What do Modern Muslims Love?

Of Levantines' historical roles and professions, son of Levant/Lebanon Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes in The Black Swan:

"The Arabs, who seemed interested only in warfare (and poetry) and, later, the Ottomon Turks, who seemed only concerned with warfare (and pleasures), left to us the uninteresting pursuit of commerce and the less dangerous one of scholarship (like the translation of the Aramaic and Greek texts)."

Source.

History remembers the Arabs, the Turks, and Levantines for their individual, independent and original pursuits. They were true to themselves and realized their own potentials without imitating anyone. History remembers those with a vocation and an essence. What about those who are too dazzled by the enslaving, ruling 'decepticons'? Despite the fact that modern Muslims belong to warrior races, they turn their backs on political and territorial independence, succumbing to the pressures to every bullying new super power. And above all, in all aspects of life and thought, only love to be second-best copies of "enlightened" Western men. For what will history remember them, for being parrots trying to mimic voice of a superior species?

What do Pakistanis love? They love to be front-line foot soldiers of Amerikanos with all F 16s and a mercenary Army, for sure... And few franchises of junk food chains, few concrete roads, few ugly huge plazas, few modernized educational instituitions, few mass destructive gadgets, and a an English accent that puts Englishmen to shame.

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.

Disbelievers are mad, mad, mad

Mad not in the sense being suffering from some mental or biological disorder but not being reasonable and logical, and being contradictory. There are many living concepts, so to speak part of the world, which we recognize to be existent but we don't observe them, or know them by seeing, or, even, fully understand them. We don't know how such things as gravity, unconscious, invisible rays, etc., as work. We don't know how they make things behave, and on and on and on. We don't know their inner processes or reality through our senses, but know that these exist through their manifestations. Gravity exists because we its effects. Unconscious exists because we see its effects. Although these forces and entities are hidden and beyond our observations, their behavior, their 'products' are however observable.

Take the Freud's unconscious. Despite all criticisms made against him on purely scientific grounds (not that i believe in absolute truthiness of scientific methods), his idea of the "unconscious is intact," as per professor Bloom of Yale. Unconscious is fascinating. All the slip tongues, memory gaps, and other crazy stuff comes from unconscious of which we have no conscious trace or understanding. Still its there. A better example than this is gravity that we can feel but don't observe the way we want to observe God, which is impossible for our perceptions.

The simple logic behind believing in these unobservables is their fruits, to be poetic. Then how we deny the Creator? Dr Asad Zaman in his lecture on logical positivism [lecture # 7] shows how these atheistic scientific theories are so grounded and motivated by this urge of non-believing communities to deny the Maker of the Universe. This logically explains their consistent efforts to deny Allah despite their admission about existence of life and universe being nothing short of a miracle. Allah shows the disbelieving miracles but they deny, as their predecessors did. Allah knows best.

Sidi (late) Charles Gai Eaton shows difference between a Muslim-believer and modern agnostic/atheist western's approach towards faith:

"Formerly, this confrontation [b/w Muslims and Christians in middle ages] was between men of faith who had more in common than they could ever have acknowledged. That likeness, that shared devotion to an almighty and unseen God, no longer exists. The gulf has become infinitely wider and mutual comprehension has become far more difficult. The believer to whom the transcendent reality of God is the most compelling fact known to him cannot really understand unbelief or imagine its sterility. The unbeliever, try as he may, cannot even guess what the experience of faith is; his imagination is baffled by this strange, other-worldly phenomenon."

Hilarious: of moderate mozlems

"The Moderate Muslim: ‘Islam is against mass murder! Deep down, we’re just as lovely as you! er … Where’s the buffet?’"

- Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad. Source. # 26 of Contentions 15.

Moderate Islam is that of extreme apologeticism, forged in the fire of Protestantism. It is being shaped by the policy makers of Imperial Power of America through funding of "moderate voices." This is the greatest of pitfalls of terms because Muslim ummah is that of middle path, who always strives to be moderate in its actions and even in theory. We can no more use this currency anymore. Seyyed Hossein Nasr i believe came  with a better solution who is opposed both to modernism and fundamentalism. He places mainstream, orthodox Sunni-Shia dimension of Islam at the Centre, and judges all other sects or interpretations from their proximity to the Centre, to the Orthodoxy. Those interpretation which seek to by-pass 1400 years of orthodoxy, a diverse yet unified systematized development of an understanding of Islam, are extremists. It is so because they're away from the centre. This is both evident in the wrongdoings of Al-Qaeda and Progressive/Modernists/Re-formulationist (or Deformists) movements. There's at least one monograph dedicated to this very topic but which limited its scope to fundamentalism alone, edited by Joseph Lumbard (a Muslim scholar of Islam) entitled, Islam, Fundamentalism and the Betrayal of Tradition. There's now greater need of a detailed surgical analysis of modernist Islam as well.

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.

The Grand Task of Modern Homo Islamicus

As a scholar of Islamic and modern sciences, what is the task a writer, researcher and academic face in spreading the message of islam, without any tinge of self-imposed reformation, rather with complete conformity to the Tradition as passed down and developed throughout generations? Seyyed Hossein Nasr eloquently explains what the Guardians of pen should be up to:

"Today in the West, as well as in the Islamic world itself, there is an ever greater need to study both the principles and manifestations of Islam from its own authentic point of view and a manner comprehensible to sufficient intelligence and good intentions. Moreover, this needs to be achieved by using methods of analysis and description which are at once logical and in conformity with the Islamic perspective; for this later places the highest value upon intelligence (al-'aql) and logic, which is inseparable from it, although of course the transcendent realities cannot be reduced to logical categories. This type of writing which can 'translate' Islamic teachings into a contemporary idiom without betraying it is very important not only for non-Muslims who wish to learn about Islam but most of all for your Muslims, who are now mainly products of modern educational systems." [Italics mine; although each phrase of these 3 sentences is important and comprehensive]

Introduction to Islamic Life and Thought.

Art

"Art is a sacred lie."

- Allama Iqbal, Stray Reflections.

Thought of the Day

"Posssessors of knowledge and seekers of knowledge are the only two groups of any use to humanity."

- Muhammad (may God be pleased with him and bless)

How important, thus, it comes to know even the true nature of knowledge and to classify it.

The Seeds of Knolwedge

A Sufi Saint of twentieth century, Shaykh A. al-Alawi, writes:

Knowledge without any support to lean on may cause remoteness.

(Hikmatu-hu, 39.)

Martin Lings, who write the work on Shaykh Alawi, interprets this aphorism of the Shaykh referring it as the seed of knowledge, i like this term very much...

"When it comes to science, Nobel not Noble"

Dr. Zaman Khan, MBBS, Pakistan, on returning from attending Lindau Meeting of Nobel Laureates in science, has made an amusing comment on his new blog about Laureates. He writes:

Let the Laureates fight in the battle of ideas for they've received their Nobel Prize for science, not for peace.

It makes one smile... Read rest of the blog-post here.

A quote on the endeavor of Ijtihad in Islamic Law

Hamza Yusuf writes in his historical-juristic essay on the rulings of Islamic law on chess:

Contrary to the Orientalists’ claims that the gates of ijtihad were closed in the ninth century CE, ijtihad has always been an active endeavor of the community of jurists throughout the Muslim world.[4]

In the foot-note # 4, he writes:

The only closure—if there was one—was on what is known as “absolute ijtihad” that historically was achieved by a handful of scholars in the early part of Islam and later considered impossible to achieve. However, although many consider this door closed and locked, it has always been viewed as a door that is possible for one to enter, if one has the key. [Emphasis added.]

Inspired

Still an athiest/agnostic, having given up his pure Roman-Catholic background, Nuh Keller here reveals what the unjust hides:

On a vacation home from school, I was walking upon a dirt road between some fields of wheat, and it happened that the sun went down. By some inspiration, I realized that it was a time of worship, a time to bow and pray to the one God. But it was not something one could rely on oneself to provide the details of, but rather a passing fancy, or perhaps the beginning of an awareness that atheism was an inauthentic way of being.

These words keep resonating in my mind. Its a kind of a testament. Hence as inspiration. Therefore beautiful.

Laughte the Cure

r

Harvard Businness gives a tip on how to manage our pet peeves, one of the ways is:

Laugh. If you can get some distance from your pet peeve, you're more likely to see the humor in it. When you get annoyed, try to observe how silly your anger may seem.

How true...! Full of fun as well... Similarly, to laugh at the face of enemies, it is said, eliminates to an extent their joy of victory... Releases pressure, to my mind, also... What do you say?

Work of Man & The Realm of Home

The following remark is attributed to the widow of Karl Marx: "How good it would have been if Karl had made some capital instead of writing so much about it!"

(Quoted in Remembering God, by Hassan Gai Eaton.)

When intellect can become "a luciferan [satanic] force"

'Nobody' can imagine - that nobody only includes modernist-fundamentalists, profane thinkers, etc. etc. - in today's world, that rational faculty of man may in fact be performing Satanic functions. The problem arises which shapes in misunderstanding this principle inherent in the nature of things, is b'cause the West doesn't differentiate between intellect and reason, as it may become clear to the reader from the following quote.

Question: "What can happen to the rational faculty if divorced from intellect and revelation?"

Seyyed Hossein Nasr: (in his Knowledge and Sacred): The rational faculty can become a luciferan [satanic] force.

What do you think?

An idiot's guide to the Credit System

I fanatically hate and abhor the credit system, although I don't understand it fully, neither do I want to. Some day I'll have to learn economics of it, so that I may contribute a verse, or two. Charles Dickens has got a good way of introducing the generally laymen species to what credit system is all about, and I'll leave you to love it or hate it:

Credit is a system whereby a person who can not pay gets another person who can not pay to guarantee that he can pay.

A PhD Dr. in Deception

"Dajjal means one who deceives. So Anti-Christ (Dajjal) has a Ph.D in deception."

-Imran Hosein.

Buyers of 'Idle Tales' & Sellers of Distraction

"But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales, without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty."

-Al- Quran: Chapter-Luqman, verse # 6.

'Social sotck of knowledge'

("Knowledge," by Richard Henson)

“…theoretical knowledge is only a small and by no means the most important part of what passed for knowledge in a society… the primary knowledge about the institutional order is knowledge… is the sum total of ‘what everybody knows’ about a social world, an assemblage of maxims, morals, proverbial nuggets of wisdom, values and beliefs, myths, and so forth”

- The Social Construction of Reality, (p.65)
Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

A much needed advice: The unifiying principle of two lives

‘Work for your terrestrial life in proportion to your location in it, and work for your afterlife in proportion to your eternity in it.’

- Al-Ghazali, Letter to a Disciple.

This is the kind of principle i had been looking for these days as being perplexed by the duality of this life and that of hereafter, on the top of that - fraudulent Marxist interpretation of the notion of life after-death as a kind of pain-killer notion. The same idea has been propounded by Abdal Hakim Murad in his speech Seeing with two Eyes, in which he gives the scholars' interpretation of the one eye Dajjal as a singular perspective which ignores balance in the favor of going to (any) extreme, either good or bad. The idea of harmony, balance is without doubt one of the greatest ideas in Islamic discourse and metaphysics, but least actualized. O Allah! forgive us, and guide us, keep us on the right track. Aameen.