Colonists Bluffed Us, the Mozlems! Still Do!

That's a euraka! post that i want to share. I would rather allow Gai Eaton to shed a new light on the Muslim perception of West and ensuing self-pity and reactionism that harms Muslims alone:

The Muslims´ lack of self-confidence may be attributed in part to the experience of colonialism, but it still endures chiefly, I think, because the West has bluffed the Muslims into accepting it at its own valuation and has succeeded in hiding its weaknesses, its vulnerability. It seems to me that this was exemplified in the early 1970s, during the so called "oil crisis." The oil producers — the Saudis in particular — had what amounted to a stranglehold on the Western world; they had very great power, which might have been put to use to their own advantage and to the advantage of the Ummah. What they lacked was the self-confidence which would have enabled them to use that power wisely and effectively. They lacked also that spirit of daring which encourages the powerful to make full use of their power. The opportunity was missed and may not come again... When I talk with my fellow Muslims about the nature of Western dominance, one of my principal aims is to persuade them that this power rests upon very shaky foundations.

These shaky foundations and bogus pshyco-propaganda has to be exposed with so much academic sources available at our disposal. All these academic sources provide logical foundations to the truths already to be found in Islam. Dr Asad Zaman is doing a seminal job by persuading his research graduate students through lectures in this regard by making us realize that we've been bluffed by self-deception (freely available online here). His analyses draw from variety of sources: Islamic reasoning, "subaltern" history, empirical evidences, economics, philosophy, etc. One such introduction to his lectures asserts:

Mostly people believed that history is objective, factual but in fact history is always biased. West claim that they feel the white man burden that’s why they attack other nations to make them civilized but its not true, in this lecture we have tried to show the true picture of why west attack other nations.

Its the game of confidence which Muslims lack at individual level and societal level vis a vis West. The point is: Muslims/easterners are not inferior in any sense to Western men; guess is that they are more advanced. The latter guess has to be induced in the minds to arrive at the former truth, because the confidence level is abysmally low.

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.

'Mercenary Elites of Pakistan': Join the Bandwagon O Pakis!

In this article, i propose a simple, human resources solution to all ills of backward, savagic, extremist, poverty-ridden, illeterate, un-enlightened populace of Pakistan. (Its in the last para.)

In the US and NATO initiated war of terror - generously complemented with haughtiness, ignorance and pre-meditation - the mercenary elites of Pakistan under the leadership of that dictator (codename: you-know-who-only-lacked-sanity) championed the cause of humanity, justice and freedom (read: to kill innocents, be unjust & snatch freedom, esp. political freedom to choose govts they liked*). The "mercenary elites" of Pakistan composed of most educated and professional ones: military, bureacracy, hired politicians, US-sponsored or westernized journalists and academics. So it's not difficult to understand why they stress so much on (secular, wordly-only) education and on destroying indeginious madrassahs from the face of earth, which have always been independent, and inshaAllah will remain so.

However, our populace - the common believing men & women - have acted in “wrong faith”, against their own human nature by not imitating their leaders, aka killer mercenary elites. Why only should our liberal elite class have the privilege of working on ground for this project of "best last hope of the world" = USA?! Why do not "these" illeterate, radicalized, extremist 16 billion deluded Pakis mend themselves by their bootstraps? Do they not look at "ground realities" - the most logical argument? Perhaps these are the side-effects of malnourishment.

I failed to understand why our liberal elite is losing ground ever since they started licking imperialist powers' boots, starting with the treachary of Mir Jafir-o-Sadiq in 1800s. But, after years of contemplation, i've hint upon the true cause and its cure. Despite all treacheries and efforts to impose their infra-level ideologies on "deluded, extremist believers," little progress has been made due to little high-handedness of our elites. They should come few steps down, and pick the mike for the first time, for they've never explained their virtuous Dajjalic (aka, all goodness) schemes to the masses in the language the savages understand, no matter how vernacular, disgusting and lowly their local tongue may be. Make that amendment and you'll lo-and-behold and see how masses would flock to their destiny.

What's the destiny? What's the solution? What should the sub-human populace of Pakistan do to becomes acceptable to West and be happy and be Successful? Very simple. Em. US and NATO is on the move to enlighten 3rd world lately. They-who-don't-understand-or-believe-in-democracy need to be destroyed, even if it means destroying whole country, as in 99.99% of cases. For that soldiers are needed. Unfortunately, an American life is much more valuable (and costly too) than a non-Western. So all Pakis should join the battle against ignorance called anti-Americanism be America's boots on grounds. A-BOGS! Few dollars guaranteed with all perks a homeless American enjoys.

_______________________________
* Some lunatic in state deptt was asked about the fate of new political system in Iraq. He however was categorical to rule out any possibility of a democractically elected Islamic govt. alhamdulilah.

Heavenly Roots: Eternal Unworldiness of Islam & the Individual

From which 'modern' and 'post-modern' (i assume there are) angles we can approach this passage from Gai Eaton's autobiographical essay? I do not mean to disrespect French or Englishmen by means of opinions of this particular writer, but my soul gains fire from the message of it.

"Even so, I might at least have had a homeland. I had none. Although born in Switzerland, I was not Swiss. My mother had grown up in France and loved the French above all others, but I was not French. Was I English? I never felt so. My mother never tired of reminding me that the English were cold, stupid, sexless without intellect and without culture. I did not want to be like them. So where-if anywhere-did I belong? It seems to me in retrospect, that this strange childhood was a good preparation for adherence to Islam. Wherever he may have been born and whatever his race, the Muslim's homeland is the Dar-ul-islam, the House of Islam. His passport, here and in the Hereafter, is the simple confession of Faith, La ilaha illa 'Llah. He does not expect - or should not expect - security or stability in this world and must always keep in mind the fact that death may take him tomorrow. He has no firm roots here in this fragile earth. His roots are above in That which alone endures."

Story Of Early Life Of H. Gai Eaton (b. 1921) Sh. Hassan Abdul Hakeem

Delusions of Progressive Muslims: Critique of Shaykh GF Haddad

Introduction - first draft :P - to a paper by Shyakh Gibril Haddad, "Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance"



There are two ways to shake, challenge or try destroying the Pillars of Islam: from outside without using any argument from Islamic Tradition, and the second is to manipulate arguments, evidences from within to make a caricature out of the religion to meet a given ideological, political or cultural agenda. 

I've no problem with the first mode or type of critique on Islam. The proponents of that type are usually academic in their style, many of them are honest in their critical statements which are in congruence with their own world-view, and are not usually stimulated externally to attack Islam. I cannot pass the judgment of these type of critics as being truly intellectual, although the challenge is intellectual in its appearance, because rationalism is not Intellectuality (see works of Rene Guenon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and other 'traditionalist' writers).

The second type of critique of Islam is not critique or critical at all, but a set of cacophonies - usually by pro-regressive Muslims & Islamophobics - aimed at twisting, modifying, and changing the rituals, practices, doctrines and overall world-view of Islam as such. I also include world-view because they hardly understand the genius of Islamic world-view and since they are purely sentimental, reactionary or politically motivated in their approach, it has nothing to do with any sort of systematic world-view. This explains their utter contradictions and huge blunders. This is the lowest of all kinds of attacks on any religion, because these stem from the stimulation to surrender a divinely revealed religion to one's whims or to satisfy others. And it is exactly in this category that the Progressive Muslim movements fall. 

The beginnings of these movements can easily be traced to post-establishment of colonial rule in Muslim world, when 'spirited' "thinkers" of the ummah relegated to themselves the task of defining the orientation of the efforts, inclinations, thoughts and inspirations of all Muslims: namely, to reform, modernize, and colonize Islam so as to catch-up with more "advanced" nations. One wonders what has reforming a Divinely revealed religion to do with gaining expertise at man made things we call technology. The contradiction was evident. The self-proclaimed reformists were not moved by the ideals and philosophies of Islam to present the world with alternatives to atheistic and man-made ideologies/discourses, but by their unchangeable inferiority complexes vis-a-vis the glitter of Western world. Many of them, even today, also in West, mistake the success of profane physical sciences with Western social sciences (see, 'Origin of Western Social Science', by Dr Asad Zaman).

Come 2004, post-9/11, Muslims needed to go many steps further to please New Colonial/Imperial masters of West. It was America's turn to launch war of ignorance coupled with that of terror to neutralize once for all the 'edges' in Muslim - intellectual, cultural and political - that threatened for centuries the Europeans. American academia may not have been fervent at all about taking the propaganda of Orientalists of reformation or an Islamic renaissance a step further - of the sympathetic ones perhaps. The urgency was felt more in westernized circles of pro-regressive Muslims who are the lowest of lowest in character than their predecessors in British and post-British Raj.

And this brings us to Amina Wadud. I would not like  to spoil the show for you with my incoherent, non-scholarly ramblings about such an "esteemed liberator" and her "magnanimous movement," namely, that of Progressive Muslims. Please read and benefit from this scholarly paper by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, a Lebanese Islamic scholar. It's in PDF format with beautiful type-font and 2-column format that makes it more readable.

Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance

__________________________
Further reading: 

1. Quran-only Feminists by Shaykh GF Haddad

2. For forensic and direct exposition of treacheries and lies of Islam-sellers in USA and West, visit the archives of: Dr Maxtor's Blog

Occidentiosis: A Summary of Introduction of Hamid Algar (I)

This is part one of two blog posts I'm writing to introduced an old book of post-mid 20th century, produced right before Islamic revolution of Iran. The link between the two is a reality hard to deny, in fact, too important to be mentioned. In this first part I will introduce the writer of the biographical introduction to the book and its themes by Hamid Algar, a renowned, majestic scholar of Islamic studies, history and languages. In the second part I will try to summarize the introduction which is not a piece of reflection, but a piece of historical information and a lucid narrative of author's (Jalal Al-i Ahmed) unstable intellectual, literary and political life. The book might have created many doubts as to exact summation of author's views that were amended after author penned the books. But more of that in part 2.

******

One of the few Muslim scholars of Islam that i'm fascinated these days is Hamid Algar. I should mention that my fascination with him is not newly born. It is only that he falls into that category of few luminaries who have the immense capacity to critique Western modernism from Islamic point of view, and write with no apologetic tinges on Islamic subjects that can be well understood by a modern reader and someone trained in classic thought, I believe.

More on Hamid Algar is necessary before , as the deliberate mentioning of his name in the title necessitates (with premediatation) a personal introduction to him. It is going to be personal, as you can look up his credentials online.

First time I ever saw the name of Hamid Algar and his books in a bookstore was 3-4 years backs. Two books I encountered were two printed lectures: Sufism and Al-Fatiha. In those days i every somewhat aware of the disease of Occidentiosis, secular fundamentalism and reformist literature by the books of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, most important being Nasr's collection of essays Islmaic Life & Thought. However, i wasn't able to critically discern an authentic one from the rest - although i doubt i can critically evaluate even now.

Hence, the very first reading of his books conveyed a hidden message that here is a scholar with high level of objectivity, understanding and depth that i hardly encountered in DAWN's book reviews or few books by westernized muslims or non-muslims on Islam. For instance, in Al-Fatiha he advocated the transcendent roots of word Allah, challenging the scholarship of Orientalists. I didn't understand much of the high-level semantic discussions; although most of the discussion in Al-Fatiha can't be termed semantic, it was on another plane altogether. Here I must apologize that this recollection is 3-4 years old, and new after reading fully the book is due.

Another example of author's independent, non-apologetic and scholarly attitude, stemming from an Islamic worldview from within: in the book Sufism, he rejected the modernistic/western notions of Sufism, and even refused to discuss subject further with this very Sufism, and preferred traditional term of tasawwuf, as it lacked the secularized connotations attached by westerners and modernized muslims with this traditional, integral part of a religion who principles are Immutable and which always resisted Reformist kind of change.

The most clear and sharpest critique on modern western intellectual thought to come in the form of an essay in a monographic book, The Challenge of Islam. His essay was about intellectual challenges that modernism presents to Islam. He was conscious to mention that in reality modernism cannot present a challenge to Divinely Revealed religion of Islam as such; in fact, it is Islam that presents a challenge to idols of western ideologies. I will inshaAllah write a summary of arguments presented in the essay.

Please do look forward to introduction to Occidentiosis by Jamal Al-i Ahmed.

A Taliban Commander: Insan Al-Kamil (Universal Man)

I will not back down, I am victorious in the battle as well as in the propaganda (media)

- A Taliban soldier singing on radio while attacking US convoys

Paul Refsdal, a Norwegian journalist, went into Taliban when they were fighting against Russian invading forces back in 1980s. He visited them again in 2010-11, only because he was not allowed to do that for ten years since the war began. (That shows how tight the control of media has bee in the hands of Western powers.) The difference today is that in 1980s Western media backed Taliban hugely, for they were freedom fighters. But now, when they defend their country against US and western imperial forces, they are demonized below human beings, and become terrorists and absolute fanatics.

For Refsdal, this overnight change in the media propaganda was intriguing. Being a journalist, he could bet there must be another version of current affairs. The difference between him and westernized creatures in areas like Pakistan is that he decided to put his life to risk and find out the truth for himself. He was able to know more deeply at least one important Taliban commander, whom he met in 1980s: Qari Darwan, who owned a lot of property before joining Taliban. Dawran, may Allah protect him if he still has not achieved martyrdom, to me has led an archetype just war or jihad. Mentoring his warriors, he said to them:

Be just. God appreciates justice ... We are fighting for freedom, for Islam and for our holy land. What are their [intruders, US et al.] goals? Are they oppressed? Have they been treated unfairly? Do they have dictatorships [in their countries]?

 When Refsdal was kidnapped by 'a wild card' of Dawran after his group disbanded the area, it was Dawran who, even in his physical absence, used all means to free Paul without having anyone to pay ransom for him.

Refsdal mentions at the end of film that Dawran's two little children, below 3 years to me, were killed by US Special Forces in an attempt to kill the commander! During Paul's last night with Dawran, a commander working under D was attacked, leaving him and his whole family, women and children martaryed by US forces... I leave it up to the viewers of documentary made, embedded below, for what kind of military commander he is/was; and what kind of war Americans are fighting there.

Commons Land Case: Western vs Islamic Perspective

Dr Asad Zaman in his lectures discussed privatization by comparing an Islamic and Western judgement on an historical issue of commons land. I'm going to describe it in my words:

In England there was commons' land, and as the word common modifies the land it means land for the common people. Common people depended on this land for their livelihood and shelter. They were mostly people with no luxuries or even modest income levels, who're only surviving on what they could find in the forests, lakes, etc., for themselves and/or for their cattle. Similarly, it provided them housing and stuff. They were poor people but the land made life liveable and gave a sense of security against economic upheavals and complete bankruptcy of basic necessities.

The rich people had their eyes on it for long. In 1066, after the Normans Conquest, things changed drastically. Rich and powerful lords approached for 'privatization' of the land, in a sense. All the poor people were banished from the commons land, which became not so common by then. Their houses were destroyed and what not. Survival became difficult, if not impossible. Previously, they could graze their sheep and drink its milk or eat fresh fish from flowing lakes or rivers and survive, but now the conditions became worse.

The same situation took place back in the times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Their was a commons land under his rule on which poor people used to graze their cattle. Rich and powerful people approached him (PBUH) to allow their cattle to enter it for grazing. Prophet (PBUH) forbade their entrance and instructed them to find some other pasture or land for their big flocks, lest they might overgraze the rightful share of poor people's pasture.

The judgement given by Prophet (PBUH) is totally opposite to the one given by the kuffar and shows the basis of Islamic economics to be welfare of the people and especially the poor.

Universality & Internal Diversity of Islamic Jurisprudence

Islamophobic politicians, intellectuals and all sort of people in Europe/West think that Islam needs to pass through the same phase Christianity did in medieval period with its enlightenment and reformation to really 'inhabit the West'. Well, it only proves, as an initial note, the reality revealed by Qur'an that these kuffar would never like Muslims until we become like them. Nonetheless, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad in his speech in islamabad talks about these 'absent-minded claims' as simply being products of lack of knowledge of Islam and their own history. Westerns, generally, have always tried to view islam and its ideals from the eyes of their philosophies and mindset, unfortunately modernized muslims are committing the same error. Shaykh Murad talks about a Dutch politician's onslaught on Islam in West who thinks that Islam must be reformed or marginalized:

Fortuyn’s error was to impose a Christian squint on Islam. As a practising Catholic, he imported assumptions about the nature of religious authority that ignore the multi-centred reality of Islam. On doctrine, we try to be united - but he is not interested in our doctrine. On fiqh, we are substantially diverse. Even in the medieval period, one of the great moral and methodological triumphs of the Muslim mind was the confidence that a variety of madhhabs could conflict formally, but could all be acceptable to God. In fact, we could propose as the key distinction between a great religion and a sect the ability of the former to accommodate and respect substantial diversity. Fortuyn, and other European politicians, seek to build a new Iron Curtain between Islam and Christendom, on the assumption that Islam is an ideology functionally akin to communism, or to the traditional churches of Europe.

Faith in the Future,

A talk by Shaykh in islambad, 2002. 

Of Glad Tidings: Islamic Economics

For all those interested in Islamic Economics there’s an interesting academic development that is very significant - including for those many (Muslims) who’re absolutely cynical and doubtful not only about Islamic Economics, but all things Islamic and are ‘more at home with all things Western’, from its toiletries to ideologies.

Whenever I try to talk to people especially those Muslims who work(ed) in banks about the prohibition of interests and evils of interest based banking systems and also those are more inclined towards interest-free economy and had been caught up in this web due to unfortunate series of events, inquire: Why do not ulema(traditional, religious scholars) come up with an alternative plan? Firstly, it is appreciable, they are not sarcastic & cynical, and want a genuine interest free system; I sincerely pray to Allah to forgive their previous sins and open their heart’s eye and ‘inspire them with the Vision of Islam’. Secondly, their rhetorical objection shrouded in the question starting from the phrase, why don’t they/you… has seen light of the day putting a stop mark to their repetitive objections, as if they were free of all blames – none of us is free from blame except those strive in the way of Allah for no worldly gains.

I was listening to this lecture on broad, immutable principles of Islamic Economics by Dr Israr Ahmed (May Allah forgive his sins and increase his rank). In the end, an economist spoke very briefly before asking his question (which i‘ll mention in the end). Sort of a glad tiding for me actually: He said that recently [few years back] some Muslim economists who had gone to western universities to do their PhDs in Islamic economics had their theses approved. Their theses had been about the comparison between interest based economic systems versus Islamic interest-free system. Purely based on ‘economic reasoning’ their theses have proved the ‘superiority of interest free system of islam over Western interest based system’. Their supervisors were Christian economists and they’ve accepted the superiority of Islamic system at theoretical level. Many other Western economists have also started to accept same proposition, he added. However, the supervisors and economists say that they do not want to implement Islamic system because for them interest system is quite simple as compared to (apparently) ‘complicated profit sharing’ system of Islam. The scholar, who to my mind is perhaps Dr Asad Zaman [check out his personal website which features his articles and papers], lamented that we as Pakistanis have wasted decades of freedom in which we could’ve implemented the theoretical model of Islamic economics and could've easily shown the world that it’s not complicated and can be implemented in West too.

I’m in search of at least the abstract of the PhD theses. I will try contacting Dr Asad about it, if he ever replies =)

Islam 'and' Terrorism

A college friend - not secular or modernized at mental level - in perplex-ion (discernible from his looks) asked, "Why does Islam promote terrorism? OR, does it?" Fairly shocked by his first statement perhaps that made him to question his question. He was pointing to the atrocities of terrorist Muslims. I couldn't give a satisfactory answer to myself then. Its been few months when he asked. Now i wonder on the utter lack of luminosity and falsehood of the very question. Is there any doubt that Islam is the religion that's most civil when it comes to protecting and preserving life and environment even in Wars? When people talk about terrorism, i hope they only mean indiscriminate violence. Then by that standard if you compare European/US codes of violence ethics to Islamic, Islam would stand out as most chivalrous and just and peaceful and harmonious to life and environment. Couple of facts for the confused:

- Prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women, children, elderly, farmers, monks, destruction of environment in war
- Homicide and suicide are two greatest sins in Islam
- Taking a life without Right (clearly defined rules which i will compile soon) is equal to killing whole of humanity - that's in Qur'an as well
- Prophet of Islam forbade use of fire to punish a human - Allah has the right to do that
- Prophet said that never desire to encounter your enemy; but you do so be steadfast and patient (or something to that effect)
- Everyone knows the level of benevolence and protection that has been shown to all kinds of minorities including Jews, who're the greatest enemies of Prophet of Islam, through centuries - would journalists ever mention that? When Pakistan came into being there were only few thousands Christians, now they're in millions (whether its good or bad that's another matter)

Now let's glance over the war ethics of great, humanistic Western world police and war mongers:

- Who invent word collateral damage and accepted it as a natural outcome of war between good (West) and evil (Non-West, these days Muslims)?
- Who use fire bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq?
- Who kill millions of Iraqis only by food sanctions?
- Who kill around 5 lac innocent civilians recently in Iraq - that's from Wikileaks?
- Who kill women and children in AFG and then in a press conference apologize over the 'loss of precious lives' and not even punish their soldiers?
- Who want to impose a mono-culture of secular fundamentalism on whole world - destroying not only natural habitat but local and primitive cultures?

The list will go on and on. Suffice to say if you really wanna know who is causing mischief on Earth and claiming that they're only doing good (Quran) read Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Its factual authenticity is far beyond doubt. IN fact on its official website, they've given parallel documented proofs confirming the statements of the author who had spent his life exploiting developing nations.