بلاد اسلاميہ ميں مندروں كى تعمير

There are rulings for both Muslims and non-Muslims in Islām whereby Muslims are bound to act and deal with the nonMuslims according to those teachings. There are numerous books authored in classical and modern times that include all such details of dealing with the different categories and of nonMuslims. It is therefore incumbent on Muslims to follow all such jurisprudential guidelines in all times and places. Although the application and employment methods of these legislations may vary in modern times but Islām has clearly stipulated its objectives and expectations that every Muslim pledges to fulfill in all times. In this paper, in stead of mentioning the jurisprudential details and discussions regarding building temples and religious places on non-Muslims in Muslim lands, only those verses of the Qur’ān and the Aḥādīth are mentioned that are basis for all such jurisprudential discussions. Numerous Qur’ānic verses and Prophetic traditions along with the consensus of companions and scholars are compiled in this paper to clarify the rightful stance in this regard.

Bhabha and Spivak: Agency, Resistance and the Role of the Post-Colonial English Writer.

Bhabha and Spivak: Agency, Resistance and the Role of the Post-Colonial English Writer. Bhabha and Spivak approach the Post-Colonial question from different standpoints but their theoretical framework is grounded in Post-Structuralism. Bhabha holds that colonial discourse is ambivalent and it’s inherent ‘gaps’ create its own sites of resistance. On the other hand, Spivak is somewhat skeptical about the issue of agency and resistance of the native and does not see any site from where the colonized subject can make his or her voice heard. This research is designed to analyze the agency of the colonized subject and by extension of the Post-Colonial English writer in the light of these two opposing viewpoints. For this purpose, Bhabha’s concept of ambivalence is analyzed in detail and how this has a bearing on his view of literary representation. Secondly, Spivak’s notion of Colonial master discourses is discussed and how these make representation a very problematic and political issue. Both these theorists agree that representation is also a form of repression and it should never be taken at its face value. Post-Structuralism denies agency to the individual and rejects the notion that ‘individual consciousness’ is the source of meaning and truth while Post-Colonial politics grants this agency to the colonized subject. The theories of Bhabha and Spivak are an attempt to reconcile Post-Structuralism with Post-Colonialism. It is claimed that the Post-Colonial English writings are attempts to challenge the colonial ideology and represent the native population. The point to consider is that the Post-Colonial English writer is the product of colonial discursive practices and is it possible for him or her to resist the colonial structures. The research is an attempt to answer this question in the light of the theories developed by Bhabha and Spivak. The central problem of the study is the nature of agency of the colonized subject and whether the Post-Colonial writer can exercise this agency and resist the colonial power structures. The study is a critique in nature and attempts to analyze the role of the writer theoretically.