Desicritics Category: Culture: Religion

India's Laws - Out of Sync With Society

Shantanu Dutta — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:57:24 EDT

Those who have been following the travails of the baby born to a surrogate mother of Japanese nationality can only feel sympathy for the infant with three mothers but cared for by a grand mother. The father, Dr Yamada, got the baby conceived by one woman, had the baby born through a surrogate mother and then divorced his first wife and remarried. Along the way, he created a legal tangle which he still has not been able to disengage from.

Although India has become the favored destination for those who are looking for surrogate mothers for their yet to be born babies as more and more Indian women are prepared to go through surrogacy, the laws have not kept up adequately to cope up. Of course it is another matter that the reason that India’s laws being so lax and medical expenses being affordable and wombs being so readily available that has contributed to India’s rise as the favored destination for surrogate pregnancies.

On the odd occasion, having antiquated laws can be of help too. There is a story that the reason that the cable TV revolution and the mobile telephony revolution took off so well and so fast in India is because the laws governing these in the initial days was the 19th century Indian Telegraph Act. The law regulating cable television was enacted only in 1995 by which time cable television was firmly entrenched. Similar is the case with mobile telephony – by the time the relevant telephony was firmly entrenched and had proved itself to be a boon.

But when it comes to personal laws and laws governing family life, such a delay can lead to numerous heart aches. For instance in the case of little Manji, there are several cards stacked against the baby. For instance, though India is the land of the great surrogacy bazaar, there are no laws governing surrogacy in the country and the surrogacy bill meant to regulate it is pending in Parliament. In its absence, the laws that apply quite mirroring the situations cited earlier- are the laws governing adoption- and principally when it comes to foreigners ,it would be another 19th century legislation – the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890

Laws in India are paradoxical because they seldom seem to be in sync with society. On hand we have laws which society has not fully accepted like the laws banning child marriage which are flouted with impunity on occasions like akshya tritiya. Look at the data: According to UNICEF, 82 percent of girls in Rajasthan, where the practice is particularly widespread, are married by 18; 15 percent of girls in rural areas across the country are married before 13; and 52 percent of girls have their first pregnancy between 15 and 19.

Or look at Sati an act whose practice and glorification has been banned on many occasions. Historically, efforts to prevent Sati by formal means were extent even before the Moghul rulers came to power. Yet as we all know and read about, sati still happens clandestinely in the country in conservative communities from time to time.

On the other hand, in matters of adoption, succession, divorce and many others including surrogacy society has moved far ahead but laws have not. The adoption laws for all but Hindus are antiquated; The Supreme Court of India, has only in 2007 accepted a petition to make provision for Christians to be able to adopt children legally and the journey ahead is long for Muslims who have not yet even begun. Similarly the divorce provisions for Christians which was codified in 1869 were modified only in 2003 to reflect modern social realities and again the journey has not even begun for Muslims. And then of course we have not even begun thinking properly about emerging areas like surrogate parenting and all that.

Some times I wish that the Uniform Civil Code hadn’t got bogged down in religion based politics and got buried for ever. While the men go and fight out petty battles to score petty points and bills keep pending in parliament, women and children suffer… like Manji, the daughter of Dr Yamada.

Book Review: Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree by Tariq Ali

Vinod Joseph — Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:30:03 EDT

Tariq Ali is a very well known left-wing historian of Pakistani origin based in the UK. The first four books of Ali’s Islam Quintet tell the story of how Islamic Empires rose and fell in a non-Eurocentric manner. All the books are unrelated and can be read independently from the others. The fifth book, to be set in the modern world, is yet to be released.

Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree is set in Granada after the Re-Conquest by Ferdinand and Isabella. The Moors are defeated but not out. When Granada surrendered without a fight, the last Moorish bastion to fall to Ferdinand and Isabella, the Moors living there were promised the freedom to practice Islam, speak in Arabic and live as they had always done for generations. Archbishop Talavera who is responsible for Granada is a tolerant man who releases an Arabic-Latin dictionary and tries to win over the Muslims by the force of his argument. Yes, the Catholic Church does desire the conversion of all Muslims even then, but it is to be done in a peaceful manner. Talavera does not make much headway. And so, a few years after the re-conquest, Talavera is replaced by Archbishop Ximenes de Cisernos, a fanatic if ever there was one.

The book opens with a heart-rending scene in which Ximenes orders the burning off all books in Granada in order to destroy Moorish culture. The Moorish populace is shocked and sickened, but helpless. The books contain advances in medicine, science and astronomy that European Christians have no clue about. A few hundred medical books are kept aside by Ximenes who is aware of what he is doing. Individual acts by Christian soldiers save a few more books. But most books are burnt.

Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree revolves around the Hudayl clan, migrants from Damascus, who have lived in a village on the outskirts of Granada for many generations. The Hudayl’s are portrayed as good, fun-loving people, with all the vices that ruling aristocracies normally possess. They drink, womanise and philosophise – not necessarily in that order. The only problem here is that the Moors are no longer in power. Also, the Inquisition is in full-swing in Granada. Ximenes uses every trick in the book to convert Muslims and Jews to Christianity. Many Jews convert, as do a few Muslims. However, Ximenes does not trust the converts. He knows that many have converted to save their lands. Such converts are persecuted by the Inquisition.

The Hudayls and other Moorish nobles are aware that their time is up. There is vain talk of an insurrection, but the Moors have gone soft and they are incapable of martyrdom. In all probability, this is an accurate description of all empires in their twilight. The Romans and the Mughals are unlikely to have been much different in their respective periods of decline. They make various plans, including a plan to assassinate Ximenes, but one does not see any action. However, towards the end, Ximenes puts them in a situation where they have no choice but to revolt. The revolt is doomed from the start, individual acts of bravery notwithstanding. As the history books tell us, the surviving Moors leave Granada for various places in northern Africa.

There are so many things about this book that I liked. To begin with, Tariq Ali’s non-Eurocentric approach means that the focus of the story is very much on the Moors and not on the Europeans. Ali uses Moorish names throughout. Therefore, Granada is Gharnata, Cordoba is Qurtuba, Spain is Al-Andalus, Seville is Ishbiliya and the like. The names give the reader a feeling of authenticity. Ali is a historian and story-teller par excellence, of a caliber not much inferior to William Dalrymple.

In fact, sections of this novel showing how Moors, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony until Ximenes arrived in Granada reminded me of the White Mughals whilst the bits about the decline of the Moors have a lot in common with the Last Mughal.

There is one aspect of the book that disappointed me. Ali’s description of Moorish knights invariably shows them with red beards and blue eyes. It is well-known that the Moors in Spain were a mix of Berbers and Arabs who came in replenishing waves from Africa. For example, the Almoravids came to Spain in 1086 and they ruled an empire which extended well into sub-Saharan Africa. They were followed by the Almohades who arrived in Spain after conquering Libya. That being a case, it would have helped to have a few characters with swarthy features.

I was actually looking forward to a few descriptions which showed a world where white skin was not a sign of superiority, a world where people of colour mingled on equal terms with those of fair skin. Unfortunately, this I did not find. In fact, there’s a scene where the characters say (this is not necessarily Ali’s view) that whilst Jews look different from the others, Moors and Christians look the same. True, there were Moriscos or Moors who had converted to Christianity and Marranos or Jews who had converted to Christianity, who must have been identical to the Moors and the Jews. And there were many Muwallads, Christians who had converted to Islam. But to project a picture of a homogenous looking population is suspicious to say the least.

While reading this book and afterwards, the main question that struck me was, is this book an accurate depiction of Moorish Spain? Not only are the men highly educated creatures of pleasure, the women are not much far behind. For example, one of the daughters of the Hudayl clan is shown to be having sex with her betrothed a day before her wedding with the semi-approval of her parents. Later when the Moors revolt, the women fight alongside the men, and they fight to the death. Did the Moors of Spain subscribe to values that would be called ‘modern’ even in today’s world? This is something I am not in a position to pass judgement on. However, I do wish that Tariq Ali had inserted a few citations of authority or directed his readers to his sources of information.

Also, in the various references which the Moorish nobles allude to their past history, the picture painted is a mainly rosy one. There is no mention of the persecution of Christians or Jews, though Wikipedia tells me otherwise. It is an accepted fact that Jews were treated better in Muslim Spain than in the rest of Europe, but that doesn’t mean they were not persecuted. For example, in 1066, a Muslim mob slaughtered over 1,500 Jews in a single day, an event referred to as the Granada massacre. Islamic rules on blasphemy meant that the Christian faith could not be practiced freely most of the time.

There are a few instances where the characters in this story talk of Moors fighting each other, but these references do not project a clear 3-D image. From what I know, infighting amongst Moors was rampant. For example, the ruler of Granada co-operated with Ferdinand in his capture of Moorish Seville in exchange for Granada’s independence.

But hey! This is a work of fiction, and fiction is something to be enjoyed without too many questions being asked, isn’t it?

Orthodox Jews Vote for Ignorance

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:07:19 EDT

I found this entire episode completely perplexing. So this is what I understand. The ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel already enjoy a whole host of exceptions that are not available to other Israelis. The fact that this kind of intellectual hypocrisy and stupidity is evident is not surprising, any country created on the basis of religion will keep on having to take decisions which make people turn around and say, "are you guys mad or what?". This intersection between religion and politics is always contentious, but certain decisions that the state makes can be seriously stupid.

So, in short, the Israeli government will be forced to fund the studies of 24,000 students who will now be exempt from acquiring any knowledge of useless and way too stupid subjects such as English, Mathematics, Biology, computers, etc.

We see this behaviour day in and day out. Everytime a country steps into the religious arena, it creates a boo boo. (Not that education is a panacea, check this out, for all those who think that educating people will reduce support for terrorism, a recent survey found that Almost third of Muslim students on Britain's campuses believe killing in the name of religion can be justified) And I have no reason to believe that these ultra-orthodox Jews, with their "special" education, are any different.

But what about the state? Surely the state has a duty to make sure that all its students are educated? If you mistreat your child physically, the state will take your child away. But here we have a situation that some idiot seniors actually are forcing the state to keep their children in ignorance. I do not mind that they are home schooled or what have you, but here's the amazing thing, you not only force the state to support absolutely useless mouths but force the state to perpetuate that.

Here's a research paper from the Bank of Israel and Ben-Gurion University that I found (unfortunately in Hebrew, but the English abstract was alarming). I quote some excerpts:

Haredi poverty is exceptionally high, with a share of 20% of the Israeli poor and a population share half that size. Its major causes are very high Haredi fertility (a population growth of 6% p.a.), reducing household income per capita and the mother’s earning capacity; its independent education system’s neglect (particularly among boys) of materially important subjects for future earning capacity such as Mathematics, English and digital skills; and low labor-force participation of Haredi men, due to prolonged learning in religious seminars (Yeshiva), often deeply into the prime working age.

Some more background here, but it was seriously strange to read about how somebody can actively stop their children from learning and a supposedly liberal and intelligent state will allow hundreds of thousands of students to grow up ignorant and a drag on the citizens of the state going forward. Truly, sometimes religion does sound like a virus. Makes people do something very strange indeed.

Technorati Tags: Schooling, Education, Religion, Judaism, Israel

Book Review: Andrew Wheatcroft's Infidels: A History of the Conflict between Christendom and Islam

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:16:03 EDT

Infidels: A History of the Conflict between Christendom and Islam was released a while ago, 5 years ago to be precise. I felt the urge to re-read this book now for two reasons. The first reason is because I’ve been reading many books on Islam and the West and remembered that this book contained a lot of information that makes it a good supplement to any study of Islam. The second reason, I have explained in italics in one of the paragraphs below.

In Infidels, Wheatcroft examines the initial contact between Islam and Christianity and the subsequent conflicts that have taken place over a period of time. Wheatcroft’s book starts from the Arab conquest of Jerusalem in 638 and takes us through the Moorish conquest of Spain and its re-capture by the Christians, the fight between Muslims and various European powers over Jerusalem, the colonization of the Balkans by the Ottomans etc. Wheatcroft doesn’t cover the events mentioned above in chronological order, but he explains in great detail how Christians and Muslims hated, fought and most importantly, lived with and accommodated each other. The main thrust of Wheatcroft’s book is that the enmity between Islam and Christianity caused each side to generate a number of myths and theories about the other which have grown over a period of time. Wheatcroft tells us that some battles are remembered and embellished as great victories or defeats, whist some others, of similar magnitude are forgotten.

Wheatcroft talks of perceptions and how coloured they can get. This is naturally a two way street. For Christians, Muslims are descendants of Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham, crafty, vile and barbaric. Muslims consider Christians to be only good for eating, drinking and fornicating. There is no doubt that the rivalry between Islam and Christianity is one of the biggest rivalries, if not the most important rivalry of all times. Both are religions derived from the same region and both religions have a lot in common, especially their in-built zeal for proselytisation. Christian crusades are matched by Islamic jihads. Infidels and Kafirs are hated by the other side. The human tendency to demonise enemies is taken to the extreme.

An idea floated by Wheatcroft which I found very interesting is that Muslims usually refused to accept new technology till very late and instead relied on bravery and valour. According to Wheatcroft, Christians and the West were always willing to experiment with and adapt new technology, such as Greek fire, cannons etc. Wheatcroft also has an intriguing view on the relative values of Europeans and Muslims. He says that “in the West, honour was a concept that pertained only to the topmost layer of society. Most of mankind stood outside the codes of chivalric honour. It was considered absurd for anyone not bound by noble origins to adopt knightly graces.” The Muslim soldier was totally different from the western soldier according to Wheatcroft who says that even when facing armoured knights wearing chain mail etc., “the good Muslim soldier was the man who leapt into the breach or on to the deck of an enemy vessel without armour.” The little history that has stayed in my head from my NCERT school text books, reminds me that Muslim soldiers (Arabs, Turks, Afghans etc.) who invaded India were always technologically superior to India’s rulers. The Muslim armies used cannon and cavalry, whilst our chivalrous Rajputs relied on lumbering elephants and the old fashioned sword. Maybe the Muslims had learnt from their European encounters, which made them technologically advanced when compared with Indians!

Wheatcroft ends his work by examining the aftermath of 9/11 and explaining how George W. Bush’s evangelical beliefs caused him to invade Afghanistan, formulate his ‘axis-of-evil’ theory using Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and describe the ‘war on terror’ as a crusade. Interestingly, Wheatcroft does not make any mention of the Israel Lobby or any other lobby influencing Bush's actions and decisions. According to Wheatcroft, George Bush, ardent born-again Christian that he is, behaved exactly the way any born-again Christian President would behave. When George Bush used the word ‘crusade’ to describe the US reaction to 9/11, he was using terminology evangelical Christians would be familiar or even comfortable with. I don’t want to give away too much of Wheatcroft’s explanations and spoil your fun in reading this book which ends with 2002 (and hence the actual Iraq war is outside its purview).

My main grouse with Infidels is that, except towards the end of the book when Wheatcroft analyses George Bush’s actions, Infidels is more of a description of what happened rather than an explanation or analysis of why it happened. At the end of this book, one is forced to ask, is the rivalry between Islam and Christianity any different (other than in scale) from the rivalry between say, communism and capitalism? One could take the view that capitalism has vanquished communism. But has it really? Communism is thriving and well in Nepal and in the red corridor in India. Do we know for sure that communism will not make a reappearance on a grand scale in a few decades?

Infidels is a good history book and Wheatcroft is very good at describing past events. His style reminded me of Wiliam Dalrymple, past historical events are described as if Wheatcroft was a witness as the event unfolded.

On a slightly different note, I read a not-so-flattering review of this book in the Independent, which takes issue with Wheatcroft’s description of the Kaaba as "the great black stone in Mecca", which the reviewer says is simply wrong. I couldn’t find anything wrong with Wheatcroft’s description. If anyone can tell me if I’ve missed something, I’ll be grateful.

Wheatcroft is the author of two other famous books – The Ottomans and The Habsburgs.

How Do You Judge Morals?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:00:22 EDT

Now this (hat tip Hamish Marshall here) made me go hmm, very interesting formulation of how you judge issues relating to morality?

Harm: whether someone is harmed or harm is reduced.
Reciprocity: whether something is fair and treats people fairly and justly.
In-group: whether something betrays the group.
Hierarchy: whether something is respectful of authority and superiors.
Purity: whether or not something is disgusting.

Liberal minded people only look at the first two while conservatives look at all five of them. My first impression was, why on earth would you even consider the bottom three when dealing with morals? Surely, they do not apply? But then, on reflection, the other three also make sense.

Professor's Haidt's book is still not out yet, but it made sense. There is no debate about the first two, I would guess, but lets take the next three. The in-group one is quite powerful if a bit alien in today's western societies. This is the group relating from the family to the neighbourhood to the locality to the city to the society to the nation. And morals do apply from the family up to the nation. I mean, you would not do anything that will betray the family, would you? That is based upon a moral judgement.

Then comes the Hierarchy bit. Do we need to be respectful of authority and superiors? Generally yes, there are there for a reason, one can challenge it, but the default position is that that position has to be respected. Otherwise what about parental control over children? or teachers over children? or lecturers over children? or policemen over criminals or a corporate life? or anywhere there is a ranking? There is a place for challenge and being a maverick but all the time? Hmmm, on the balance, I would have said no.

Here's a great and related story that I read today when hierarchy vanishes or is reduced. What will children grow up to if they have no evidence of or respect for their parents, teachers and the like? Would I judge a child who does not respect his parents? Yes, I would. I rebelled against my parents, teachers, society and the like, but to what extent? You did too. But perhaps taking to the extreme is not good either so morals do apply.

Finally, the purity bit. Could be, could well be. Your personal view on morals can be judged on whether or not something is disgusting. Say short skirts, or long hair. Would that be a symptom of degeneracy? Or utilising SMS speak in your emails or essays? (I was horrified to see this language in emails from a pretty senior lady, gobsmacking) I am a purist in that case, but then my editor gets upset with me for my punctuation mistakes which are huge. Morals? surely yes.

So, yes, I am afraid I am sounding like a conservative, no? but there you go. What do you think?

Technorati Tags: personal

Book Review: Who Speaks For Islam?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:08:47 EDT

Since 9/11, there is a desire from all ends of the world to know what Muslims think? And who speaks for Islam. And as it so happened, I came across a book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed which claimed to report on a 6-year study of what hundreds and thousands of Muslims said and a research paper on what a few Canadian Muslims said and think. Here are my thoughts about the book and paper and my thoughts about the questions itself.

Let me get one thing out straight. This book by Esposito and Mogahed is one of the most useless pieces of analysis that I have ever seen. To top it all, a whole host of other luminaries have praised the book and findings. This worries me. For reasons which I will explain, the two authors made such basic mistakes in analysis that I am frankly bewildered. Could have been written by some zonked out undergraduates and these two senior academicians must have been busy or something, and the book went to print. Also, all these various senior people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Deepak Chopra, Karen Armstrong, Vali Nasr, Jessica Stern, Robert Pape, and Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian etc. seem to have had their press people give a statement on their behalf without reading the book.

This book was so bad that I gave up after page 139 and the ironic part is the book starts with a premise that it is scientific and based on data. But still, there are some good and interesting points and in all fairness I should mention those first.

They do mention most Muslims live in Asia and Africa and the Muslims are wonderfully diverse in terms of language, ethnicity, customs, dress, location, nationality, and what have you. So lumping all Muslims into one bloc is as appropriate as to lump all Christians into one or all the “west” into one lump (mind you, while saying that, they go on to make the same mistake, for example in page 97)
Page 47 talks about how significant majorities in all Muslim countries have pushed for freedom of speech. This is a good thing indeed, although sits uneasily with the cartoon demonstrations seen across the world.
A 2006 Gallup poll talked about how most of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation. This was not surprising to me, but if they add in the West and all countries which have a liberal democratic framework such as Japan, India and others, the results will be different. But the numbers from Iran are similar to that of the USA. Curious, no?
Countries like Iran and Indonesia do not seem to like Sharia in their legal systems, but countries such as Egypt and Jordan want it. Curious, no? Is this because the latter two countries are Arab?
Page 66 talks about a reasonably good point, the USA does not know what the enemy wanted or thought about. Presumably the reference is to the Al Qaeda chaps. Well, from the perspective of intelligence agents, yes, the Americans knew what Al Qaeda wanted. OBL’s sermons and speeches are well-known. And as I have also found out, I am not sure if that knowledge would have helped anyway.
Interference by America and other countries in the business of Muslim (and frankly many other countries) is not something that I condone, they poke their noses into far too many places and is a classic example of imperial overstretch. So yes, good point that USA is interventionist and it should stop it.
A good Chapter 4 on women, nice coverage of women’s issues, how they work and behave, what they wish for and what their current situation is. While the data and issues mentioned were useful, it is a bit of a confused chapter which does not draw out the basic issues facing Muslim women. How to reconcile their religion with modern life. Unfortunately, when one looks to religious books for women related issue resolution, remember that others will do the same. So while one might argue using Sharia that women should be liberated such as in page 118, remember that using the same Sharia, female genital mutilation is allowable (it is debatable, but there is a case for it, which is against what they say in page 117).

The serious mistakes that this book makes are legion. This book is not scientific, it is not based on what one would understand as standard social science data, the analysis is horrible and the report is written by a drunk undergraduate. It is clear that this book, the Gallup research and the analysis is written not for the American populace but for the international non-American populace in a polemical, biased and ignorant manner. What is curious is why these other people got all excited about it and admired something like this?

How come they ignored India as a source of Muslim thought? curious and a big lacunae in the study as I would posit that those results would have made a substantial contribution to this study.
Why call Francis Fukuyama as a former neoconservative theorist in page 29? There is no reference to political theories before or after, no reference to realism or conservatism or liberalism. But mention it they did, and this started to turn me off because it was obviously meant as a personal slur.
And from page 32 onwards, this book shows up one of its biggest flaws. The severe and seriously ignorance confusion between Arabs and Muslims. After spending the first chapter talking about the fact that only about 20% Arabs make up the overall Muslims, and the fact that Arabs are Christians, Druze and many other types of people, the authors promptly forget it. Being an Arab is to be part of a linguistic group, not a religious group. And because of this basic mistake, every conclusion and recommendation they draw is miserably wrong.
The authors also confuse the terms west, USA, the Iraqi coalition, the neoconservative movement and the like. This confusion means the authors often rely on references to “some”, “they”, as the strawman (for example pg 95 and 99). So the authors pick up one comment by a right-wing commentator, extrapolate it variously to the entire West, USA, United Kingdom, the Western Press, you name it, and then try to answer it based on a vague formula.
On Page 36, the authors talk about there being no difference between Islamic Law and human rights. I found it curious that they did not mention the fact the Islamic world pushed for their own declaration of human rights when they said the universal declaration of human rights was not “appropriate”.
The authors also seem to be confused about what Democracy means. Democracy not only means that governments are elected by the people and sovereignty rests with the people, but also the people draw up the laws and they can change it. When laws emerge from a religious book helped by religious people, it is called as a theocracy, not democracy. So when people say that they love democracy but want Sharia as a source of laws and legislation, there is a certain inconsistency which has not been explored fully.
Their basic problem with Arabs and Muslims shows up in the next section and then continuously onwards, why is democracy absent in so much of the Muslim world. And despite pointing to South Asia, the authors forget that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh were all beset by imperialism equally. But India, Nepal and Sri Lanka have managed to hold on to democratic standards while Pakistan and Bangladesh have not. So just pointing to Imperialism as the main reason for democracy not holding ground in Muslim countries is far too simplistic which blows their arguments to bits.
Page 41 shows another fascinating confusion in the minds of the authors. This time its the conflating of the “west” and “secularism”. Secularism as an idea has a long history and it is not just from the West. I am not sure the authors have understood what secularism means and the philosophy behind it. It is the only way to handle heterogeneous populations.
While talking about imperialism, there are some big problems with that argument. The authors did not mention the Ottoman, Mughal or other Muslim imperialistic empires. They do not mention the fact that imperialism with respect to Muslim countries has been mainly European rather than American, but let us not confuse matters there. How about the fact that Japanese imperialism overran many Muslim countries as well in the east, but let us not go there either.
While saying that Sharia should be a source of law and then saying that they do not want religious figures to influence laws or the constitution. Erm, who will be the people who will be working on Sharia? Non-religious people? And how will that work? And then on page 93, a theoretical construct is made up about how Sharia protects citizens from the depredations of rulers. Well, it has never worked before in a millennium, has it? So what makes one think that it will ever? And why would the mullah’s be advisors to the rulers? See the confusion?
Around page 56-57, the authors talk about Islam and democracy in a confused sense. And this is another example of their total ignorance of what Secularism means. They give the example of France and state funding of churches, but do not talk about the concept of “lacite’”. Plus this debate is strange. In Islam, sovereignty is with God, the Quran (plus sunnah, hadith, etc.) is the constitution and Sharia is a sort of the / part of the legal system. How on earth are they even trying to draw any equivalence here?
Huge clangers of mistakes are made in the analysis of political radicals starting from page 67. Very confusing. They refer to many experts without actually giving any references. The authors assume things, such as terrorism is because of poverty and unemployment, a theory that I have rarely read from any expert. And after talking about a badly and wrongly drafted expert opinion, they slip into another badly drafted argument based on media reports. No consistency and very badly framed strawman arguments. And then in page 70, they compound the mistake by devoting a full section to this type of strawman argument which might be fine in polemics and emails but not in what is purportedly a serious book.
For example, while they spent much time talking about how the 9/11 attackers were not religious Muslims, they do not talk about the obvious next step. So what DID bring these attackers together? I am not going to talk about the obvious answer but the fact the authors did not even understand the next step is symptomatic of the poor analysis in this book.
In the next section, they went out and gathered few comments from some far right commentators and build up a huge counter argument based on those foamy arguments. This sounded childish to me and disjointedly argued.
In page 77, the old chestnut of the Pape’s Suicide Terrorism is dug up. Well, I do not have to say this again but trying to give me references to that silly study does not fill me with confidence that this particular study is any good either. But they go on to make more mistakes like trying to say the Tamil Tigers appeal to Hindu links to the Indian Tamils.
Page 81 throws up more issues. While the authors talk about anti-Americanism and talk about radicals. But hey, here’s the issue. You don’t hear about antiGermanism or AntiSpanishism, but they both have terrorism issues. So is that antiwesternism? The authors refer to far right commentators but do not mention George Bush has clearly said the war on terror is not against Islam. But then, that does not fit in neatly with the author’s biases.
Again in page 85, there is confusion between Muslim states and Arab states. And yet again ignore the glaring counter-example of Pakistan and Bangladesh compared to India as Muslim states. Frankly, a poor argument.
Page 87, “the war against Islam and Muslims” is nothing new, that slogan has been raised since time immemorial I am afraid. For example, one of the big things that Mughal Aurangzeb or any of the Ottoman pashas did when faced with challenges was to raise this same slogan or words to the effect. And guess what? The open-ended question of what do you resent most about the west, the answers were “sexual and cultural promiscuity”, “ethical and moral corruption” and “hatred of Muslims”. undefined, no? and no further analysis of it either.
Outright inconsistencies emerge, for example in page 92. Yes, I agree with the fact that Western countries should stop interfering in the Muslim countries, while saying that, I did not notice any mention of Lebanon where Muslim countries interfere with both hands and legs. And this is where the issue comes up, because if you don’t have the clear idea that you will always find countries interfering with others, you are living in cloud cookoo land.
Also, curiously, they continuously confuse Sharia with Fiqh. This is not the place to go into it but for them not to make that distinction (such as in pages 92-93) is worrying. Because of this, they tend to make some basic mistakes. For example, saying that what restricted Muslim rulers from acting like tyrants was Sharia. Erm, that is wrong on both formulation as well as knowledge of history. Its fiqh and secondly, Sharia never stopped Muslim rulers from being tyrants. This also leads to a massive confusion around what the mullah’s can do about government and legal society. Are they the rulers? Advisers? Lawyers? Senior House of parliament? What? And the authors do not address this point and just leave it dangling at “advisers”.

I am now tired of listing the flaws of this book. It is useless and frankly a waste of time and money. No basic data is presented nor is the analysis rigorous. As I said, what were worrying are the legions of congratulatory messages on this book. I do not think any of the so-called great and good have read the book and if they have, they have not understood it. More curiously, why on earth are these two so-called respected academics writing such drivel? Shame on Gallup, a respected organisation for producing pap like this. So in the end, this book does not tell me what Muslims really think. Or who speaks for Islam. And the fault lies solely with the authors, not with the people who they interviewed. (Here’s something which I wrote earlier on who actually speaks for Islam and who influences Muslims) The biggest problem with the book is the underlying theme that every American who reads the book is an idiot and has this patronising theme running through it. As a public policy book, this is pathetic and I am deeply disappointed with the authors. These authors have contributed more to the civilisational schism than trying to help cover it.

Which brings me to the other paper. It was published in a peer reviewed journal called as Government Information Quarterly in 2008, written by Nadia Caidi and Susan MacDonald of the University of Toronto. The paper is entitled, Information practises of Canadian Muslims post 9/11. Now this is what research looks like. A scientifically rigorous treatment of how Muslims think and do. While the area of investigation is different (and equally important and interesting), the methods that these researchers use, the analysis they come up with, all are fascinating and much more believable than the pap that Esposito and Mogahed have come up with.

It was a good sensitive study, asking intelligent literate Canadian Muslims, about their information practices, use of information sources, attitudes and opinions about information rights in a post 9/11 world. What the authors find is the Canadian Muslims hold a deep mistrust of the media, but they think that knowledge of media and information literacy is important. They also feel there is a need for far greater introspection within Muslim societies.

But fascinating public policy recommendations drop out, about how multiculturalism can help or hinder. Some issues with the study related to the fact that they did not consider another society, United Kingdom, which has seen home-grown Muslim terrorism in 7/7. Also, they did not consider Canadian Sikh immigrant terrorism either. Both of which would have provided a much richer analysis of this factor of multiculturalism and nationalism, but that can well be done in another piece of research. Immigration was another factor but not so much. What about the information media sources in themselves? Would it help to have public advisory councils which will help improve these fellow citizens’s trust in the media? What can be done?

Both pieces of work are interesting from many perspectives. The first one is for knowing how not to do research and put across public policy recommendations on such politically and religiously sensitive issues. The second is how to utilise information and information practices for Muslims who are definitely facing Islamophobia and a feeling of being targeted. Very thought-provoking indeed and much needs to be done to address these issues (but please, not how Esposito and Mogahed do). So while we do not know what the billion Muslims think, we can do something about making sure that the information channels are better managed and transparently dealt with in order for us to draw the poison of Islamophobia and support for terrorism.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Book Review : The Lady in Blue by Javier Sierra

Shantanu Dutta — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:33:15 EDT

The Lady in Blue is a book that is part history, part fantasy and part mysticism set in the framework of fiction. The fiction is not all that great but this is another book that sells a chunk of history that one could easily pass over. The context is the seventeenth century and the locale shifts from Rome and the Vatican, the Rio Grande region of New Mexico and Los Angeles. The backdrop is the unusual conversion rates among certain Indian tribes in the area.

The conversions have been apparently aided by apparitions of a lady in blue - who has been appearing to the Indians and urging them to welcome the Roman Catholic missionaries when they come to their lands and has thereby been helping the work of evangelization by spreading the seed. This by itself is not new - Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, an indigenous Mexican had reported an apparition of the Virgin Mary as Our Lady of Guadalupe in 1531 and so there was a precedent.

But the lady in blue unlike the earlier apparitions at Guadalupe had appeared to masses of people and several people had claimed to see them leading to an investigation by the Church authorities. The apparitions were largely attributed to a cloistered nun named Sister Maria Jesus de Agreda who it would seem appeared to Indians in the Southwest, but she never left her home in Spain. So how did she do it ? Enter the realm of miracles, mysticism and miracles. The nun in question had apparently the gift of bilocation – the ability to “transport” her body to great distances while still remaining within the gift of the nunnery. Apparently this was aided by a particular harmony of sound produced during a religious chant, although she had mystic abilities since birth. It would appear that “María paid more than 500 spiritual visits, sometimes two or three a day, to the Indians, she said. She instructed them in the fundamentals of the Faith, speaking to them in their own language. Her spirit carried rosaries from her cell to give to her charges. She healed the sick. She won converts. She urged them to contact Franciscan friars at the missions of the Río Grande pueblos and to solicit the construction of new missions for other tribes. If necessary, she would give her life, she said, to save a single Indian soul.

Church intrigue of the Roman Catholic variety abounds in the book, with the author recounting the rivalry between the many Catholic priestly orders to curry favor with King Philip IV of Spain so that they could obtain sole concessions in the newly discovered territories – both to harvest souls as well as to exploit natural resources and mines in the territories.

The book also shifts to the twentieth century as a bunch of Vatican scientists aided by the CIA attempt to recreate conditions in which Maria Jesus de Agreda “bilocated”, so that the techniques could be used for military purposes – similar apparitions could then be “Parachuted” into enemy lines for spying not conventionally possible. The scientists also look at techniques like “chronovision”, a method to apparently make it possible to visit the past and photograph events of past days and record sounds also from the past.

The historical bits of the novel are good – a nun by the name of Maria Jesus de Agreda did exist and it was said of her that she was the “lady in blue” who appeared to Indian tribes for several years and was in fact investigated by the church for complicity in witchcraft. But the other pieces set in modern times – with priests, scientists and the CIA trying to reproduce ancient miracles in modern times – well that bit comes through as nothing more than a lot of mumbo jumbo. The book is fit only to read as an illumination of a spot of history and no more.

Understanding Myself in the US

Chaitanya S — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:35:39 EDT

The past year in the US have made me believe I’m God. And by God, I’m not talking about my divine experiences of floating in air or walking on water by the grace of the Holy Spirit called Smirnoff. That’s a different story and hard to pen down since all my friends have a different take on that.

The cause of this godly sensation is because I have read in the Bible that 'You shall not put God to the test’. Well paying heed to the Holy book, my university did not test me with a single exam this semester. My belief in my divine abilities were confirmed when my friend heard about the situation in my school and commented in a tone of reverence, “You are in heaven, dude”. Duh, of course, you mere mortal, where else does God reside anyway!

This conversation took my mind to one of my favorite songs “stairway to heaven”. All I want to say is that if you want to take the stairway to a university in heaven like mine, I’d recommend you slog your ass off under the supervision of a “verny” devil in hell called Mumbai University for 4 years and bear the scourge called Mechanical engineering. Toss in another 3 years of working in the city and you’ve won the devil’s sympathy to be granted parole in heaven for 2 years.

“I never knew my first time would be this good”, I said as I handed the pretty blond girl some bills. She gave a smile and said “Come again” before handing me my denims, belt and shoes. I gave her one more look as I walked out of the door feeling rejuvenated. After almost 5 months of self control I needed this. The urge to resist temptation is too great for a single young man to bear. I’d made a promise to my soul before coming here that I would not indulge myself in such acts. But some pleasures come at a price and every person has to pay a price for that. For someone in a distant land, such prices are usually paid either in cash or card.

I’m not ashamed to say my friend had recommended the place to me. He said it was where students usually went to seek “solace”. As I entered and looked around, I knew it would be addictive. Everything about the place was enticing. “Retail therapy never killed anyone”, I smirked as I came out swinging my shopping bags.

I was chatting with my friend the other day and she proclaimed something on the lines of “dancing is more of a mental skill than a physical one”. Now before I contest this statement, let me clarify that I suffer from a syndrome called “dancing dyslexia”. I just cannot read the steps which are being taught. I shamelessly admit that have I fractured my ankle while learning to dance. And it wasn't even break dancing (pun intended). It was jive. The only person who showed no hint of sympathy was my dance partner. To her the “accident” was a blessing in disguise as she had already suffered sore toes because of my flat footed stomping. Also, she almost had her arm ripped off a couple of times and narrowly missed crashing into a pillar when I spun her round.

But before I dwell too much in the dark ages of my youth, back to the mental aspect of dancing. Well I believe if dancing is such a mental activity, Einstein would have been an award winning choreographer. Also, Shakira would have made an amazing physics professor. Not that you’ll ever hear a whimper of a complaint for the latter. Some purists may argue that Shakira lacks the communication skills and knowledge required to teach the subject. Such purists have definitely not attended lectures in Mumbai University then.

I’ve been here for quite a while now and have been picking up some local terminologies. Americans have a habit of saying “I’m good” akin to our “No, thank you”. For example if you are asked by a host “do you want another drink and pastry”, the polite thing to do is smile sweetly and say is “I’m good”. I know I don’t do that for such invitations, but it’s just an example.

Now in my native country, the new age national language is “Hinglish”. Whilst conversing in it, at times you have no idea whether you are conversing in English or Hindi. So saying “I’m good”, if not interpreted correctly, gets a look of scorn from the conservatives, quaking in the boots by the conformists and a whoop of joy from members of the Indian Gay Society (or whatever it’s called).

Had a kind Indian lady ask me the other day, “so beta, do you want me to help you find a nice Indian bride after your graduation”. Instinctively I gave a sweet smile and replied seconds before I saw palpitations for the first time in life, “thanks auntyji, I’m good”.

Book Review: Unimagined by Imran Ahmad

Vinod Joseph — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:19:59 EDT

Unimagined is the growing-up story of Imran Ahmad, whose parents migrated from Pakistan to England in the early 1960s when Imran was a year old. The story, told in the first person in very simple and elegant English, consists of a series of anecdotes from Imran’s life, which get more and more mature as Imran gets older. Most of the early vignettes are set in Imran’s school, after which the cameos are taken from his college and later his work place.

Imran’s parents are shown as hardworking migrants who came to the UK with the hope of fitting into middle class England, only to find that they are at the lowest rung of society, just below the Irish. However, they work hard and slowly move up the social and economic ladder. Those were days where racism was rife in the UK and Imran experiences his share of it. Imran is academically bright and does well at school, even though a few teachers and students don’t like him on account of his background. Imran is one of the few coloured pupils in school and he knows he is very different from other students. For example, unlike other children, Imran’s parents take him to Pakistan for vacations. Imran tells us how once as he walked past a classroom full of senior boys, a few started shouting ‘Enoch, Enoch.’ The reference here is to Enoch Powell, a politician who sought the compulsory repatriation of all coloured people from the UK. A teacher saw what was happening and did nothing other than apologetically tell Imran, ‘Sorry about that.’

In certain respects Imran’s school is not much different from schools in India. There’s an interesting description of a competition for credits between Imran and an ethnic Chinese classmate.

But Imran’s tale is never one-sided. There’s a story of how Imran’s father is angry with an Irish oil tanker driver who, having brought oil for their boiler, refuses to park the tanker as per Imran’s father’s directions. ‘Send me another tanker, not another Irishman,’ Imran’s father shouts into the phone as he calls up the supplier.

Imran gains admission to a good medical school, subject to the condition that he gets certain minimum grades for his A Levels. However, Imran takes his A Levels too lightly and does not get the necessary minimum grades. In a sense Imran is relieved. He never really liked the idea of studying medicine. Given a choice, he would have studied the classics and philosophy, but if he did that, how could his parents face the rest of the Pakistani community in London? Imran goes to Stirling University in Scotland where he studies Chemistry. I found it amazing that the pressure on Asian children to study medicine and engineering persists even when they are brought up in the affluent west.

As Imran grows older, his stories mainly involve girls and cars. In both these respects, Imran is not much different from other children. Imran doesn’t have much success with girls. This is partly because he is very different from others in his class and partly because he is very shy and introverted. Imran loves cars and is willing to work during holidays to save money for a car.

However, Imran is different from other youth in one respect. In addition to girls and cars, he is also interested in religion and theology. Imran is not particularly religious even though he slowly gets into the habit of praying five times a day. When Imran is sent to a ‘Sunday school for Islam,’ he hates the idea of memorising the Koran in Arabic, but he is very keen to understand Islam. Imran’s school has religious studies and Imran is constantly comparing Islam and Christianity. Which is the true religion? Imran wonders constantly. Is it Islam or Christianity? Imran is very much impressed by evangelical Christians. Their die-hard faith in their version of Christianity terrifies him. What if they are right and he is wrong? They warn him that people who get the opportunity to know about Christ and reject him will be condemned to eternal hell. Islam, he is told, is a conspiracy by Satan, to mislead people like him. Dinosaur bones are also apparently a part of Satan’s design to mislead people.

Imran’s interest in religion is carried over to college. He requests for a single room on the grounds of ‘religious privacy’, meaning he needs to pray. A single room is also convenient if he needs to meet girls. If you think Imran sounds like a person willing to use his religion for such purposes, you are right, but Imran does it in a genuine way that you will not find any fault with him. Imran’s interest in theology, especially whether Christianity or Islam is The True religion is also equally genuine. At Stirling Imran spends a lot of time with an evangelical Christian named Magnus who tries to convert him. One keeps wondering why Imran doesn’t ignore Magnus, but Imran just can’t bring himself to do that. He digs around in his quest to find the truth, even though his studies suffer badly and he does not get his honours degree.

Slowly, Imran builds up his case for Islam. It is the irrational fanaticism of evangelical Christians which finally convinces Imran that Islam is the true religion. Once again, I need to emphasise that Imran does not come across as a fanatic. For example, while discussing Hinduism, initially Imran talks of how Hindus have multiple Gods and Goddess, something unacceptable to monotheist Islam. Later he tells us that Hindus also believe in the oneness of God, even though there are thousands of manifestations of God. Imran never becomes too religious, though he doesn’t drink and prays regularly. He also starts fasting during Ramadan.

After Imran fails to get his honours degree, he finds himself a job selling advertisements. Initially he likes the job, but soon starts hating it since he is forced to act in a manner that he does not find to be very ethical. He goes back to college and gets his honours degree. He then enrols for a Ph.D in Chemistry. But his heart is in theology and not in Chemistry. He spends much more time researching theology, especially Sufism, rather than Chemistry. Finally, he decides to chuck his Ph.D and find himself a job. His application to Unilever is successful. He is hired as a trainee in the audit department.

Imran’s parents want his to marry a Muslim from Pakistan. The idea of an arranged marriage revolts Imran, though after he gets a job, he goes for various ‘viewings.’ Till the end of the book when Imran quits Unilever to join GE, there is no mention of a wedding.

Even at work, Imran stands out from his colleagues. He is not willing to drink. He does not enjoy vulgar jokes. He continues to be interested in comparative religion. And the novel ends on that note.

It is impossible not to compare Unimagined with The Islamist. There are many differences between Imran and Husain. Husain was brought up in relative comfort by middle-class parents. Imran’s parents on the other hand, struggle with finances during his early years. Imran talks of racism at school in detail. Husain does not mention any instance of racism directed at him by his teachers or classmates. After primary school, Husain goes to a boys only school dominated by migrants from Bangladesh. Imran on the other hand, always studied in schools where he was one of the few coloured pupils.

The main difference between Husain and Imran is that Husain became a fundamentalist. Imran never even considers violence against any other community. In fact, he is distinctly uncomfortable whenever he sees signs of creeping Wahhabism or fundamentalism. In one instance, when there is talk of a global Islamic state, Imran is shown to be hoping that it never materialises. He wants the West to remain as it is. It is very tempting to theorise and say that if Husain had been exposed to a diversity of people and views during his youth as Imran was, he would not have turned to fundamentalism. Maybe if Husain’s parents were less well off and Husain had a less economically secure childhood, he would have focussed on his secular studies and not turned out to be an Islamist.

However, in certain respects, Husain and Imran are similar. Both Husain and Imran hate doing jobs which they think involve unethical practices. Husain gives up his job with HSBC and Imran quits selling advertisements. Both of them have no answers to how Muslims can integrate into a society where alcohol is the fuel for most social interactions. Neither of them even suggests that it may not be unIslamic to drink socially, provided one does not get addicted to liquor. When Imran goes for Karate classes (while at college), he is uncomfortable with the bowing that is part of the Karate culture. Bowing is unIslamic, he feels, since Allah made all men equal. It is quite unfair for me, a non-Muslim, to judge the degree of compromise Imran and Husain are willing to make in order to integrate into British society and so, I shall say no more.

All in all, this is a very readable book, a lot lighter than The Islamist, which does not have much in the way of humour. I guarantee that Unimagined will make you laugh out aloud many times before you reach the end.

Book Review: The Islamist by Ed Husain

Vinod Joseph — Sun, 6 Jul 2008 02:33:44 EDT

Unlike The Reluctant Fundamentalist, The Islamist is a true story, the story of Muhammad Mahbub Husain, who became an Islamic fundamentalist, saw the light and then went back to civil society.

Husain's main thesis which runs through the entire book as he tells his story is very simple. There are two types of religious Muslims. The ones like his father who are extremely religious, but have the sense to keep their religion private and never let it influence their political views and outlook. And there are others – the fanatics – who believe that Islam is a complete solution which teaches men how to pray, govern themselves, conduct wars, dress, interact with others etc. The second group is much smaller than first group, but is a lot more vicious and has been spoilt by democratic and tolerant Britain.

Democracy, or people's rule, is anathema to fundamentalist Muslims since only Allah should govern (and the Koran contains Allah's words and will). Using the democratic institutions they seek to subvert, Fundamentalist Muslims have wreaked havoc within Britain, especially within the Islamic community in their quest for a global Islamic state. Husain calls upon the British authorities to crush the fundamentalists, for the fundamentalists cannot be reformed. Fundamentalists Muslims will always try to subvert democracy and civil society, even if they are allowed to preach and practice their version of Islam. It is incorrect to say that past injustices against Muslims have given rise to Islamic Fundamentalism of the type preached by Omar Bakri, the erstwhile leader of the Hizb-ut-Tahir.

Husain's book was released in May 2007 at a time when the British government was facing a great of criticism for having invaded Iraq and fuelled the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and elsewhere. This book was gratefully seized upon by prominent commentators and journalists in the UK as proof that growth in Islamic fundamentalism is not the result of the Iraqi invasion or any British foreign policy mistake.

Husain has a straightforward style which makes his book easy to read. However, Husain's story is not as straightforward as his style.

Husain claims to have had a happy childhood, surrounded by his doting family and caring teachers. His father came to the UK in 1961 and is an ex-restaurateur. Husain doesn't tell us what his father did after he stopped running a restaurant. Husain's family lives in a three storied Victorian terraced house at Limehouse. Young Husain spends a lot of his time with his father's spiritual guru, Shaik Abdel al Latif, who hailed from Fultholy (is it a place in Bangladesh?) and preached a benign version of Islam. Husain addresses the Shaik as ‘Grandpa’ and learns a lot about Islam from him, an Islam based entirely on piety, devotion to God, love for the Prophet, and which does not try to influence an individual's politics.

Later his parents move him to the boys-only Stepney Green School, contrary to the advice given by his primary school teachers. He is in a classroom full of boys from Bangladesh who watch Bollywood movies, indulge in gang warfare and have little in common with mainstream Britain. On his own initiative, Husain starts taking extra lessons in religious studies along with another student Falik. It is not very clear why Husain would want to do that. I assume not many 15 and 16 year olds would opt to spend a few extra hours at school learning about religion. But Husain and his friend do exactly that. They start with Gulam Sarwar's book on Islam which apparently is taught in British schools even now. Gulam Sarwar talks of the political system of Islam. An impressionable Husain is led to believe that religion and politics are one and the same. Islam is a complete way of life. Sarwar tells his readers that currently there is no pure Islamic state, but wants his readers to try and create one.

Husain’s study-mate Falik is a member of the Young Muslims Organisation, the YMO and very soon, before you realise what’s happening, Husain is a YMO member. The YMO is a front organisation for the Jamat-e-Islami, a fundamentalist outfit started by one Abdul Ala Mawdudi. Mawdudi is a man who wanted to create a global Islamic state. The tactic advocated by Mawdudi for doing this is the gradual infiltration of political systems and the takeover of sovereign states, especially in the middle-east.

So, by the age of sixteen, Husain is a full-fledged member of YMO, distributing pamphlets and sticking posters on walls. Husain takes great pains to explain how he had to hide his ideology from his parents, especially his father, who never approved of Mawdudi. Later when his father finds out about Husain's work for the YMO, he is very angry. Husain actually leaves his parents and lives in a mosque for three nights before his father takes him back, such is his pious father's hatred for political Islam!

But Husain does not stay with the YMO for long. He switches to the Hizb-ut-Tahir, an even more virulent organisation run by the notorious Omar Bakir. Unlike the Jamat-e-Islami, the Hizb-ut-Tahir advocates a violent overthrow of governments for the establishment of a global Islamic state. By now, Husain is a student at the Tower Hamlets College. They persuade women to wear the hijab, convert non-Muslims to Islam, break up meetings of rivals and aggressively promote their brand of political Islam. Husain's parents are very upset with Husain, but there is little they can do about his activities. Husain is slightly troubled by the fact that Hizb activists are not spiritual at all. They spend little time in prayer. And when they do, they pray bare-headed. Ordinary rules of Islam don't seem to apply to them. Husain is troubled with all that, but he stays on as a member, mainly because he likes the idea of a global Islamic state.

Husain meets Faye at the Tower Hamlets College. Husain does not detail the courtship, but we are given to understand that after a period of cold-shouldering by Faye, Husain manages to win her heart. Faye accepts Husain’s marriage proposal, but tells him that the nuptials can take place once after they complete their studies.

One day, things change all of a sudden in Husain’s life. There is a knifing inside the college campus and a Christian Nigerian is murdered by a Hizb activist. In Husain's own words, 'that murder – the direct result of the Hizb-ut-Tahir's ideas, served as a wake-up call for me.' This is very interesting in that, till then Husain has been working for a global Islamic state, to be achieved by the violent overthrow of sovereign states by military coups and the like. And then, when blood is spilt for the first time, he is distraught. Husain is all of 20 years old when this happens.

Husain’s grades suffer as a result of his Hizb activities. But after he becomes disillusioned with the Hizb-ut-Tahir, he works hard and manages to clear his A levels. Faye and Husain join the University of North London. Husain cuts himself off from the Hizb. But Husain is still not ready for a purely spiritual Islam even though he wants to 'flush out the Hizb within him'. He joins the Islamic Society of Britain and starts learning Arabic. He hopes that reading the Koran in original Arabic will teach him more about spiritual Islam. But he does not last very long at the ISB which has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Husain wants to lead a normal life. He votes in the 1997 general elections (for Labour and Tony Blair) despite a Hizb injunction that democratic elections are haram. At the age of 22, he applies to HSBC and gets a job. Within two years, he is managing portfolios worth half a million pounds. But Husain is not very happy with the way the Bank makes its money. Though HSBC does nothing illegal, Husain finds it to be too greedy, not always acting in its clients interests. Money making is given priority, something Husain cannot stomach.

In August 2000, Husain and Faye get married. They go to Turkey for their honeymoon. Husain admires the Sufism he finds in Turkey, but describes Kemal Ataturk a ‘secular fundamentalist’. Clearly, Husain is not in favour of a situation where religion is kept totally private and the separation between the Mosque and the State is absolute.

In the middle of 2001, Husain quits HSBC and downgrades to a clerical job in local government so that he can focus on his Koranic studies. In early 2002, Husain and Faye register themselves for part-time Arabic studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University. They make plans to go to Syria to study Arabic. After 2 years in Syria, they move on and go to Saudi Arabia where Husain’s disillusionment with Islamism is complete. Between the time Husain arrives in Damascus and the time he leaves Saudi Arabia to return to England, he is totally transformed. It is as if a genie from Arabian Nights decides to make over Husain so that he is acceptable to mainstream British society. Husain talks of how in Damascus he and Faye start to prefer the company of non-Muslim Britons to other Muslims. Islam can only be a spiritual community, never a political bloc, Husain declares. Husain speaks approvingly of Tony Blair in a couple of places. He is happy when in August 2005, the government prosecutes an array of Islamic organisations. He cannot understand why Arabs hate Jews. The distinction between Zionism and Jews, which many Arabs make, is dismissed. Suicide bombings have only brought misery in Israel and Palestine, Husain emphasises. The flaws and injustices in Arab society, especially in Saudi Arabia, makes Husain open his eyes and realise how wrong he has been all along.

At Damascus, Husain and Faye teach English at the British council, which helps them support themselves. Syria is full of surprises. Husain is shocked to find Syrians travelling to Iraq to fight the coalition troops. Why should there be a Jihad in favour of a military dictator such as Saddam? Husain wonders The Islam practised in Syria is to Husain's liking. Women have a lot of freedom. Christianity is tolerated. Sufism is widely practised. When Husain spots a couple of Hizb activists at Damascus university, he actually tips off Syrian intelligence. The biggest surprise for Husain is when he realises that there is nothing like a global Muslim community. Regionalism dominates. People question his about his origin. He is brown skinned and can't be an European. He is not Arab. So what is he? He can't be just a Muslim. The Syrian's hate the Turks who once ruled over Syria. Syria and Egypt had once formed a single country – the United Arab Republic, which hadn't lasted very long.

In Saudi Arabia, racism is rampant, but luckily, Husain is able to pass for an Arab since he can speak good Arabic. Black Muslims are treated like dirt. Foreigners can never become Saudi citizens. Most Saudi men are lecherous and nasty towards women. Students at the British Council download pornography from the computers there, something not possible outside the British council. Many Saudis support Osama bin Laden, condone attacks on western targets and hate Israel. Husain quite rightly blames the policy of segregation practiced in Saudi Arabia for this state of Saudi society. At Mecca, the Wahhabi guards are abusive. They are unable to make a distinction between worshipping the Prophet (which is forbidden) and showing love for the Prophet, as a result of which they kick anyone who as much as bows at the Prophet's tomb.

When Husain returns to the UK, he starts missing Arab society. He is not entirely happy with the state of British society. How does one integrate into a society where the pub is the centre of all social life? Husain wonders. Not for Husain a society where he is forced to hide all traces of his religion as is done in Turkey or one where, even an iota of spirituality is treated with contempt, as in the UK.

Husain ends on a positive note. Each country has its version of Islam. Husain definitely approves of the milder versions practised in Malaysia and Syria and hopes that a British version of Islam will evolve soon.

It is hard not to feel some sympathy for Husain when one finishes the book. However, I will not be surprised if Husain writes another book where he talks of how disenchanted he is with a writer's life, how the publishing world is full of hypocrites and how he looks forward to a world where writers get published and sell their books without any hype or unnecessary marketing and publicity.