Sentimentalism vs Lack of it: Pakistan's "Liberals" vs Reality Checkers

Word liberal is disgraced when used with pesudo-liberals of Pakistan who worry most about the vested interests of their spiritual masters in the West, then Britishers now Amerikanos. They occupy the English public discourse not through their scholarship, but pure sentimentalism; and as for the books, their credibility as scholars ranks much lower than Orientalists as perceived by Edward Said. One of my academic goals to write books debunking their self-esteem in their very own eyes and those they lead astray, inshaAllah.

Here's a uni-phase 'debate' between a fiery-some response to a column by Orya Maqbool by an aspiring Native-orientalist, followed by a response who upholds the views of Orya with no sensationalism as such. Orya is Islamic-minded and anti-imperialist (hence much closer to western liberals).

Source: The Difference? Mosaafir e Dasht

1. Mr Native Orientalist: Well...ISI helps Haqqani network and for obvious reasons, given the fact that Pakistan army is 'concerned' about Kabul's future after US leaves. The likes of Orya Maqbool Jan who apologize for the army and ISI more than they themselves would do so, need a reality check. I come from a family hosting a number of military officials (and I take no pride in that) and all of them very frankly admit that army has always been in bed with Haqqanis and a number of other Afghan militant factions.
   
   Oh and our Afghan brothers did 'defeat' three super-powers within a century - only, they lost just millions of life, life is no longer normal there, peace and tranquillity is a forsaken dream and we, the proud Muslim neighbours (alhamdulillah) have reaped the benefits in the form of terrorist bombings within our lands, the millions of Afghan immigrants and a culture of arms and drugs. The kind of intellectuals who want to brand this as a great 'fatah' are as deluded as they love to brand those who called US the 'saviour' when it attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Critical eye and a knack for not 'adjusting' facts to suit one's ideology are pertinent for a rational discourse - sadly, the author of the article cited merits none of these qualifications.

   Reply
2. 
   Jehanzeb Idrees10:35 PM

   Realpolitik cannot be adjudged by personal accounts it always has a historical perspective without which the understanding of an issue can always fall short. Giving opinions and making judgments are expressions crafted carefully by nuanced words which can either be based on emotional inclination or factual deliberation. However, the subtleties of logic shouldn’t be irresistible enough to end up resisting the very grounds which form a sound judgment or a safe opinion.
   
   After reading the article and the comments I have a few questions to ask from Mr. Salman to learn exactly where his objections actually lie: -
   
   1. ISI helping Haqqani networks OR not helping Americans against Haqqani networks?
   
   2. Pakistan’s concerns about Kabul’s future in US absence OR Kabul’s future with complete absence of anyone?
   
   3. Demands for the likes of Orya Maqbool Jan for the need of reality check OR for the pay cheques of Ahmed Rashids, Hassan Askaris, Hoodbhoys, Aisha Jilanis or Marvi Sirmeds?
   
   4. Army being in bed with the Haqqanis OR not in bed with the Yankees?
   
   5. That Afghan brother did ‘defeat’ 3 super powers within a century OR that they were thrice occupied by 3 different arrogant powers?
   
   6. Or that Afghan brothers’ victory came after losing millions of lives OR those millions of lives were lost under a foreign occupation?
   
   7. Afghan immigrants (along with their culture of arms and drugs) coming to Pakistan because WE invited them OR we invited the Russians to occupy Afghanistan and send all those immigrants to our lands?
   
   8. On the intellectuals who want to brand a certain kind of ‘fatah’ OR the pseudo-intellectuals who drum it as the ‘freedom for democracy’ when Iraq and Afghanistan went into occupation?
   
   9. Does a critical eye need to adjust on ‘known facts’ OR the critical eye needs to adjust on ‘hidden facts’?
   
   10. And finally how a rational discourse should base upon?
   
   i. Personal opinions based on certain ideologies.
   ii. An original analysis based on historical facts.

An Old Debate: Islamic & Western Imperialism

My friend Bilal Zubair had a debate with his friend on Facebook. I am reproducing verbatim the debate here. His answers/arguments are still in vogue and require detailed additions, editings and expansions from various perspectives, if applicable. The arguments, which are basically that of orientalists, he is up against are not new; and i believe muslim scholars would have replied in detail of voluminous books. Please do give references to books and scholarly articles on these historical, political and theological questions from Islamic point of view.

Focus on bold and italic sentences. Plus, words in brackets '[ ]' are mine.
________________________

Friend's comment: The wars they fought in order to take some river in possession, or take same agrarian lands. And this was done most in his time, The 1st khalifa was not that violent. Hazrat umar ki to personality ke baray main documented hai ke wo violent thay. Ab ye na kehna i am making this up. Ye har superpower karti hai theek hai na? imperialism musalmano ne bhe kiya tha. Aaj america imperial hai. UK buhat ziada imperial raha wa hai. USSR has remained imperial. Power is exploitative. And if you really need a justification for imperialism. Musalmano ki directions on war. 1) accept islam. No? 2) Pay jizya No? 3) war. If you talk about USA breaking UN resolutions when attacking in gaza, you policy of jizya and accept islam, if applied today breaks more than half of UN resolutions i guess. And one fundamental law, the freedom of religion, which interestingly is a part of islam as well. [Bold & italics mine]


Bilal ZubairViolent? To me violence lies in transgressing Divine Laws and Hadud. If you agree with this definition, by God there wasn't more god-conscious, just, believer of equality of men and women before Law and God, upright, soft than Umar I. If you mean to say that revealed Islamic Law is violence, I'm done with you. For you've lost any Sacred perspective on the nature of things, and you alone are required to re-consider your world-view. It is clear your source of these otherwise discredited pesudo-intellectual arguments come from centuries old Isalmophobes, who to this day spare no arrow, no missile to kill innocent Muslims; whereas, a birds-eye-view of medival and current history is enough to prove who benevolent and just Muslims have been on battlefield. For instance, Jersulam was captured with spilling how many drops of blood? None.

And as for other wars on Persia and Rome, I recently started to read up on these, and what serious historical documentation shows is only 180 degrees opposite to the Islamophobic propaganda you're spouting without any sense of decency and sanity, with at most hatred, haughtiness and sheer ignorance. In 20th century, it was for Amir Abdl Qadir who saved thousands of French, including those with whom he was fighting for decades in Algeria. and he saved them from irrational Muslims, who in the garb of Islam, were acting in treason to Prophet, s.a.w. Oh, and ever heard about the conduct of Hazrat Umar bin Abdal Aziz, who's known as Second Umar? Probably not.

I've read the kind of fictiotious pseudo-historical interpretations you're reproducing without any serious reflection, out of mere sentimental reactionism, many times refuted in scholarly books. Time for me to read up again, and probably you should hear the other of the story. Maybe you don't have time to find books from Islamic point of view. And nothing is more heinous, laughable, mistaken, horrible and ad hoc than comparing medival history with present day extreme war of terror being unleashed on little children. It shows where your allegiance lies. A child is attacked by alleged taliban and it is enough to arouse whole nation, but dead bodies of innocent infants, doesn't even stimulate a goose-pump. Why? Your heart lies our Colonial Masters.

Superpower? Please take an online course in comparing and contrast simple ideas. How dare you compare a mere force of 50,000 simplest, sincerest, and extraordinary human beings with agents of an Empire that believes in no Divine Power, cares not an iota about sanctity of human life. Perhaps, reading up on modern Imperial powers would do some good to you.

Produce one incident where Sahaba engaged in collateral damage, and attacked civilian buildings killing infants. Produce one incident where took jizya and didn't protect the populace from tyrants. In fact, in one case, they gave jizya back to people when they left the area, and people lamented. The jizya sahaba charged was way too less the taxes their tyrants charged.

 And as your over-simplifications about Islam threatening then Superpowers (Rome, persians, byzantines), try reading an impartial account before assaulting Sacred personalities and Sacred history of a civilization with your childish, orientalist fiction. But if you feel you're a mr know-all and Islam is deen of indiscriminate violence, don't bother.

Friend's reply:  I do get that you are an amazing intellectual. Lets lay some of ironies in all that you just stated with alot of emotional element and ofcourse acrimony and fury. Because you are ''done with me''. here goes. There are some terrible generalizations in all these accounts you put up. And some ironies too. Now that you question my knowledge i question yours. Look how you call it a mere force of 50,000 and then go on to say they CANNOT be compared with those who do not believe in divine power. [He failed to understand B's point here, which was bit confusing though.] Here the implication is ke jo divine power main believe karta hai wo koi buhat aalim faazil aur superior cheez hai. [He didn't imply that. He meant they don't care about hadood Allah, which in case of Islam do not have any room for collateral damage, and killing of non-combatants.] Talk about muslims of cordoba, was that a mere force of 50k they send into Europe? And captured alot of it we know that. Wasnt that imperialism? You say muslims were people who were not imperial, you say jizya was justified. Here you make another generalization. ''Their tyrants'' you say. As if each of these tribes were under tyrants. The tribes from whom you took jizya and went to war, you call them the mischief makers which is one of the stupidest terms ever created.

Now lets think about it. You live in an area, open. And someone comes and says 1) accept islam. You impose on someone, you IMPOSE on them by denying them the freedom to follow their own religion, i am sorry this is not preaching, you asked them to follow islam. But no? 2) Pay jizya. [Please share any articles that explain Islamic point of view.] haha. Yes they protected them right. Tell me something, if they turned Muslims, they wont pay jizya, but would be given protection, both of the protections are at a cost. One is giving up your religion and two is paying money. And if you dont pay the price. You die. You go on war and die. They might not kill women and children(which has not always been the case in muslim dynasties) but they do kill men. Men who refuse to pay them money in exchange of protection and refuse to give up their religion. If i come to you and say pay me and i will give you protection. will you accept? what if the other party does not want protection? Ajeeb log ho. We used to use their lands, have them pay jizya and use the surplus of their lands to our own use, that how the pre industrial societies have worked all along before the industrial revolution. Now the biggest piece of induction you did ''Why?your heart lies and is in love with zio-nazi terrorists of the diesease known as western civilization.'' These are your sugar coated words. See how my criticism of some behavior of past muslims turns out to be a supporter of westernization. You induced that information, created a narrative and then put it all in front of me trying to portray it as a fact. What is this ''disease'' you say is ''westernization''. I am sorry. facebook is a western product. Stop using it. You read your books in light, a light which a western scientist made, you travel in cars, use androids. Put a display picture which is made on a western software. You call westernization a disease? then to hell with half the things you do everyday. Stop doing them. You induce things and call me a supporter of something just because i criticize some behavior. Your wonderfully sensitive heart bleeds for muslims does it? it bleeds for infants of gaza. Well look at this place you sit it, the one you call islamic republic of pak. Thousands of muslims die here, everyday. Their infants get devoid of their own parents. If your heart is that much in solidarity with infants have some for these too. You all sit there with displays when america does something, shout against drones and never do you raise your voice on what goes in pakistan. Mukhtara Mai case, aap sab so rahay thay. Murder of the Governor, people called it islamic. Jeez man look at your stupidity i mean uff. 1 lac Shia's killed in pak in the last 2 years. Some fear a slow genocide. Yesterday we had blasts killing people just because they were Shia and you sit here and tell me if i ask people like you to raise a voice for your own country i am a westerner. Well good. Look at your pre programmed mind. Inter sectarian wars started in khalifa periods. Not all the khalifa's were angels. They were human beings and they did make some mistakes. If you hate the west that much, then stop all this crap, say no to half the technology you use. Its a disease known as westernization. You think you can bring US under the control? seriously? The country gave alone 580 million dollars of aid in the reign of Ghulam muhammad. they are not conspiring against muslims, they have helped alot of them too. But stop criticizing US, thats easy to do, pinpoint others. FOR F***'s SAKE. POINT THE NEEDLE ON YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND ONCE IT Is FIXED. ONLY THEN DO YOU GET ANY RIGHT TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE ELSE.

Bilal Zubair:  1. Leaving childish, you’re-so-stupid-and-I’m-the-only-logical-luminary, slutty, toilet-humor kind of mumbo-jumbo aside: I had restrained myself to the period of Khulafa-e-Rashideen. And you attacked the person of Hazrat per se. I've nothing more to say here. Suffice to quote my own words: "Time for me to read up again and probably you should hear the other of the story." So the debate isn’t over here. And for other sultans coming after 4 caliphs till Hazrat Umer bin Abdal Aziz, there is certainly division of opinion amongst Traditional Muslim historians, who fully subscribe to Islamic point of view, their conquests have been questioned. One such scholar is Khalid Blankinship, who in his book “The End of Global Jihad,” mentions how Hazrat Umar bin Abdal Aziz himself stopped wars on all fronts and recalled people back, and encouraged people to engage in commerce. To assert that there’s no difference of opinion amongst Muslim scholars is being childish, over the conquests and details of which are purely a historical matter NOT A THEOLOGICAL ONE. And please spare me from the vulgar conclusion that all my opinions are crystallized. I’ve just embarked on re-reading Islamic history, but from Sacred point of view. So I’m gonna read in detail the causes, factors and consequences of these conquests, Allah willing.

2. Yes, I dare make statements about your state of mind, which is purely evident from your attacks on our right to go out Muslims all over the world, to which you objected. And a big hahahahaha! for the Euro-centric and now American-centric propaganda lines you are spouting: leave this and that. Thanks for taking the pain, it was very entertaining. One day our native-Brown-sahib-orientalists’ll conclude that we poor, worthless, ignorant Muslims – who aren’t zio-nazi bootlickers/admirers of Dajjalic armies* – should stop breathing air cause it’s being cleaned and provided by the West. In fact much of the environmental crises third world is facing are directly a consequence of indefinite economic progress in America and the West. And mind you, without the massive import of the intellect, US would not have achieved all of this, including too-massive imports of enslaved Africans (on whom the enlightened scientists performed experiments by injecting viruses of worst sorts). Perhaps reading this article would help you realize really how “Eurocentric/Americo-centric” an Amerikanos’ and Europeans’ days are: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/974/op5.htm

3. How did you assume that I am not troubled by the madness being done in Pakistan against my shiah brothers, or in other parts? Why is that not mentioning one thing at a time leads you to conclude that I’m totally against it? And besides, there’s no difference in principle here. Nobody suggested we should send Pak Army to Gaza. Nobody objects to Pak soldiers serving in UN. Why shouldn’t they serve in Muslim lands as contingents?

 4. And your equating westernization with TECHNOLOGY which is neither western nor eastern is way too hilarious and saddening at the same time. This is purely a philosophical, sociological, political and intellectual issue, an idea and a process. I’ll try finding articles and books and paste links here. Perhaps reading an Iranian thinker’s book may help one understand the disease: “Occidentiosis,” by Jamal Al e Ahmed. PDF book here: http://multiworldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/occidentosis.pdf

Note.
* Dajjalic: evidence is corner-stone of any field of knowledge. Please leave your pre-conceived notions about the ‘way things are’ and re-read the Prophecies of Prophet about the End of Times and Dajjal. However, if you are going to label these FACTs as religious, hence unscientific: you’re plain wrong. Rather the hard evidence provided by ahadith of Prophet is termed by legal experts as Prophecies and nothing else.

Social Progress & Dissent

We argued in a class on the following topic (in affirmation and bit of negation of any excesses the dictum might invoke): 'civilized dissent leads to social progress'.

Instantly, what popped in my mind was the (on-going) war of terror on weak Islamicate by Imperial West, and internal dissent within intellectuals of West and external dissent of the Eastern writers and thinkers. On the journalistic platform, two of the most effective publications, with more online presence (perhaps), that i've encountered are: Counterpunch.org and dissidentvoice.org. However, I'd be guilty of short-sightedness to reduce the discussion of such over-arching terms coupled together as social progress and dissident to two publications and content produced therein (by established, respected thinkers, journalists and writers who're shunned from mainstream, corporate, state-control (or influenced) news outlets, print or TV). In fact, invoking history and common philosophy would only give insight into the taste and horizon of the one thinking on these topics*.

I would begin with the tragic part of the conversation that took place emanating from the very lips of the professor. He flawlessly repeated the dogma of progressivism which professes that constant revision of guiding principles should take precedence by the sword of dissent so as to keep up with the times. The argument is presented in a capsule for young minds in the backdrop of historic achievements of Western society of freedom, emancipation and enlightenment. To restore sanity, one should pause here and go through confessions and testaments of brilliant minds of West and secondary research as to how 'glorious' the 'achievements' have been: read Western Civilization Condemned by Itself, (part 2, 3, 4 & 5). 

I might have been guilty of putting words into his mouth by inserting 'guiding principles', as I don't remember him exactly saying that. What i do remember having understood clearly was that he advocated social evolutionism which is a vicious cycle of skeptical revision and dismantling of principles** so as to adjust to the changing times so as to achieve progress. If that is so, then progress (or social progress) is the most unstable, elusive and unattainable goal in the world. The only critique that came to my mind, when this dogma was infused with evangelical zeal, was the question put forward by Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr in 1960s in India, when whole 'ummah' was urged to change the immutable shariah Personal Laws of Islam to 'keep up with the times', he asked:

If Principles have to keep up with times, what do the times keep up with?

Given my own failure to fully absorb this historic critique (which prevented a bunch of modernised, times-worshipping, sentimental minds from molesting and changing Personal Laws of Islam) I dared not put forward this question to the professor.

However, if one means dissent as keeping check on the powerful who're always prone to abuse it given their human nature, than this is a noble cause, which is termed as jihad when one dares speak before a ruthless ruler; CIA, FBI being new Pharaohs hunting down and killing tomorrow's Musas/Moses.

However, dissent against oneself should precede dissent against rest of the world, later being the unavoidable habit of moderns to critique and critique and learn nothing, because learning implies in such cases spiritual uplift or at least maintenance.

_________________________

* I did not use the word meditation (fikr in Arabic), for this has 'vertical aspect' which begins with invocation of God proceeding towards meditation and ending with blossoming of 'thousand virgin thoughts / andishahs'. See following short essay, 'Reflections on Islam & Modern Thought', by Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

** By principles, may have meant man-made principles/customs/conventions, but no distinction was made b/w Sacred and profane. Fatal skip.

Letter to economist Prof M Shahid Alam: Message for Youth

I do not seek any kind of self-gratification by publishing this email conversation with a scholar (as you'd testify it doesn't exist in the post). I am reading these days articles of an economist and social scientist, Dr Shahid Alam, a Pakistani teaching at Northeastern University these days. He writes on politics, neo-liberalism economics, euro-centrism, Israel-Palestine conflict - he's a spokesperson for the oppressed, depressed and stressed who have no voice in the mainstream media outlets. He sees the world with eyes of his own Tradition and civilization, Islam. His outspoken critique of Israel has led open and liberal government of US, the greatest nation on earth to ever exist, to harass him by spying on him. You can read some of his articles here: PakPatriot, SSRN Author Page: Shahid Alam, and his website Q-Reason to which you can submit articles and/or share links to other scholarly articles.

I seek these voice with such a perspective grounded not in mere sentimentality but scholarship. I want to him but can't do it in a year or two, as he's in US... So want to thank him; here's the conversation which I'm only sharing because it has a simple, harmless message for Pakistani students:

Umer:


Assalamualaekum!

Sir, I'm writing this email from Pakistan, and pray that you may remain safe from spying on you or any other form of harassment. I wish I could meet you in person and thank you for intellectual courage and discernment with which are destroying "the idols of modern ideologies" and oppressors. You are a rare voice traditional Muslims (with all of our shortcoming) yearn to hear. I can only thank you and Allah for being that voice for Islam. And I only wish to request you to expand topics you write on in greater multitude.

HH Prof Shahid Alam:

Dear Umer Mian, WA

Thanks for getting in touch. I am glad that you have benefited from some of my writings. Encourage your friends to read books. We have many people with college degrees, but very few of them own or read books.

Wassalaam,

Shahid

M. Shahid Alam
Professor of Economics
Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115

http://qreason.com

What you personify is what you should become

You might have seen a young Pakistani boy fly a fighter jet using his hand, or drawing aircraft sketches on his notebooks. He imitates a pilot. He is thrilled by the sound or image of a fighter jet. He has, what psychatrists call, personified himself as a fighter pilot. The level of association surpasses every boundary and attains the rank of janoon, or craze. Such men, as per experts of mind & body, do extraordinary thing. Only janooni people do that, who like a crazy science students "do not wish to go home (from their lab)." Who want to do that thing whole day 24/7.

The role of parents is not to come in their way, assuming the passion is not unIslamic or unethical. The role of school is to aid that passion by giving them opportunity to play such roles. It may be in form of an activity where the student can live that character. For instance, if a girl wants to be a teacher, she be given apron, a class and students to teach to. A student given all authorities of a principle, and is trained what to do on working day, and then given the task to run the school.

This way of learning is most effective. Its hands-on knowledge. When they grow up and actually come to perform these roles, they'd have confidence to do it inshaAllah.

Secondly. We should ask our children to solve our daily problems. If the gate cannot be locked from inside, ask them for a solution. Encourage them. Even if you know solution, make them to think, so that they can become problem solvers.

(These were some of the thoughts I gained from the company of my mentor Dr. Agha, who's trained in psychiatry from Royal College of Psychiatry, UK.)

Faith is dynamic

i's coming to after namaz from an adjacent block and found my friend - an MS computer science student at FAST - was coming out of mosque. i stopped and joined him on his way to his home. He talked about his transformation into a pious person. "I never imagined going to mosque for prayers few years back! It wasn't just possible to imagine. Now, here i'm." SubhanAllah! "But sometimes it happens," he continued, "that you cannot concentrate in namaz. You're indulged in studies and during prayer, you're reminded of going back to work. We've to strike a balance between both worlds - this world & deeds of the next. You see, Hazrat Umar (r.a.) said that faith doesn't remain constant and fixed. It has its own highs and lows. Sometimes you're up, sometimes down. May this struggle never end. There's a prayer in Qur'an, probably in Surah Al-e-Imran, in which we pray God not to take back guidance once it has entered our hearts. I make this prayer everytime i say my prayers. May this noor never be taken back from us..." Aameen...

I said to him, "So this means we shouldn't get despair and hopeless." Exactly! That's the whole point," he replied. This was a lesson that came at the right for me. I forgot of this! I started to despair that my condition cannot change and be as same as it was couple of years back... Hope has been revived in my heart of transformation and consistency in eemaan... InshaAllah

Dear Rushdie... (A Guest Post)

Copyright. Uni: Sniggers and Sniffles of a moron

(What follows is a response to Salman Rushdie's letter denigrating religious traditions answered by a Pakistani blogger, link to whose blog is given in start of the post. Italics text is Rushdie's words, green is by the Pakistani blogger, "Uni".)

***

Rushdie: Dear little Six - Billionth Living Person: As one of the newest members of a notoriously inquisitive species, it probably won't be too long before you start asking the two $64,000 questions with which the other 5,999,999,999 of us have been wrestling for some time.
How did we get here? And, now that we are here, how shall we live?

Uni: Dear Rushdi. As one of the newest member of the notoriously sneering species, it is a pleasure to note that you at least admit that the whatever dollar questions remain unanswered - still being wrestled with.

Oddly - as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with - it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you to believe in the existence of a further, invisible, innefable Being "somewhere up there", an omnipotent creature whom we poor limited creatures are unable even to perceive, much less to understand. That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence.

Oddly, it has occured to you that we the inquisitive EXIST and all on our own... function and procreate, all on our own... the entire universe runs smoothly all on its own - down to the whole factory running within a single cell - all on its own. The fact that you're unable to percieve THIS little piece of clear logic, is what's beyond us poor creatures.

This sky god, it's said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot. Or, he danced. Or, he vomited creation out of himself. Or, he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. In some of the more interesting creation stories, the singly mighty sky god is subdivided into many lesser forces - junior dieties, avatars, gigantic metamorphic "ancestors" whose adventures create the landscape, or the whimsical, wanton, meddling, cruel pantheons of the great polytheisms, whose wild doings will convince you that the real engine of creation was lust; for infinite power, for too easily broken human bodies, for clouds of glory. But it's only fair to add that there are also stories which offer the message that the primary creative impulse was, and is, love.

Creation stories might be many - yes, but the truth is only one. If you're not convinced by it, cool. But this gives you no right to ridicule all the versions with a singlemindedness worthy of an award, really. You can't prove your theory, even if you're unconvinced by the opposing theory. There are far too many out there who (despite, not having seen it)... believe in God. And you don't find them ridiculing the opinions you hold.

Many of these stories will strike you extremely beautiful, and therefore seductive.

No. That's not the reason why we believe in them. Sorry. Wrong guess.

It is possible that they may at some point come to feel inescapable, not in the way that the truth is inescapable, but in the way that a jail is. They may at some point cease to feel like the texts in which human beings have tried to solve a great mystery, and feel, instead, like the pretexts for other properly anointed human beings to order you around. And it's true that human history is full of the public oppression wrought by the charioteers of the gods.
In the opinion of religious people, however, the private comfort that religion brings more than compensates for the evil done in its name.

Firstly, for people who do believe in God (with their hearts and minds) do not feel the truth to be like a jail, confining them. So wrong guess here again. And secondly, the teaching of human beings that led to this truth, wasn't forced upon us. Nobody pointed a gun at us to believe in God. And thus, the argument that they only did it to order us around, stands totally invalid. The fact is, that evil can take any excuse for committing evil. If religion is one such excuse, then the blame on religion itself is foolish. Go blame those particular people.

As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your opinion, your opinion, your opinion. We don't consider the creation process as wrong.

But here's something genuinly odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith.

It's not blind. As I said (and I'm a believer so I know what I'm saying), the decision is a sound one, made by the heart and mind. If you don't believe that, your problem.

As a result of this faith, by the way, lt has proved impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race's numbers from swelling alarmingly. Blame the overcrowded planet at least partly on the misguidedness of the races spiritual guides. In your own lifetime, you may witness the arrival of the nine billionth world citizen. (If too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing to face the facts of human sexuality, also refuses to fight against sexually transmitted diseases.)

Weird it is, that you, not having had control of when to enter this world (did you decide your birthday hmm?), and not in control of when you'll leave this world... think it's prudent to think that we all have control over the population size of this planet?

There are those who say that the great wars of the new century will once again be wars of religion, jihads and crusades, as they were in the Middle Ages. I don't believe them, or not in the way they mean it. Take a look at the Muslim world, or rather the Islamist world, to use the word coined to describe Islam's present day "political arm". The divisions between its great powers (Afghanistan against Iran against Iraq against Saudi Arabia against Syria against Egypt) are what strike you most forcefully. There's very little resembling a common purpose. Even after the non-Islamic NATO fought a war for the Muslim Kosovan Albanians, the Muslim world was slow in coming forward with much needed humanitarian aid.

Oh you don't need to remind us about the ''efforts'' of the Muslim nations right now. They are deplorable. But we also know that it's the leaders of these states that are quite oblivious to events around them. Not the common man. If the common man were like this, there would be no flotilla towards Gaza .. knowing that Israeli forces aren't going to give them a red carpet welcome. And btw, the war b/w religions is already going on. And yes, ideology remains the key war instigator even now.

The real wars of religion are the wars religions unleash against ordinary citizens within their "sphere of influence." They are wars of the godly against the largely defenceless - American fundamentalists against pro-choice doctors, Iranian mullahs against their country's Jewish minority, Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay against that city's increasingly fearful Muslims.

If you're calling state laws as wars... then even more weird is that you didn't mention in this list of yours one very very important one... the policies of the state of Israel, the policies of India on Kashmiri Muslims... it's not only the godly who impose their laws. Secular governments do the same thing. If one opinion is unacceptable to you, doesn't mean you go about calling it war and then select a subset of state policies as examples. Puny indeed.

The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side. To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities. So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in story books. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spontaneously generate new bees from the rotting carcess of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

To choose unbelief is your choice, we're open to believing in God, despite you thinking of it as being closed minded. Trusting in humanity can't go side by side with belief in God? Apparently, you haven't read much into history. Imperfect human knowledge was enlightened with scriptures, and this knowledge was the source of illumination for a great number of minds. And then you ask, how did we get here? Didn't you, in the beginning talk about this as a notoriously inquisitive display to ask these questions? Consistent, aren't you?

The ancient wisdoms are modern non-senses.

Live in your own time, use what we know and, as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you and put aside childish things. As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong?- it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves.

The blind wanderings and backtrackings of modern sciences is also a lot of claptrap, no worries. And sure, go ahead with this logical mode. Hand over the morality reigns to each and everybody's own individual self. So if a thief thinks its moral to steal (because he/she felt it inside that its okay!), then don't blame him. Sure.

To my mind, religion - even at its most sophisticated - essentially infantalizes our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us; the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

To each, his or her own. We don't (and won't) mock your ideas. Follow what you will, but at least you shouldn't mock the things you don't agree with.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge?

You're not supposed to. That's the thing, see.

Intellectual freedom, in European history, has mostly meant freedom from the restraints of the Church and not the state.

The Church men had made the laws that were suffocating mankind. Christianity had nothing to do with it. Even now, the lobbying for doing away with celibacy laws prove that the original teaching did NOT contain celibacy - nothing unnatural is ever promulgated in the main religions.

This is the battle Voltaire was fighting, and it's also what all six billion of us could do for ourselves, the revolution in which each of us could play our small, six-billionth part; once and for all we could refuse to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policemen of our liberties and behavior. Once and for all we could put the stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatized and plain.

You mean, see the world in chaos and disorder. Even right now, the world's in disorder because of lack of belief in accountability (yes, even by those who CLAIM they're following religion and do heinous crimes - all acts of people who don't believe in God, Hereafter and Judgement).

Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six-Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit.

Imagine a Just God, and imagine trying to follow His Teachings, being good to fellow humans and doing good in all spheres of life. The sky is certainly the limit.

SMS Conversation: History and Relgion, 'Policy Lessons' for Each Ego

Umer: One must have a basement in a house especially if he wants t0 launch a business. Shams and Nirwani, founders of Telezoo.com, invested $1 million in this start-up of theirs. To keep it low-cost in the beginning, the office of Telezoo was located in the basement of their home.

Bahawal: As far as the basement idea is concerned, I'd rather prefer to have an underground air-conditioned gym or a cozy library/study then 'waste' it for entrepreneurial purposes :-) :P

... We scholars usually don't like to talk much this money making business. Just give us a little respect, a bit of fame and acknowledgement and a few fat books to analyze. That's all you want. Lols...

Umer: (After critizing on fame part with a Urdu couplet, asks) And what books and articles are you reading these days?

Bahawal: Hmmm... I'm reading but haven't fully understood a book by Dr. Sayed Abdul Latif, The Mind that Al-Quran Builds. (Also) I'm reading a book History of the Saracens by Syed Ameer Ali. Then I'm also reading, History of the Arab Peoples. Apart from that, I've been reading some articles on internet on Babylonia, its culture, the city of Ur, etc. And, the major points of conflicts b/w the three Abrahamic religions, and the list goes on.

Umer: Please keep telling as long as you can comfortably. Its so informative foe me.

B: (Smiles, through a gesture) ... To sum up its been all history and religion (that I am studying). And, I realize that we need badly to turn back to Allah, repent asap, understand the balanced path, and start hating in ourselves what we hate in others. We stupid and idotic people have already cost ourselves a lot through petty egos and pathetically limited reserves of knowledge, which we assume to be too much but which actually is too little. What do you say?

U: Yar! Excellent analysis! That's what many top pious scholars (more or less) are saying! SubhanAllah! May Allah guide us to the right path and give us taufiq (power) to realize and act upon these useful insights.

B: May it be so! I wish we all see the right path.

To Dr. Asad Zaman: On Social Sciences

I wrote following mail to Dr Asad Zaman, alumni MIT (BS Mathematics) & Standford (MS Stats; PhD Economics), professor at IIIU. Visit his website for all of his works and data: http://sites.google.com/site/asaduzaman/home. He is a leading Islamic scholar on Islamic economics, critic of western social scientist, an educationist, Islamic political theorist, and a sea of knowledge and TAQWA

Assalamualaekum!

I am Umer Toor, BSc Business, FC College, Lahore. I've been reading your papers and writings on your website; at first I read your interview in Intellect mag which led me to discover you and your thought.

I'm particularly interested in critique of yours on Western Social Science. One of my professors at F.C. is thinking of introducing Islamic Sociology course there. Your paper on Origins of Western Social Sciences [also see Nature of Social Science page] enumerates some foundational works, which we would be reading.

We seek your guidance on this matter. Do you have ideas on Islamic social science courses that may serve to be an inspiration and yardstick for our us?

Moreover, I've a bunch of students learning in elite universities who have launched amongst themselves the Revival of Islamic Intelligentsia Program [they work as members of ESEF] - can you groom us by giving some lectures, or best, can we visit you personally in Islamabad, which is our dream?

JazakAallh!

Man will be man

 A psychiatrist, who also teaches human behaviour to MBAs, was informing my curious self: "If a child is raised in a cave with animals, says dogs or lions, and he never comes in contact with humans, he would behave as dogs or lions. The natural instinct of morality would become dormant owing to the dominant environment. But if you take out the same uncultured human being from this animalistic environment and put into human environment, he'd again start behaving as humans. All those moral instincts of shame, cleanness would return. On the other hand, if you take dogs and lions out of their wild environment and attach 'em with humans, they won't stop behaving as dogs and won't behave as humans!"

What does this suggest to you?

In search of guidance

Today, I spent a day with a friend of mine who is in search of guidance. He wants it. Simply. So we visited a scholar of deen in Punjab University, and after his weekly bayan/lecture sat down with him and asked, my friend: 'How does guidance come?' The scholar replied, 'Through the desire of it.' 'And does one develop it?' my friend asked. 'By (a) praying to Allah for guidance, and (b) "striving" for it, just like the way an ill-person goes to a saturated market of doctors and healers, and seeks the best out of them. The litmus test he has: Firstly, the person is a qualified doctor, i.e., he knows deen well; and secondly, the doctor has to have a good reputation of curing people well, i.e., the person acts upon what he knows about deen.'

'Prayer' and 'to strive' are the keys that are also mentioned in a hadith elementary for success. On returning, I enquired my friend about how useful the conversation had been. Clearly, he wanted to see some other people as well, but his instant positive remark reflected satisfaction in the theory or answer of the scholar.

Khanqah Nights: Kanwara-by-default

A group of friends, all wrapped in blankets at night in a khanqah.

A friend: (Talking to our teacher) Sir Umer is a very positive being, so he won't marry a negative one.

Another firend: And we know that positive-positive lead to a negative. This would be unacceptable for Umer as well.

Teacher: People don't change their nature, and become their own opposite. So Umer cannot choose to become negative himself.

First friend: So we reach to the conclusion that Umer is destined to remain a kanwara (single).

All burst in mild laughter.

Love your fellow men as you love yourself

A friend of mine gave a very wise advice. He said, "Don't have contempt for people, because the person you disdain may become friend of God someday - you never know it."

Intellect & Heart

Umer: Imam Ahmed said: Intellect is a natural thing. And Allah says in Qur'an: "Verily in this is a Message for any that has a heart..." (Surah 50: verse 37.) Now, these scholars call qalb (heart) as intellect. So what do you say?

Z. S: I have the opinion that: Intellect even if it means to discern between the right and wrong, it is natural though refined by the Divine. And if it means to know tha reality, as it actually is, then also at one hand it is presented more or less (but not absolutely) by the Divine in its pure form and then, on the other hand, established in the human soul in the form of more or less consciousness.
May Allah forgive me upon what I say, I said from my little intellect.

The matter would have been more clear, semantically speaking not intellectually, had I quoted the complete verse which goes on as: "Verily in this is a Message for any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly witnesses (the truth)."

Divine vs. Worldly

Scene: Last moments at an airport departure longue.

Dr. Agha to Umer: Remember. Divine thought/knowledge/Light is inversely propotional to your indulgence in this world.

The former, i.e., the religious enlightenment, is never in direct relation with the absorption in this world, or, in other words, with worldly progress.

So let this formula be your yardstick to judge who has Light and who doesn't have. You can easily discern with it between True and False Spiritual Master. But above all live and apply this formula.


I don't think that material progress is in conflict with spiritual, although both are diametrically opposed to each other in quality (see "Islam at the Crossroad," ch. The Spirit of West). And that spiritual progress may take place with the material progress simultaneously, although it need not be necessary, as M. Asad remarks in the suggested book. What supports the advice of my teacher is the evident reality that when our roots are strong in this world the contemplation of the divine becomes very difficult. It was only possible for Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to balance between this world and the one beyond. I cannot go to "Mirage"; he did. I can't bear the immense pain he had to bear. He nonetheless remained absorbed in the thought of divine through both contemplation and practice. I wish to assimilate at least one world that which is higher. What else can I desire than that which is eternal!

Of A (Very) Strange Event

Now. This is not a kind of post which can relate itself to the dubious motto of a book by Gurdjieff who states in effect about his book All and Everything, "Now I am going to tell you something people are not going to believe" or if something really strange is going to happen. Not that. Not that at all. Because his book is nothing but an anti-thesis to its very 'galvanizing' statement.

Once upon a time, once or twice? Once! Once upon a time, I was driving a rickshaw. A customer came by and said that he wanted to go to some place B, which to him was not far from point A, where we're located at the moment. I told him it would cost him 60 something, as I was empty for the time it took me to reach at point A. He fought for 40 something; argued hard in all what's gibberish; and we settled for it. When we reached at his destination. He gave me 100 something. I was amazed, and you ask: Amazed? I ask, "little?".

So I asked him: What for?! He behaved like a true economist-consumer (you've to admit it's a strange thing to happen these days with the passiveness of being a consumer). He said in a very factual and monotonous way, "40 something for bringing me here; 10 something for the time I wasted in arguing with you; and 20 something for what you had to give up to pick me up while we were free of any customer. Finally, take 30 something more - approximately - for the time you are to spend burning carbon empty (it was late at night) from here now on. These are all your 'opportunity costs' that no economist would ever pay you, so please sod off!"

I wish if there exists such an academic person who did everything what he theorized. Perhaps that's why people read fiction to the end, always.

The Concept of God & Western Philosophy

Umer: Having read the concept of God among great philosophers, I'm intrigued to know how Platonic "philo" approached this problem. Did they divorce intellect from reason? Did they too solve the problem through rationalism?

Master Agha: Purpose and design behind the creation of universe and life are missing in Western philosophy. Western philosophy deals with such issues on the basis of speculations and imperfect intellect. While we believe that revelation is essential to understand such questions.

A Thoughtful Sitting

March 11, '09.

Today's experience with a serious and thoughtful sitting, unlike any silly, futile chit-chat between retarded "buddies", forces me to pen down the thoughts I could gather from the participants who were dying to be self-critical. Thoughts so rudimentary, so practical that I wish to keep them somewhere in the backyard of my human memory, and more to share them and spread. Today was a beginning of a new day in my quest of my Self. A quest to find 'meaning' in this otherwise, apparently, haphazard life in which to question the very disorder of it. We have formed a little society, headed by a sociology teacher, who speaks of his own science nothing more than a thin layer of ice over an iceberg! And he is very true. Because the very purpose of this informal sitting group is to penetrate the symbols of life. Thus, owing to this serious aim, the whole base of the group's medium of expression tends to be of metaphysical nature, which is very profound. Here's the problem for us. Metaphysics is the supreme science, as S. H. Nasr says. Therefore, it requires a lot of spiritual preparation to open up our intelligence, in order to know the existence and the nature of reality. Metaphysics never weds itself to clever thinking, it weds to a pure heart and to the intelligence whose functioning is proper and receptive to this supreme science.

This realization has still to dawn upon the imagination of many in our group. However, some took a brave start today and found themselves giving a voice to their own ongoing journeys, sometimes forgotten and in places like these, revisited. And one such voice triumphed in my eyes, no matter how poorly.

"What is life?," when asked the gentleman replies, "I used to ponder on this. And I concluded after observing the ever absence of jinns in the present scheme of this universe. Then I pondered on why humans were created in place of jinns? We know that they were very violent and enmity always prevailed among their communities. And that among jinns there was no peace and love conceivable. God hoped from this man that he would maintain peace among themselves. He would know what angels never knew. That he would love his fellow beings. I don't think there's a hell." He finishes presenting his views on the purpose of life here, although most of the time we were much preoccupied by the very question of purpose's possibility in human life. A view so real and persistent, I can never think why I never thought of it. A strict Muslim may call the last part of the conversion a blasphemy, and he or she may. But the existence of peace and love as a purpose of human beings is as much real to me as I am.

Mystic illumination vs. Speculative thought

The following excerpt from Ibn Arabi's work "Futuhat" is interesting for those concerned with the mystical experiences, speculative thought and the common ground for both these sciences. This is a dialogue between young mystic 'Arabi and the philosopher Ibn Rushd, probably a man of quite mature age at the time of conversation.


"I spent a good day in Cardoba at the house of Abu Walid Ibn Rushd. He had expressed a desire to meet me in person, since he had heard of certain revelations I had received while in retreat and had shown considerable astonishment concerning them. In consequence, my father, who was one of his close friends, took me with him on the pretext of business, in order to give Ibn Rushd the opportunity of making my acquaintance. I was at the time a beardless youth. As I entered the house the philosopher rose to greet me with all the signs of friendliness and affection, and embraced me. Then he said to me "Yes!" and showed pleasure on seeing that I had understood him. I, on the other hand, being unaware of the motive for his pleasure, replied, "No!" Upon hearing this, Ibn Rushed drew back from me. His colour changed and he seemed to doubt what he thought of me. He then put to me the following question, "What solution have you found as a result of mystical illumination and divine inspiration? Does it concide with what is arrived at by speculative thought?" I replied, "Yes and no. Between the Yea and the Nay the spirits take their flight beyond bodies." At this Ibn Rushd became pale and I saw him tremble as he muttered the formula. "There is no power save from God." This was because he had understood my allusion."

Ibn 'Arabi,
'Futuhat', I, P. 153.

Of Rationality

Umer: What is rationality?

Master Agha: Rationality is the feature of man which demands that man must use his mind to know about the cause, purpose of creation of his and the universe. This is the first step to know what 'iman (belief) is.