Pak Tea House » Pakistan » The Manhattan Mosque
The Manhattan Mosque
By Yasser Latif Hamdani (Courtesy Daily Times)
The mosque in Manhattan has stirred a hornet’s nest. The issue now threatens to test the very ideals of western secular democracy that we admire and cherish and seek to emulate in the rest of the world. It is important, therefore, to weigh in logically and as reasonable people — though reason is hard to come by these days — on the unnecessary provocation in Manhattan created by Imam Feisal Abdel Raouf and his wife Daisy Khan that they refer to as ‘Cordoba House’ or ‘Park 51’, a $ 100 million Islamic centre in New York City.
I say unnecessary not because I oppose the good imam’s right to profess and propagate his faith as he deems fit, but because at this key juncture of the Obama presidency, this saga has delivered to the Tea Party Movement its biggest stick to beat liberals and civil rights activists with. Those of you who are unfamiliar with the Tea Party Movement, it is a populist right-wing conservative movement that broke out spontaneously against perceived government interference in economic life and backed largely by the libertarian think tanks and organisations like Freedom Works, etc. The name itself comes from the famous Boston Tea Party where Massachusetts’s men had thrown tea sacks into the Boston harbour to protest the British government’s taxes and economic policies. The modern day Tea Party Movement has already made great gains — such as the unseating of Democrats from their traditional power base in Massachusetts from where the late Ted Kennedy used to get elected. It is now set to use the mosque issue to appeal to the right wing religious sentiment. If the Tea Party manages to pull the rug from under the Democrats and moderate Republicans, the consequences for not just the US but the entire world will be extremely grave.
President Obama and his government are now under great stress because of the difficult position the mosque issue has put the Obama administration in. Logically, there should not be a problem with building a place of worship, a right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but the issue is much larger than one of freedom of faith. Let us be fair. There are several mosques in New York City and no one would have done even a double take had an Islamic centre been built anywhere else. To choose the site of a building wasted by the 9/11 attacks is an act of deliberate provocation, not because Islam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, because that is not true. It is so because not only have the mosque’s backers, including the two aforementioned protagonists, failed to disclose the source of their funding, but have also failed miserably to win the confidence of a vast majority of New Yorkers and now indeed most Americans. Yet the issue of fundamental and constitutional rights is seldom subject to the whims of the majority.
That question is of course paramount. It is about constitutional rights, freedom of religion and all those big words that Muslims selectively appeal to whenever they are in a minority, but surely Muslims can better understand the feelings of Americans that have been outraged. Who else if not a Muslim, whose faith and religious sensibility can be outraged by something so seemingly benign as an Ahmedi saying Assalam-o-alaikum, can understand why church groups, right wingers and other anti-Muslim groups have reacted so strongly to the idea of having an Islamic community centre so close to the site of the World Trade Centre? Who else if not a Muslim can understand why equality sometimes means equality for all but that some are just inherently more equal, for, after all, constitutionally equal citizens of Pakistan who are from, say, a Christian background are forever barred from becoming president or prime minister of this Islamic republic of ours. Who else if not a Muslim can understand that neither religious freedom nor privacy are absolute concepts, for was it not in the holiest of holy Saudi Arabia, that 40 Pakistani Christians were thrown in jail for worshipping quietly in their own homes?
What about Park 51? Would this be a mosque — the mosque at Park 51 — for just one kind of Muslims or will it be open to all sectarian communities? Will it open its doors to the Shias or perhaps the Nation of Islam, which believes in the last prophethood of Elijah Muhammad aka Elijah Poole? Will Amina Wudud or Asra Nomani be allowed to lead prayers in this mosque? Will Ismailis, Bohris, Druze or the Ahmedis be allowed to worship in this centre? These are central questions that should be answered for the imam has pitched this as the great project for American Islam. It is a defining moment.
The truth is that Islam in the US is practised openly and freely, without any fear — or at least till there was a backlash by the Tea Party against the proposed project. That much is clear from the latest work of Dr Akbar S Ahmed, who not long ago travelled the length and breadth of the US visiting hundreds of mosques and communities, along with his team of enthusiastic students from American University. When asked about the Manhattan fiasco, his response was: “Here is a thought — Imam Rauf should say ‘enough of creating bricks and mortar’ and move for compassion. Let me give it [the money for the mosque] to those who need it, who are suffering and pray to the same God’, hand over the capital he plans to raise for the Park 51 project as a cheque in the hands of an interfaith American delegation, fly it to Pakistan, and contribute it to the relief efforts.”
Why not? Is that not what Islam teaches its adherents? Are the rights of people not a greater obligation under Islamic law?
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer. He also blogs at pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Filed under: Pakistan
142 Responses to "The Manhattan Mosque"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- G. Ali
said “No matter how reasonably, calmly and patien... - free web sex cameras
said Heya just wanted to give you a quick heads up and... - sunny
said No matter how reasonably, calmly and patiently a n... - romain
said Saad sb,
I believe congratulations are in order t... - Rex Minor said NDelhi,
You have a complex and all those like you...
- Ex-Paki
said Maggu,
Great definition of faith. - Ex-Paki said Aren’t we all human beings before anything e...
- Maggu
said NDELHI: REXIE is supporting himself by begging wel... - AbraHarami Snake Oil Baniye said http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
- AbraHarami Snake Oil Baniye said Romans Maroed MohMad of Kriya Yogi Yeshu (Jesus) t...
”But anyone who thinks of Hamza Yusuf as anything but the retrogressive Islamo-fascist bigot that he is, is delusional”.
No not really, just read his writings. I read his work, ”The State We Are In: Identity, Terror, and the Law of Jihad”, and so nothing to suggest his views are beyond the pale.
Of course you can have some strong disagreements with him particularly in his fiqh, but ”Islamo-fascist”? (Another neo-conservative construct, like ”stealth Islamist”, got to give it to the neo-cons they may talk absolute drivel but they have an expansive imagination when it comes to vocabularly construction…)…
Was it this sort of rhetoric and wholesale uncritical adoption of neo-conservative ideas by the ”Progressive” Muslim movement in America post 9/11 which single handedly alienated alot of the community in what was otherwise a movement with some great ideas? Yes.
My impression of Yusuf has come by reading his work. If you YLH have anything to suggest that he is what you say he is then I would like some proof, rather than constructing straw man arguments.
I usually draw my judgement on thinkers,scholars and intellectuals on the basis of their work. And so far the work I have read has nothing to suggest what you are saying YLH, if you have something to say or post that is indicative of what you are saying then I would be more than happy to read it.
if the building is denied permission, instead of the proposers deciding to withdraw, it will of course be done according to the law. to have a building, even a religious building, at a particular location can hardly be a constitutional right. agreed. just like having minarets on their mosques is no fundamental right for swiss muslims. the denial would be on rather distasteful (and inciting) grounds though, such as repeatedly articulated by the opponents. what it will say about the present state of american society and how it views islam and american muslims will then become even clearer. this is why many supporters see the opposition on such grounds as un-American and undermining that country’s most cherished principles.
however, if the permission to build is not denied, it is for the developers to realise that while they are refusing to accept the negative view of islam and muslims within american society by pressing ahead, this is hardly the way to refute that view. there are better ways of doing that than insisting on a building.
I have met Mr. Yusuf and have heard him describe United States of America as the “Dajjal” as well. He also described pokemon as “shayateen” but I will let that one pass.
There is documentary evidence of this and if one listen to pre-9-11 tapes of Mr. Yusuf one will hear this clearly.
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
the jekyll and hyde personality does not work on covenience,the deep rooted intolerance surfaces unexpectedly and without knowing.
when religion or the ‘existetial identity is prefered what happens is what is going on in pakistan,the intolerance witin the common religion and no sense of nationality or civic duty.even the aid in this bad time is distributed on sectarian basis.citizens of convenience are always worried about their own rights and oblivious to others.
Yusuf’s story is a success story, because it shows that he changed his mindset, reformed his thinking and is now trying to produce a new type of discourse. It shows that he accepted his mistakes and is learning from them.
Judging people by their past (which they have confronted and accepted as wrong), is pathetic. We should look at Yusuf’s work now without forever subjecting him to his past. As I said we can disagree strongly with this fiqh but to brand him wholesale like a typical neo-con is dangerous.
His Guardian article is particularly illuminating. (”’If you hate the west, emigrate to a Muslim country”’). This is what I have been judging him on. His recent work is thought provoking and sensible.
Well I just read the said piece and I wasn’t aware of this. Good to know Hamza Yusuf has transformed.
I might look at his college in a new light now.
@ AA Khalid
I agree. If more traditionalist muslims took their queue from Hamza Yusuf, a lot of our problems would lessen considerably. He is a good bridge between communities and his approach is learned and well reasoned.
This is America and allowing the mosque would be the AMERICAN thing to do. I was kind of pissed off at the idea of the mosque being built there to be honest, but at the end of it, upholding American principles is more important than sentiment.
Agree with Gorki – Muslim, Non Muslim aside, we have to be judged by history. Lest we be ashamed of our actions 50 years hence (civil rights, japanese americans etc.) one should do the right thing to begin with.
Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain
Dear YLH,
‘Constitutional rights are never as black or white as folks seem to think they are..’
I wholeheartedly agree.
I also admire your article above as a very clearly reasoned position statement. If you wonder why then I took a position that is seemingly the exact opposite of yours it is because the ground zero Mosque controversy does not have only one correct answer.
It is an ethical Rorschach test for all of us and the correct response to is depends as much on who is asking the question as to whom the answer is directed to.
I can see your argument and believe that it is the most ethical one for a Muslim and a liberal speaking to and on the behalf of the other Muslims. Obama’s response too is understandable, being the President representing both the American Muslims as well as the 9/11 victims. Similarly, my own response, as an average American citizen, can not be otherwise either.
Let me try to explain why.
First of all, this is not at all an issue of constitutional rights because it is not a legal battle. Secondly, while the whole world is watching, it is 100% an American political battle; being fought in the American political landscape and at stake is what it means to be an American.
When we Americans look into the mirror we pretend we see a nation of Jeffersonian democrats; fair-minded and just, unfettered by the petty bigotry of the old world beyond. That is in fact the image on which our right-wingers often make a case for American exceptionalism. Above all we like to believe that being an American means to never accept a second class status anywhere, neither in private or in public. We stand for the rights of the unborn children and the handicapped in workplaces. We advocate the rights of the gays to serve in the military and that of the conscious resisters to not do so.
While many of us do not buy the part about American exceptionalism; most of us fiercely believe that ‘all men are indeed created equal’ and above all, being American means to be beholden to no other man.
Your swipe about the ‘neo-Americans’ is duly noted.
The equality part is especially dear to us ‘neo Americans’ because many of us came from societies ridden if not by a caste structure then at least a class structure. The American meritocracy gave us the opportunity to build our lives on a rare level playing ground and it is the dearest part of the American dream for many of us. We earned our stake in the system through long hours and hard work; most of us came here with only a suitcase full of clothes and yet most of us contribute more to its civic life and its coffers than the average Joe.
It is in our interest now to keep America the way we found it. To do so, we have to add our voice to those who are fighting the good fight.
I personally have voted more times for the losing side than the winning one. Even when the opinion polls suggest that my candidate has not chance of winning; I still vote to register my opinion. It is because I believe that even my voice of dissent (with the majority) makes my democracy stronger.
Even if Imam Raouf decides to do what you argue, it is important that Americans demonstrate to the Muslim community (and the World at large) that the Tea party demagogues are not unopposed in this great nation.
I believe by doing so, we strengthen the hands of the liberals like you in the Muslim World; just as you, by writing the above article, strengthened ours inside America; for which BTW, I must thank you from the bottom of my heart….
Regards.
@Gorki,
I respect your idealistic stance based on a firm belief in American Exceptionalism. Although your comment is not addressed to me, with your permission I still wanted to write the following lines.
I believe you have defined American Exceptionalism in terms of principles such as equality of all human beings etc., and not in terms of the minor irritants such as the original Puritan or the more modern Judeo-Christian values as one often hears on the Fox News channel, which actually makes a case against the proposed mosque.
I just wanted to point out that the country being 3 times the size of another large country, say India, while less than 1/3 in terms of population, it enjoys a natural edge over others to distribue its resources in a more organized manner. Even then, the divisions that you speak of, that is class-based etc., are everywhere to be found. Since my realm is academics, let me just give you one example. The following lines are from a recent Boston Globe editorial (Feb., 2010) on freshmen class admissions in the Ivy League Colleges:
“SAT SCORES aren’t everything. But they can tell some fascinating stories.
Take 1,623, for instance. That’s the average score of Asian-Americans, a group that Daniel Golden – editor at large of Bloomberg News and author of “The Price of Admission’’ – has labeled “The New Jews.’’ After all, much like Jews a century ago, Asian-Americans tend to earn good grades and high scores. And now they too face serious discrimination in the college admissions process.
Notably, 1,623 – out of a possible 2,400 – not only separates Asians from other minorities (Hispanics and blacks average 1,364 and 1,276 on the SAT, respectively). The score also puts them ahead of Caucasians, who average 1,581. And the consequences of this are stark.
Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade, who reviewed data from 10 elite colleges, writes in “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal’’ that Asian applicants typically need an extra 140 points to compete with white students. In fact, according to Princeton lecturer Russell Nieli, there may be an “Asian ceiling’’ at Princeton, a number above which the admissions office refuses to venture.”
You must also be aware of the hugely preferential treatment the children of the alumni (who are usually filthy rich) receive during admissions in most elite colleges in America. In comparison, I haven’t seen such preferential treatment given to anyone in the Indian Institute of Technologies, one of which is my alma mater.
Now, I am not saying that there aren’t many opportunities available in America, some of which hard working immigrants can take advantage of. But that is perhaps more a reflection of the actual availibility of these opportunities, rather than some sort of higher moral principles. In fact the Tea Party demagogue types that you want not to go unoppossed are presently way more than half the population. In fact, in NY itself (which is the bluest of blue cities), more than 50% is now opposed to the mosque and only 34% support it according to a poll released today in NY Times (the rest is not aware of the issue).
What is striking in the whole American right wing attacks on the proposed mosque (a very large Muslim community center by the way, with a mosque in there) is that they do not contest the constitutionality of a person’s right to build a mosque there. But they call brand this mosque as “insensitive” towards the memory of those fallen in the attacks. In other words, one has the constitutional right to build a mosque, but just don’t build it here.
NY Times has run a survey on those who live in the boroughs of New York City. I am struck by the results here. “full 72 percent agreed that people had every right to build a “house of worship” near the site. But only 62 percent acknowledged that right when “house of worship” was changed to “mosque and Islamic community center.” Sixty-seven percent thought the mosque planners should find “a less controversial location.” While only 21 percent of respondents confessed to having “negative feelings” toward Muslims because of the attack on the World Trade Center, 59 percent said they knew people who did.”
This argument smacks of the so called wearing-it-on-my-sleeves patriotism that is nothing but a subtle expression of hatred towards a religious minority. Thankfully, for all the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins out there, there are voices like the New York Times, Micheal Bloombergs and Barack Obamas who recognize that all of American prosperity and meteoric rise on the world stage can be attributed to the dictum of every man born free and equal. It is the constitution that enshrines this principle and ensures that every one of the American, whether he is politically correct or incorrect, whether he is liked or hated, is afforded that freedom. At the end of the day, as BCiv pointed out, this constitution and this dictum is all America has. And to worry about unnecessarily provoking the American, we risk the sole defence that America, or any liberal society, would offer against intolerance.
I will repeat the NY Times editorial today that comments on the findings of the survey:
The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are two pinnacles of American openness to the outsider. New Yorkers like to think they are a perfect fit with their city.
Tolerance, however, isn’t the same as understanding, so it is appalling to see New Yorkers who could lead us all away from mosque madness, who should know better, playing to people’s worst instincts…….
As the site of America’s bloodiest terrorist attack, New York had a great chance to lead by example. Too bad other places are ahead of us. Muslims hold daily prayer services in a chapel in the Pentagon, a place also hallowed by 9/11 dead. The country often has had the wisdom to choose graciousness and reconciliation over triumphalism, as is plain from the many monuments to Confederate soldiers in northern states, including the battlefield at Gettysburg.
New Yorkers, like other Americans, have a way to go. We stand with the poll’s minority: the 27 percent who say the mosque should be built in Lower Manhattan because moving it would compromise American values. Building it would be a gesture to Muslim-Americans who, of course, live here, pray here and died here, along with so many of their fellow Americans, on that awful September morning. But it’s all of us who will benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03fri1.html?hp
L0L ..
I was missing your pearls of wisdom, rationalist.
We can perhaps weaken Muslim liberals. We cannot strengthen them. Their strength will derive from their following in the Muslim world. If we support them more than their Muslim brethren, then all that will happen is that Muslim liberals will be branded as our stooges and dismissed as such.
I don’t understand why Muslim people want to make the mosque there.they know such a big tragedy happened in that area..can’t they build the mosque somewhere else?why Muslims want to get into drama..never know somebody might blast the mosque there..saying oh Muslims did the same to the twin towers! I also think its the government that has lost it. I mean, here they were playing the drama of muslims carrying out the whole thing and now, a mosque! Near that very area??!!! Its absurd!
the problem with the muslim world is do things which doesnt even makes any sense… y do such things, esp in countries like USA, which wud provoke them against the muslims even more…! v muslims shud start respecting the laws and regulations of those countries in which they r livng…i mean, jus look at saudi arabia, they want all their women population to wear the abayas all the time and respect the countries rules, fair enough..so the foreigners try their best not to upset the saudi ppl by not doing anything which would upet them… similarly, v muslims should not act like crazy fanatics in their countries as well, n do those things which r senstive to them… n if muslims cant do that then they should go bak to their own countries n practice freely rathr thn complaining tht v dnt hv rights in such countires… if the ppl dont like the idea of building a mosque over there, thn the muslims shud not and respect that… i donno y muslims like to bring problms to the other muslims with unreasonabe issues n cry over thm… thats y countries like Pakistan is suffering from such things… because of the fanatic muslims living in non-muslim countries… they do such things in those countries n then these countries destroy the muslim countries , like Pakistan
@ AZW
Your and Gorki’s arguments are of course laudable and totally valid from a right’s and fairness perspective. However, I think the issue is much broader than that. It’s about the relationship that American Muslims have with American non-Muslims. American non-Muslims post 9/11 have become very wary of muslims in general (unfairly in a sense). Emotions and misinformation are driving the relationship and perceptions. More work still has been done to change this damaged relationship by Muslims and liberals. There needs to be much more confidence building and the onus falls mainly on the American muslim community to not get stuck in a cul de sac either by Muslim zealots or the hate Islam crowd whilst the relationship is fragile. It’s a very tough position to be in.
Dear no communal:
“Even then, the divisions that you speak of, that is class-based etc., are everywhere to be found……”
I think you are mistaken.
The discrepancy between the SAT scores and the admission rate of Asians mentioned in the Boston Globe editorial is not based on class. Notice that the same editorial goes on to say that while the Asians make up less than 5% of the US population; they make up 15% of the kids in Ivy League schools. In California, the Asians make up a similar small percentage of the population yet at the prestigious campuses like the UC Berkeley they make up to 40% of the students; and this is a state funded University system!
So clearly it is not class based discrimination at play. The reason why the Asians need higher scores for a similar university admission is two fold.
First, most Universities strive for diversity; there is some evidence that most new applicants; including the Asians feel that going to a campus with a diversified student body is a more enriching experience. Thus while a hasty comparison of the SAT scores may suggest that the Asians are being discriminated against, it is not in favor of the Caucasians who in fact are in the middle; the Hispanics and Blacks on average score lower on the SATs but many of them still get in the same grad schools because the schools strive for diversity. Is it fair? I don’t know. Is it deliberate ‘class based’ or racial discrimination? I don’t think so.
There is another reason for the Asians needing higher SAT scores to get into the same grad schools. As the editorial stated:
“SAT SCORES aren’t everything…” The STAT scores are not the only criteria. Asians as a group score lower than some of the others categories such as sports etc. Also the schools look at criteria such as obstacles overcome. Most Asians come from more stable back grounds than the Hispanics and Blacks etc. and thus need to make up by higher SAT scores. The reservations for the wards of past Alumni are a minuscule number and the second generation Asians too stand to gain from that policy.
In short, there is no evidence that there is any class or race based discrimination against the Asians in the grad schools.
You mentioned IITs. There is a question that has been bugging me a lot and I wonder if you can answer that.
There is no doubt that the IITs have produced some notable alumni yet it has been implied that the reason the IIT graduates do so well is merely because its rigorous selection criteria is good at recognizing high achievers and those people would do well anyway regardless of the IIT education. In support of such a claim it has been pointed out that in spite of billions of rupees spent by the Indian tax payer over the years the IIT system has a mediocre track record at basic research and it has yet to produce any Nobel Prize winning discoveries.
Is that true?
What is your take on this?
Regards.
Gorki,
Research requires a different climate. The fall of pure scientific research in India is well documented, and it is mostly due to changing perceptions of our society. When everything you do or accomplish is attached to being some sort of “officer” or “manager”, it is hardly surprising that research loses so many good people. In such an environment, IITs can hardly be expected to stay unaffected. There is, sadly, little or no prestige attached to pure research. I can vouch for this from my personal experience. Besides, politics, as always, destroys any inclination to do serious research. I do feel hopeful, though. There is a small but perceptible shift towards research. Curiously, in bio-tech, India is doing pretty well in research.
@Gorki
“Thus while a hasty comparison of the SAT scores may suggest that the Asians are being discriminated against, it is not in favor of the Caucasians who in fact are in the middle; the Hispanics and Blacks on average score lower on the SATs but many of them still get in the same grad schools because the schools strive for diversity.”
All of these schools maintain Affirmative action. So admission to blacks and hispanics is hardly the issue. The issue is precisely what you choose to ignore, namely, caucasians. The boards do not look at it too kindly when the white American students become a minority. That’s really the reason. And I meant undergraduate education, not grad school. In grad schools Asians (usually first generation) are in the majority because of other reasons (one being lack of interest among Americans).
“Notice that the same editorial goes on to say that while the Asians make up less than 5% of the US population; they make up 15% of the kids in Ivy League schools.”
Yes, but if the admissions were really fair to all, the population of Asians would go past 40%.
“In California, the Asians make up a similar small percentage of the population yet at the prestigious campuses like the UC Berkeley they make up to 40% of the students; and this is a state funded University system!”
CA is the only state that made its admission criteria fair to all. And look what happened, the Asians are at 40%. Needless to say that under pressure from various quarters they are now forced to tweak their admission criteria to bring down the percentage of the deserving population.
“SAT SCORES aren’t everything… The STAT scores are not the only criteria. Asians as a group score lower than some of the others categories such as sports etc. Also the schools look at criteria such as obstacles overcome. Most Asians come from more stable back grounds than the Hispanics and Blacks etc. and thus need to make up by higher SAT scores.”
I will just quote another passage from the same Boston Globe editorial:
A few years ago, however, when I worked as a reader for Yale’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions, it became immediately clear to me that Asians – who constitute 5 percent of the US population – faced an uphill slog. They tended to get excellent scores, take advantage of AP offerings, and shine in extracurricular activities. Frequently, they also had hard-knock stories: families that had immigrated to America under difficult circumstances, parents working as kitchen assistants and store clerks, and households in which no English was spoken.
“In short, there is no evidence that there is any class or race based discrimination against the Asians in the grad schools.”
I think you are grossly mistaken here. As I said, the boards do not look at it kindly….
“There is no doubt that the IITs have produced some notable alumni…”
It will be a formidable list of tech entrepreneurs -entrepreneurs, not followers – in both Silicon Valley and Bangalore. This is not something from a still predominantly poor country that can be brushed aside…
“..yet it has been implied that the reason the IIT graduates do so well is merely because its rigorous selection criteria is good at recognizing high achievers and those people would do well anyway regardless of the IIT education.”
That’s a funny question. You mean they would do well anyway even if they went to say, for lack of a better example, North West Bengal university (it doesn’t exist), with all the student agitation, class bunking, faculty politics, tests that ask “write an essay on Maxwell’s equations” etc..
It’s true that the students are good. But the teachers are, generally speaking, very good too. There are regular classes, well-stocked libraries, no politics, rigorous syllabi easily comparable to top places worldwide, and emphasis on analytics in tests. Can they be made even better? Sure. Especially in the field of hands-on experiments.
“In support of such a claim it has been pointed out that in spite of billions of rupees spent by the Indian tax payer over the years the IIT system has a mediocre track record at basic research and it has yet to produce any Nobel Prize winning discoveries.”
Yours and many others’ confusion about this is basically due to two reasons:
First, IIT’s are technological institutes, with the emphasis on technology, not basic science. Although some of the basic sciences are pretty good too, the departments tend to be far smaller. That is why you see a lot of technology entrepreneurs, not basic scientists, coming out of the system.
Second, IIT’s are predominantly teaching institutes. For research work in India, there are TIFR, Mumbai, IISc, Bangalore, SINP, Kolkata etc. Some of these places, at least in select disciplines, are world class. But obviously they are not Harvard or Princeton. This is because the best basic science students that the IIT’s and other places in India produce, who become some of the best researchers, get absorbed in institutes abroad. This is a statement on the difference of the quality of living between India and abroad, not on these institutes. About Nobel prizes, did anyone really expect that from among the tiny fraction of the very good scientists that go back to India from abroad, there would already be Nobel prize winners? Winning Nobel prizes will take a lot of good people coming through the system over a far longer period. And they have to be lured back to India. Even no chinese from the mainland China has won it yet. However, some of the top science professors in the US are from China or India (I know one top guy from Pakistan and another from Bangladesh). In the case of India, many of them are products of IIT’s. Anyway, I do not want to prolong this discussion on the IIT’s because it’s irrelevant to this forum.
Coming back to American exceptionalism, Obama had it right when he said that he believed in American exceptionalism just like the Brits believed in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believed in Greek exceptionalism. That, I think, says it all.
Correction:
When I said I know one top guy from Pakistan and one from Bangladesh, I meant people I personally know. There are many others too.
If you want to believe that we Asians are being discriminated against in the academic circles in the US that is entirely up to you; it is not the opinion of the majority of us here. (I am sure there must be a desperate enough class action attorney somewhere who would be willing to look into the whole thing)
In fact the problem faced lately by many has been trying to decide which grad school (and scholarship grant) to pick out of the many available for good students.
Any way this is a wrong forum to debate this point……
Regards.
@ gorki
I don’t know where you did your UG,but if it is in India i am sure you have your answer to the IIT question.Neither has AIIMS produced anything original although they have the best crop of Indian under 18s entering there campus.From my personal view point,it is because all these wonderful institutions,started in the Nehruvian era, is more focussed on undergraduate training more than research per se.
@lal
You are exactly right. That’s what I meant when I said that these are primarily teaching institutes.
Dear no-communal,
My question about the IIT was not rhetorical or a criticism of the fine institutions.
)
I have written elswhere on the PTH about the phenomenal impact and the achievements of the IITs and the IITians and hold them and their alumni in extremely high regard. (Far higher than any product of our medical schools
Ditto about our founding father; Nehru.
The question was a sincere one; in part arising from the challenge posed by a resurgent China that has been prodicing an exponentially increasing number of basic science research papers every year.
I believe Bade Miyan may have partly answered the question as a matter of culture; hopefully as the nation and society matures, it will change.
Regards.
Dear Lal,
I am sorry, didn’t mean to ignore you; my last post was addressed to both of you gentlemen. I am unsure what you mean by ‘more focused on undergraduate training’. Research and research methods are an integral part of good training.
Internationally speaking, no ‘teaching hospital’ is accorded any recognition without having good investigators or producing any original research.
There is a reason; teaching medical texts or any texts by rote is easy; what is harder to teach is the analytical skills and independent thinking.
I believe the problem is not the quality of the entrants who as you pointed out are among the best that in India; but the institutional inflexibility; a cultural; deference to authority and titles which stunts independence.
Regards.
@Gorki
“The question was a sincere one; in part arising from the challenge posed by a resurgent China that has been prodicing an exponentially increasing number of basic science research papers every year.”
That is a fact. That has almost entirely to do with many able Chinese researchers staying in China itself. Also, there are many more scientific institutes in China. These, in turn, have to do with the much better standard of living in China compared with India. Some would say India is now where China was in the early or mid 90′s.
There is another important factor. The authorities in the Chinese institutes, from the central autocratic govt. as they are, can unilaterally decide very large pay packets to lure researchers from abroad. A Romanian friend of mine, who did his Ph.D from the US, was recently given a phenomenally large start-up fund and pay packet to move to China. And he is moving to China. Something like that is impossible in India’s democratic set up. If you compare the research outputs from Indians and Chinese living aborad, they are comparable.
Bade Miyan may also have a point. Many bright Indians opt for software, finance etc. because of the pay differential. I do not know how that phenomenon has affected China, so I am not sure.
@Gorki
“I believe the problem is not the quality of the entrants who as you pointed out are among the best that in India; but the institutional inflexibility; a cultural; deference to authority and titles which stunts independence.”
Gorki,
These are vague, generalized, statements which are not that true anymore. At the end of the day, the problem lies elsewhere.
Suppose there is a very good student really interested in basic sciences. After his/her undergraduate from an IIT or elsewhere, he would, provided he is in the know, almost invariably go to US, UK etc.. Once he is there and does worthwhile research, he would be recruited by a university abroad. So what India gets, generally speaking, are good students at the undergraduate level. This situation is slowly changing and there are now more good graduate students available in India. Let me comment on that in the next para.
Teaching and research are treated differently in India than in the US (perhaps, you are more familiar with the latter set up). For research, India has dedicated research institutes, such as the ones I mentioned earlier. But yes, it is not entirely black and white, not any more. IIT’s are increasingly putting emphasis on research and places like IISc. etc. are venturing more and more into teaching. This has brought about some noticeable changes of late. For example, there are now many more good graduate students available in India. But what about after Ph.D? They again move abroad as post-doctoral fellows and then stay there as faculty.
To give you a personal viewpoint, I am, for some time now, thinking about moving to India. I am finding out the real obstacles – pay differential, living standard (which applies to everybody), and general non-availability (of course there are exceptions) of good post-doctoral fellows, who, by the way, really do the bulk of the research and have mostly all moved abroad.
“institutional inflexibility; a cultural; deference to authority and titles which stunts independence”
have not figured in this list.
Ha ha, this article was about Manhattan Mosque and now there are two “Indians” discussing virtues/flaws of Indian education system.
I agree with Sol. We should stop this discussion, which I intended to do much earlier.
What a bunch of spineless cowards; those who would rather appease the op posers of the Mosque or Islamic center ? These are the same gutless wonders that have let the Taliban slaughter their kinfolk than stand up to them !
Lets get the facts correct the American constitution allows for place of worship for ALL faiths to be built.
The site is more than 2 blocks away from ground zero it is a commercial area which has XXX rated video stores, massage parlors and other commercial entities.
This has nothing to do with the Imam, it is a diverse plot by the Republicans to demean President Obama by a group of angry white people who cannot believe that a black man is their President.
These same protesters did not blink when President Bush invited the Imam after 911 to represent to the world that the war on terror was just that a war on extreme terrorist.
Since the Republicans lost the war on Mexicans on the immigration issue; they have discovered a new minority to harass and young American Muslims as lawyers and spokespeople have recently started appearing on the media screens to discuss this issue with dignity & respect.
This is not an Indian issue so you guys need to butt out if this conversation go to another forum and dudes get a life.
To the Muslim posters who want to be apologists for wrong principles and cow down to the bullies; go get a dose of testosterone; we are proud Muslim Americans with the constitution behind us. The majority of Americans may oppose this but they are not always right a similar majority opposed inter-racial marriage too at one time.
A) Its not a mosque but an interfaith center. To paint it as a mosque is being disingenuous. One would think Rauf was constructing a huge domed structure with a golden statue of Osama bin Laden giving the Middle Finger to the rest of America. NO.
B) There was a Muslim mosque / prayer room in the original WTC towers i.e an actual mosque on ground zero.
C) To equate the jihalat of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as representative of all Muslims is disgusting. Look at Turkey, you’ve got Mosques, Synagogues and Churches co-existing everywhere in peace. Or, look at Bali in Indonesia, or look at Lebanon, or look at … etc etc
D) The sentiments of the American people are shaped by the, now, populist bigotry of the likes of Fox News and their radicalized right wing acolytes. It is surprising that those who counseled Muslims to take a chill pill on the cartoon issue are now asking them to be sensitive to the sentiments of others (EVEN when, in this case, there is no real provocation).
Hypocrisy compounded?
Octavian,
1. It is not an interfaith center. If Rauf is now changing his plans …good.
2. That is irrelevant to the argument.
3. Pakistan probably has more Churches than Turkey does… And Turkey’s record with Greek Orthodox is as bad as Pakistan’s record with Ahmadis … but in any event Turkish secularism is not accepted by American Muslims as representative of Islam. I mean that would be a self defeating argument because Turkish secularists who have ensured sanity in that country have a track record of limiting and controlling mosque-building and even dismantling mosques. Ask any Kemalist in Turkey and he would be completely opposed to the ground zero mosque. Ofcourse Erdogan’s supporters would have a different view but then the secularism you refer to is not Erdogan’s doing. If Islamists in Turkey are not kept on a tight leash they’ll turn Turkey into a dystopia worse than Saudi Arabia. As for Indonesia …the recent violence against Christians in Jakarta tells a different story. Even earlier Christians and other groups have felt marginalized in that country. After all East Timor seceded because of Muslim oppression.
4. That is cart before the horse. Muslims didn’t take a chill pill on the cartoon issue.
@ YLH said
“That is cart before the horse. Muslims didn’t take a chill pill on the cartoon issue.”
Octavian said:
“It is surprising that those who counseled Muslims to take a chill pill on the cartoon issue are now asking them to be sensitive to the sentiments of others (EVEN when, in this case, there is no real provocation). ”
YLH, Octavian is commenting on the advice of counselors (not clear whether he means Muslim or non-Muslim) and you are commenting of the stance of Muslims (in general?).
Both are interconnected. Common sense prevailed this weekend … Terry Jones has backed down. Now what? You still want to go ahead with the provocation?
Btw the Turkish example is very intriguing. I just recalled reading that this one time Kemal Ataturk was listening to music …when the music had to be stopped for the near by Azaan. Ataturk showed his displeasure and said that places of worship should not be this close. The next day the mosque was demolished.
@YLH
“You still want to go ahead with the provocation?”
I have argued that it does not make sense for American muslims to go ahead with the building of the Manhatten mosque close to ground zero. My argument is based on judging the politics of the issue in post 9/11 America as an outsider rather than the specific legal rights which are clear. You will see this from my earlier posts.
Frankly, if people think that burning of sacred texts is somehow a legitimate response to the original ‘provocation’ then they are mistaken. Even Sarah Palin did not think this form of opposition was appropriate.
“Btw the Turkish example is very intriguing. I just recalled reading that this one time Kemal Ataturk was listening to music …when the music had to be stopped for the near by Azaan. Ataturk showed his displeasure and said that places of worship should not be this close. The next day the mosque was demolished.”
This is a different matter; in my view it’s not appropriate that a mosque be demolished by dictat or the law because one person in authority deems the call to prayer to be offensive to his sensibility.
YLH,
Why are you building “a mosque near Ground zero?”
Strictly speaking, it will not be a “mosque,” although it would have a prayer space on one of its 15 floors.
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions
I would invite you to read the FAQ. Its not a mosque. Its a community center with a prayer space and was always such, Rauf did not “change” his mind. Its a frigging Muslim YMCA.
Funding? Unfunded as of yet. 1/15th of the space is a prayer area, yet people are having a coronary. Of course, this will still not satisfy those whose instant reaction to anything Islamic is that it must somehow, and inevitably be linked to a regressive bedouin hand chopping mindset strapped with C4.
How can anyone in all seriousness condone the mala fide logic of those who oppose the centre? To glorify opposition to the building as a stringent defense of secular ideals is wrong. To defend it using the supposed “hurt” feelings of the right wing, is worse still. Should the law not be devoid of emotion? I would, in fact, counter and say that OPPOSITION to the mosque is against the very ethos of a secular country.
To lump Muslims, their diverse views, different outlooks etc etc and dismissing them into a monolith entity is unbelievable. It’s as quixotic as talking of the view of Western Christendom in this day and age. To subscribe to such a Huntington point of view: “secular westernization” defending the free world against those bad Islamo-fascists will only lead to more destruction.
Finally, I pointed out the Turkish, Indonesian and Lebanese examples to highlight the fact that there are Muslim majority states that allow religious places to be opened to cater for minorities, without it becoming a major issue, where Muslims do not “jail” people for worshiping in their own way a la Saudi or the Ahmadiyya.
It is interesting that you equate the East Timor issue with Muslim oppression, when the government which annexed and looted it was run by a secular general. East Timor was granted independence by the mildly Islamic government of Habibie – so, really, Muslim oppression?
It seems that au courant line of thinking these days is that if you have the remotest connection to Islam, no matter what you do, your actions will always be condemned as Muslim oppression and equated with the worst excesses of that religion.
Great lesson guys.
Turkey was cited as an example of Islamic tolerance by dear Octavian. I was just pointing out the pitfalls of that argument.
@ Octavian
“It seems that au courant line of thinking these days is that if you have the remotest connection to Islam, no matter what you do, your actions will always be condemned as Muslim oppression and equated with the worst excesses of that religion.”
Whether in the East or West, for people who have become anti-religion, all religious symbols, beliefs and people are ludicrous, not just those in Islam. This basic bias can result in the application of different standards, principles and worth to religious people. It is the case that biases that can colour or preclude the impartial observation of religiously minded people can similarly affect people who are anti-religion too. Such folks don’t have any immunity to intolerance. Their biases can crowd out balanced judgement too. Hence impoliteness, sweeping statements and false analogies may become acceptable lines of argument when the same people will abhor such attitudes elsewhere. If you think someone is ludicrous, you may not give him equal treatment.
It seems to me that many atheists are not anti-religion per se but many do experience real difficulty when religious beliefs take on a political dimension – it’s a position that is as strongly held as some religious tenets. Muslims demanding religious laws or special rights, by the very nature of these type of demands have become a particular target.
What if the Turkish example was to be used as a valid Muslim example? Wouldn’t that mean forcibly moving the mosque away?
Lebanon mind you is not a Muslim majority country or was not till recently and has a rather bloody history of Muslim-Christian and Shia-sunni conflict.
I suggest you think again as to how East Timor won its freedom.
Your points about the mosque have been addressed in my second article : Hostages.
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
As a representative of a minority, that was (and is) a minority in most of the parts of the world I want to make some suggestion.
It is important to learn, how to use your rights, not loose your pride and values and not to violate the very basics and sensitivity of a majority. Moreover, it is always important to show a true understanding to those, who have created a state, that you live in. Don’t teach the founders how to exercise their values. Instead try to understand how they have planned their countries and help or turn around completely.
Not only the law rules the country. Every state has it’s own mentality and – weather we like it or not – it is determent by the founders and the majority. In fact you can have the cultural autonomy in the USA, you can also expose your feelings and believes (unlike most of the Mid East countries) on others, but there is an unspoken rule of tolerance, that should be clear for all of us – care for the feelings of the others, they do have exactly the same right of the religious and cultural autonomy as you do.
Tolerance is not a one way street and is never ended by the dry fact of a law. Tolerance can be built ONLY on the understanding of the sensitivity of the others.
In fact I am not a Muslim and I don’t agree with Muslim doctrine (otherwise I’d be one), I don’t agree with everything America believes in, I don’t necessarily agree with all my close friends, but I do strongly respect their sensitivity and therefore I stick my nose in their business only to the extend that they will still be at least not enemies.
My English is poor unfortunately, but I really hope I made that point clear