.’

Now the question that would certainly follow is: ‘Does he, or not, have a Muslim background?’ When the very same question was asked to him sometimes back his answer was ‘If I was a Muslim, I would let you know.’ and I believed in him. Obama is today a practicing Christian and also a member of the Trinity Church of Christ.

Obama in his campaign website on November 12, 2007 posted a statement with the headline ‘Barack Obama is not and has never been a Muslim’, followed by ‘Obama never prayed in Mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim and is a committed Christian.’

Speaking personally about his Muslim lineage, on Dec 22, 2007, Obama spoke thus: ‘My father was from Kenya, and lots of people in his village were Muslim. He didn’t practice Islam. Truth is he wasn’t very religious. He met my mother. My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother so I have always been a Christian. The only connection I have had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country. But I have never practiced Islam… For a while I lived in Indonesia because my mother was teaching there. And that’s a Muslim country. And I went to school. But I didn’t practice Islam…’

However, in complete contrast to Obama’s aforesaid statement, in the article ‘Obama Debunks Claim about Islamic School’ Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press wrote, on January 24, 2007, that: ‘Obama’s mother, divorced from Obama’s father married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to country from 1967-71. At first Obama attended the Catholic School Fransiskus Assisis where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his step-father. The document required that each student choose one of the five sanctioned religions while registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.’

In response to the above claim Obama’s communication director, Robert Gibbs, responded that ‘He wasn’t sure why the document had Obama registered as a Muslim.’

What more? Two months later, Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times reported that the Obama campaign had retreated from that absolute statement and instead issued a more nuanced one: ‘Obama has never been a [practicing] Muslim.’

The Times looked into the matter further and learned more about his Indonesian interlude: ‘His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.’ The article further continued stating that ‘his childhood friends say Obama sometimes went for Friday prayers at local mosque. “We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and we went to mosque together and prayed.” Said Zulfin Adi’

Obama’s younger sister, the article mentioned, ‘Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only for “big communal events” and not every Friday.’ Recalling Obama’s time in Indonesia, the Times account contains quotes that Obama ‘went to the mosque,’ and that ‘he [was] a Muslim.’

By summarizing the evidence we would get that: ‘Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father. At some point, he converted to Christianity.’ also it appears false to state that, as Obama does, ‘I have always been a practicing Christian.’ and ‘I have never been a Muslim.’ The campaign, thus, appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that ‘Obama never prayed in a Mosque.’

Important also is remarks from Arab Columnists like that of Naseem Jamali of Aljazeera, who recently stated that ‘Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are eager to count him as one of their own.’

Of considerable importance also is a conversation in Beirut, as quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, which captures the puzzlement. “‘He has to be good for Arabs because he is a Muslim,” observed a grocer. “He’s not a Muslim, he’s a Christian.” replied a customer. The grocer’s answer for this was “He can’t be a Christian. His middle name is Hussein.”’ Arabic discussion of Obama sometimes mentions his middle as a code, with no further comment needed!

Some American Muslim leaders also perceive Obama as Muslim. The President of the Islamic Society of North America, Sayyid M Syeed, told Muslims at a conference in Houston that whether Obama wins or looses, his candidacy will reinforce that Muslim children can ‘become the Presidents of this country.’ What an excitement it should be for them.

But this excitement also has a dark side – suspicion that Obama is a traitor to his birth religion, an ‘apostate’ or ‘Murtadd’ from Islam. Al-Qaeda has prominently featured Obama’s stating ‘I am not a Muslim.’ And one Analyst, Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, sees Obama as ‘Bin Laden’s dream candidate’. Should he become the US Commander in Chief, she believes, Al-Qaeda would likely ‘exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror… to galvanize sympathizers into action.’

Interestingly, as per Josie Delap and Robert Lane Green, of the Economist the ‘Obama-as-apostate’ theme ‘has been notably absent’ among Arabic language Columns and Editorials.

Somehow I find logic in the analysis of my friend and Director of Middle-East Forum, Daniel Pipes, who believes that ‘Should Obama become President, differences in American views of religious affiliations [will] create problem.’

But what is of keener importance, to me at least, is that ‘why has not been Obama frank in this regard?’ It paves ways for a great deal of suspicion and conspiracy theories.

Author is Co-founder and Editor-In-Chief of upcoming apolitical Magazine FOLKS (http://www.folksone.com) and also a fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London (UK).