Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44692)	9/27/2003 4:07:29 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Some reactions..on the little we do here..it is nice to take the message where it matters the most.. Western vices and mullahs Sir: The mullahs never cease to amaze me. They keep lecturing us against the vulgarity and immorality of the West. They carry out campaigns against the encroaching influences of western culture in our society and encourage their goons to take vigilante action against 'vulgarity' as they perceive it in the media, circuses and billboards. And of course let us not forget that they consider Western civilisation not just immoral and permissive but also an enemy of Islam. But at the same time they have no problems sending their own children to study in the land of the "great Satan", the US. Isn't this a case of double standards? MOHAMMAD ZAIN Lahore dailytimes.com.pk Iqbal, Thanks for you thoughtful response. If you look at my pieces at the Iranian site you will see that we are on the same wave length. I think the critique of Islam should come from Muslims and your article is a step in that direction. Best, Ahmad

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44692)	9/27/2003 1:08:38 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Respond to of 50167

The discussion at Gulf 2000, a private forum run by Gary Sick of Columbia University regarding Qaradawi continues. Below you will see an exchange between me (the first piece) and another member (Cyrus) whose words come after mine below. Ahmad I am sorry that Cyrus has had more than his share of encounters with “Americans… who classify Middle Easterners … based on very superficial observations such as whether or not they drink Coke or Watch MTV.” I don’t claim that there is a dearth of simple mindedness in America but I don’t believe it is fair to say “American world view tends to be in black and white. They must either hate us totally or love us totally.” Making such generalizing assumptions is also dangerous as they are the stuff with which easy-to-unhorse straw men are filled. So let us say that we agree that simplistic classification of Middle Easterners (as pro or anti-Western) based on what they consume is wrong. Let us also agree to disagree with the cynical statement at the end of the note: all politicians are hypocritical “especially when it comes to their own kids.” Let us discuss the case of Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradawi that Mehrdad Valibeigi has brought to our attention via Iqbal Latif’s article in Iranian.com. The charge was one of hypocrisy as the Sheikh appears to have issued two fatwas against buying American goods and depositing money in American banks but has seen fit to send his own children to study the US. Is that hypocrisy? My answer was yes, but one that pales in comparisonto the cases we have witnessed in Iran. I agree with Cyrus that the Sheikh would probably have a ready legal justification for sending his children to the US. What jurist wouldn't? He could argue that his fatwas are a form of economic Jihad and meant for Muslims living elsewhere in the world. One can argue with such a claims. But more important than the letter of the fatwas is the extreme Anti-American sentiment that suffuses them. G2K members who read Arabic can visit the site of the Sheikh at "Qaradawi.net" to read those two fiery fatwas. They can also peruse a very long answer the Sheikh has provided to an equally long (and rather heartbreaking) istifta` under the title of “difficulties of a Muslim in a society not ruled by Islam.” Before issuing terse fatwas that for the most part reject the possibility of doing business in the West (issues of taxes and banking are prominent) the Sheikh writes an eloquent and impassioned preamble. I have translated some of his statements below: 1- “Our main mistake is to ask Islam to resolve problems not of its making and cure diseases we have contracted elsewhere…and if it is said: what is the fault of a single person if the society is gone astray… the answer would be: the society is made of individuals who have probably helped build it by their silence, passive condoning, and, perchance, by their active interactions with its un-Islamic, and indeed anti-Islamic institutions…” 2- “I understand that the individual (living in the West) suffers these circumstances… but I also am aware of the danger to the piety of the believer and the future of the society as a whole. Issuing permissive fatwas that would create loopholes for accommodating to the reality that presently oppresses us is to forget that the mission of religion is to elevate people to its higher exemplar (he uses the Platonic Ideas or mothol here) rather than degrade its exemplar and adjust it the quotidian reality of the people…” 3- “In other words, do you want to live according to the precepts of the religion and its principles that are creative rather than created, instructive rather than instructed, or do you want to live your live as apes do: aping and imitating?” 4- “America, my brother, is more than you think and more than some of those who are in the business of Islamic jurisprudence think. So don’t confront the Ulema whose leaning is different from yours and don’t charge them with ignorance of religion and life. And know that should Omar, whom you quoted in your letter (the writer had praised Omar for his bold Ijtihads against the letter of the Quran) had been with us, he would have rejected all of these arrangements and their ilk in the name of Islam. He would not have dedicated his efforts to accommodating himself to such arrangements.” In short, ordinary and moderate Islamic jurists (whom he castigates as accommodationists in the last of my quotations) might have misgivings about aspects of American culture and foreign policy and yet find legal justifications in the Sharia to send their children to study in the US. But given the letter and tone of his fatwas it is surprising to say the least, that we find Sheikh Yousef Al Qaradawi among them. Ahmad Sadri Cyrus wrote: I think I was trying to point out a broader issue than Mr. Iqbal Latif's specific criticisms of the Sheikh. One of my pet peeves in reading some articles on the Mideast written by Americans in particular is the occasional tendency to classify Mid-Easterners as either pro-Americans (and by implication, pro US foreign policies) or Anti-Americans, based on very superficial observations such as whether or not the Mid-Easterners in question like to drink Coke or watch MTV or attend Stanford, with no room in the middle for Mid-Easterners who may resent US foreign policy and yet also appreciate a Stanford degree. Perhaps this because the American worldview tends to be in black and white, and so we assume others view us in the same black-white manner: they must either hate us totally or love us totally. And when this assumption is challenged by encounters with real live Mid-Easterners such as the Shiekh who don't neatly fit into our perceived categories (ie. they obviously dislike US foreign policy but like the US higher educational system & want send their kids to US grad schools) it is so much easier to accuse them of hypocricy rather than accepting a more nuanced view of ourselves. In any case, returning to Mr. Iqbal Latif's article, he seems to have had a certain conclusion in mind and simply bootstrapped his way to that conclusion by reading too much into the fatwa on boycotting US banks and products by extending the fatwas it to a US education. I am sure the Sheikh could say, for example, that obtaining an education is an implied exception to his fatwa which applies to everyone's kids, considering the importance attached to education and knowledge in Islam - sort of like the "cultural exchange" exception to US sanctions laws. I don't know much about the law of fatwas specifically but many laws have implied and explicit exceptions, even here in the US. To use an example from my field of study: The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall make "NO LAW" restricting the freedom of speech and yet we have many legal restrictions on the freedom of speech. Is that an example of hypocricy too? Anyway, whether the Shiekh would be sincere in this or not is largely irrelevant; show me one public figure in any country who isn't hypocritical in some way, especially when it comes to his own kids. So why does Mr Iqbal Latif portrays this as a necessarily Islamic characteristic? I think that's hypocricy in of itself, frankly.