empirial majesty

I think there is nothing wrong with building an empire. Some of us eventually get to a point where we want to expand the territory we control. It starts when we purchase a second property. or build a branch office.



What is evil is not building an empire. but injustice when trying to build an empire and injustice towards those within an empire.



The problem with the American empire is two-fold:

1- it is controlled and directed by white men.

2- it does not follow through with its ideals.



The problem is NOT the desire to want more or pride in yourself.

at the root of any empire is the desire to what more...

...more land to enable you to gain more wealth

...more access to human and natural resources to enable you to gain more wealth

...more people to sell your stuff or your message to enable you to gain more wealth



the problem is when expanding your empire, you let greed overpower the values you claim to live by. and when you let pride in yourself turn into an arrogant attitude that dehumanizes others. arrogance and greed will eventually lead to rebellion in your empire its eventual downfall.



Americans need to embrace the idea of empire when it comes to its government. We already should not have a problem accepting the empirial desires of corporations. Unless you want a return to being a farmer on someone elses land. You live in cities now. In cities we work for those who build things and sell those things, or buy things to sell to others, or sell our services that enable others to build or buy or sell. Now whats wrong with expanding our businesses so that we can build, buy, or sell in other places? (as long as we act justly towards our workers and clients). Nothing is wrong with that.



Now about our government. We are a superpower, lets act like one. Why should we not try to extend our influence to new places? Why should we not let those new places join the United States? There are places in the world that are very tempting in terms of the opportunities they give us. Opportunities to enable our businesses to gain access to people and natural resources.

I'm not saying that we conquer all of them using our military. We can continue to do what we do now, expand our businesses into all areas. But, if there are tyranical governments out there that oppress their people (and those people come to us for help), why not get in there and take out the oppressors (as long as we act justly with the citizenry)? But why stop there? Once the oppressor is out. We should extend those people the opportunity to become a state and equal citizens of the United States, set up an election and let them vote on joining the US or not. If they say no, we leave (why rule them when they don't want to be ruled by us).

The only thing that gets in the way of this happening is the fact that our government is run by white christian men who carry on the shortsighted racist tendencies of their european forefathers.

There has never been a democratic empire (the arabs under the second Caliph Umar came close). But when the United States was created there became the potential to finally have an empire that is about more then just one king trying to get richer. It can be about the people trying to get richer. Where the American Dream is extended to those who live in the most hopeless of conditions.

An Empire of Laws.
Laws that limit monopolies are good.
Laws that give workers a safe and just workplace are good.
Laws that regulate the behavior of our military are good.
Laws that give people the right to speak, assemble, worship are good.
Laws that establish checks and balances between different braches of government are good.
Laws that enable the people to own land, and make money are good.
Laws that prevent people from doing injustice to their land or those they do business with are also good.

People of the world are yearning for these laws.
And they are yearning for a government that enforces these laws.
We can be that government.

The problems in Iraq are regarding the national government.
Well, Why not welcome three new states to the United States of the World.
Kurdistan, Shiite Basrah, and Sunni Iraq. Each will get 2 Senators and will be divided into districts where they can choose representatives to represent them in the House. We will establish courts and they now have to abide by US law. In the beginning it will be difficult, but we will be much more respected. We would prove to the world that we not only take out tyrannical governments but we take full ownership of the situation. Not only is the State Department and the Defence Department are involved with creating the new order. but so is the Interior Department, the Treasury Department, the EPA, and the IRS, etc., etc.
But this will never happen so long as the white chistian men who control this country limit its access to the non-whites. Access to immigration and annexation.

definitions

architecture is more than
an art,
design,
or construction of shelter.

art is more than expression.
it is communication.
communication requires two parties,
one gives and the other recieves.

according to leo tolstoy, art is the human expression of feeling with the desire by the one expressing the feelings to have the one who recieves the expression to experience those same feelings.

design is an intellectual exercise
involving the arrangment of thing and nothing.
to arrange is to create order out of chaos.

design can be based upon an theory of aesthetics, a concept of beauty. thus, a system of order based upon a concept of good and bad, beauty and ugliness.

there can be artists and designers who could care less about aesthetics and creating beauty. there can be designers who are not artists, could care less about comunicating their feelings, whose only goal is to arrange things and nothings. and there can be artists who are not designers, who could care less about arranging things and nothings, whose only goal is to express their feelings.

but there can be artists who use design to create beauty. an architect is an artist who creates designs for the construction of human habitations. the reciever of the architects art is the one who will inhabit the architecture. and if the inhabitant expreiences the feelings that the architect wanted to express, then it can be judged to be successful.

but an architectural design can also be an instrument for creating beauty in our built environment. architecture can be more then just constructing shelter to protect humans from the elements. an artistic architectural design, a rationale used to determine the arrangement of solid and void to create forms and spaces that evoke specific feelings, can also be based on aesthetics, a notion of what will make our society more beautiful. better as opposed to worse. good as opposed to bad.

this leads me to ask...
how do i see myself?
i am an artist and a designer.
i have a notion of beauty.
i have training to be an architect.

so... i guess i would be an artist who wants to design beautiful places that humans find comfortable and able accomodate their activities.

of course i still need to define what i mean by beautiful and comfortable.

imam ali

if we approach the first civil war in islam with the idea that no blame shall be placed on any companion of the prophet for wrongdoing, that none of them are bad and all are good, then how do we make sense of the murder of hazrat usman? because murder is bad. isn't it?



i've read the works of other sunnis who are much more knowledgable then i. but i have to try for myself. if i want to understand what happened.



we know muhammad ibn abubakr was one of those who broke into the house armed with intent to kill, but apparently backed out at the last second. we know the rebel mob elected hazrat ali after the murder. muhammad ibn abubakr was very close to hazrat ali. and several of the rebel leaders became his generals after hazrat ali moved the capitol to kufa in iraq.

the art of communication / needs vs. wants

recently i had an interesting internet chat with my wife. i wish i had copy and pasted the entire conversation, my memory is not very reliable. some very important issues came up.


she said she should accept me for who i am rather then wanting me to change my ways. and that she should be able to distinguish between what she wants and what she needs. and not confuse the two things. she wants to be able to open her email and find a nice message from her husband, she expects it. it makes her happy when it happens. but she doesn't need it.

i think that psychologists refer to specific list of things as real needs, like power, safety, survival, belonging, etc., and everything else is basically something that helps fullfill these fundamental needs, it can be considered a want. you can change your want but you can't change your needs. for example my wife needs power, so she wants me to change something about me. it will fulfill her need for power.

so i guess i should help her to find something else that helps fullfill her need for power.

marwan

while writing about the rival caliph, i've realized that the most interesting character is not imam husayn (ra) or ibn zubayr (ra). but its the person whose name would not be followed by the "(ra)" dua.




its marwan!?!




i should write three parallel stories that intersect at a few incidents,the first incident where all three are together is while guarding the gate at the death of usman (ra). then they meet again at the battle of the camel, where the three of them take up arms. and then meet again in medina where husayn (ra), and ibn zubayr (ra) are summoned by the governor of medina at the death of caliph Muawiyah to give an oath of allegiance to his son Yazid. There is one version of that meeting that places all three of them in the room. Marwan is present to advise the governor.

Many of us are already familiar with the tragic story of imam husayn (ra). We hear it every muharram. it is the story of a failed rebellion against the banu ummaya. The story of ibn zubayr (ra), on the other hand, is about a successful challenge to their power and the lesson of constantly struggling to resist evil, his death brings to a close the era of the rightly guided second generation.

But, the story of marwan is story of the rise of islamic secular civilization. husayn's is a tragic event in between that can show another side to the personalities of both marwan and ibn zubayr as secular rulers. There would be no caliph Muawiya and banu Ummaya if not for marwan. there would be no Islamic spain if not for marwan, no Muhammad bin Qasim conquering sind if not for marwan, no need for an abbasid revolution against banu ummaya power, and hence no caliph harun al-rashid to populate the stories of the arabian nights, and no caliph al Mamun to establish his house of wisdom.

after the prophet (sa) died, hazrat umar charted one course for the development of islamic civilization, he did not ask for the caliphate that he we was givin and earned the title of comander of the faithful his legacy lives on in the teachings of our ulema. marwan on the other hand charted an alternate path he plotted and planned and eventually took control of the caliphate and his legacy lived on till the end of the WW1 when the position was abolished by the turks.

leadership

Those who acted as guides to the stars
Are awaiting anxiously for a guide for themselves
Broad vision, heart warming speech, a warm personality
These are all the baggage the leader of a caravan needs to carry

1935, allama iqbal
inscribed in the cover of a book given to rahmat ali.

what it says about us

I had an interesting conversation last weekend with a friend. He thinks my young generation's inaction in the moments after 9-11 shows how pathetic we are compared to others in history who faced difficult times and rose to face the challenges head on. One example that came up was the young indian muslims who organized the Pakistan movement.

Indian muslims in the early to mid 1900s were, like us, a minority community trying to maintain its religious, cultural, and social values as well as establish itself politically in an environment that was becoming more and more threatening. They started to think about what it meant to be muslim and how best to preserve their identity and social/cultural institutions. Students at Aligarh Muslim Unversity and Cambridge met, discussed, and organized. The conclusion they came to was Muslim Nationalism and eventually led to the struggle to create Pakistan.

While I don't think our conclusion would be the same thing, I do think that our great-grandparents generation is a good source of inspiration. And while there may be many similarities when it comes to issues of minority rights and identity awareness, there is one huge difference. They had history on their side. By that I mean, young muslims in India did not have the challenge of trying to figure out what it meant to be a Muslim in India. There was no india, and Islam had been in the various states of the region for centuries. Panjabis and Bengalis and Hyderabadis and Kashmiris knew who they were, they faced no identity crisis in terms of reconciling for example a kashmiri identity with a muslim identity. that problem had resolved itself many generations ago. That gave them inner strength to fight for their right to belong to a different type of confederation. We don't have this issue resolved yet. We are still an immigrant muslim community, with social, and cultural institutions still evolving. We are not strong internally:

PAKISTAN DECLARATION, 1933(from wikipedia)
Rahmat Ali issued this document on January 28, 1933 from his student address in Cambridge. This Declaration comprised the first part of his Pak Plan, and only dealt with the area of Pakistan.

"NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?"
[Document is headed by Arabic script from the Qur'an, 13:11: "Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they change their inner selves".]

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN - by which we mean the five Northern units of India, viz.: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan - for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

Our brave but voiceless nation is being sacrificed on the altar of Hindu Nationalism not only by the non-Muslims, but to the lasting disgrace of Islam, by our own so-called leaders, with reckless disregard to our future and in utter contempt of the teachings of history. The Indian Muslim Delegation at the Round Table Conference have committed an inexcusable and prodigious blunder. They have submitted, in the name of Hindu Nationalism, to the perpetual subjection of the ill-starred Muslim nation. These leaders have already agreed, without any protest or demur and without any reservation, to a Constitution based on the principle of an All-India Federation. This, in essence, amounts to nothing less than signing the death-warrant of Islam and its future in India. In doing so, they have taken shelter behind the so-called Mandate from the community.

But they forgot that that suicidal Mandate was framed and formulated by their own hands. That Mandate was not the Mandate of the Muslims of India. Nations never give Mandates to their representatives to barter away their very souls; and men of conscience never accept such self-annihilating Mandates, if given - much less execute them. At a time of crisis of this magnitude, the foremost duty of saving statesmanship is to give a fair, firm and fearless lead, which, alas, has been persistently denied to eighty millions of our co-religionists in India by our leaders during the last seventy-five years. These have been the years of false issues, of lost opportunities and of utter blindness to the most essential and urgent needs of the Muslim interests. Their policy has throughout been nerveless in action and subservient in attitude. They have all along been paralysed with fear and doubt, and have deliberately, time and again, sacrificed their political principles for the sake of opportunism and expediency. To do so even at this momentous juncture of Bedlam. It is idle for us not to look this tragic truth in the face. The tighter we shut our eyes, the harder the truth will hit us.

At this critical moment, when this tragedy is being enacted, permit us to appeal to you for your practical sympathy and active support for the demand of a separate Federation - a matter of life and death for the Muslims of India - as outlined and explained below.

India, constituted as it is at the present moment, is not the name of one single country; nor the home of one single nation. It is, in fact, the designation of a State created for the first time in history, by the British. It includes peoples who have never previously formed part of India at any period in its history; but who have, on the other hand, from the dawn of history till the advent of the British, possessed and retained distinct nationalities of their own.

In the five Northern Provinces of India, out of a total population of about forty millions, we, the Muslims, contribute about 30 millions. Our religion, culture, history, tradition, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are basically and fundamentally different from those of the people living in the rest of India. The ideals which move our thirty million brethren-in-faith living in these provinces to make the highest sacrifices are fundamentally different from those which inspire the Hindus. These differences are not confined to the broad basic principles - far from it. They extend to the minutest details of our lives. We do not inter-dine; we do not inter-marry. Our national customs, calendars, even our diet and dress are different.

It is preposterous to compare, as some superficial observers do, the differences between Muslims and Hindus with those between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Both the Catholics and Protestants are part and parcel of one religious system - Christianity; while the Hindus and Muslims are the followers of two essentially and fundamentally different religious systems. Religion in the case of Muslims and Hindus is not a matter of private opinion as it is in the case of Christians; but on the other hand constitutes a Civic Church which lays down a code of conduct to be observed by their adherents from birth to death.

If we, the Muslims of Pakstan, with our distinct marks of nationality, are deluded into the proposed Indian Federation by friends or foes, we are reduced to a minority of one to four. It is this which sounds the death-knell of the Muslim nation in India for ever. To realise the full magnitude of this impending catastrophe, let us remind you that we thirty millions constitute about one-tenth of whole Muslim world. The total area of the five units comprising PAKSTAN, which are our homelands, is four times that of Italy, three times that of Germany and twice that of France; and our population seven times that of the Commonwealth of Australia, four times that of the Dominion of Canada, twice that of Spain, and equal to France and Italy considered individually.

These are facts - hard facts and realities - which we challenge anybody to contradict. It is on the basis of these facts that we make bold to assert without the least fear of contradiction that we, Muslims of PAKSTAN, do possess a separate and distinct nationality from the rest of India, where the Hindu nation lives and has every right to live. We, therefore, deserve and must demand the recognition of a separate national status by the grant of a separate Federal Constitution from the rest of India.

In addressing this appeal to the Muslims of India, we are also addressing it to the two other great interests - British and Hindu - involved in the settlement of India's future. They must understand that in our conviction our body and soul are at stake. Our very being and well-being depends upon it. For our five great Northern states to join an All-India Federation would be disastrous, not only to ourselves, but to every other race and interest in India, including the British and the Hindu.

This is more especially true when there is just and reasonable alternative to the proposed settlement, which will lay the foundations of a peaceful future for this great continent; and should certainly allow of the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another. This alternative is a separate Federation of these five predominantly (sic) Muslim units - Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.

The Muslim Federation of North-West India would provide the bulwark of a buffer state against any invasion either of ideas or arms from outside. The creation of such a Federation would not materially disturb the ratio of the Muslim and Hindu population in the rest of India. It is wholly to the interest of British and Hindu statesmanship to have an ally a free, powerful and contented Muslim nation having a similar but separate Constitution to that which is being enacted for the rest of India. Nothing but a separate Federation of homelands would satisfy us.

This demand is basically different from the suggestion put forward by Doctor Mohammed Iqbal in his Presidential address to the All-India Muslim League in 1930. While he proposed the amalgamation of the provinces into a single state forming a unit of the All-India Federation, we propose that these Provinces should have a separate Federation of their own. There can be no peace and tranquility in the land if we, the Muslims, are duped into a Hindu-dominated Federation where we cannot be the masters of our own destiny and captains of our own souls.

Do the safeguards provided for in the Constitution give us any scope to work for our salvation along our own lines? Not a bit. Safeguard is the magic word which holds our leaders spellbound, and has dulled their consciences. In the ecstasy of their hallucinations they think that the pills of safeguards can cure nation-annihilating earthquakes. Safeguards asked for by these leaders and agreed to by the makers of the Constitution can never be a substitute for the loss of separate nationality. We, the Muslims, shall have to fight the course of suicidal insanity to death.

What safeguards can be devised to prevent our minority of one in four in an All-India Federation from being sacrificed on every vital issue to the aims and interests of the majority race, which differs from us in every essential of individual and corporate life? What safeguards can prevent the catastrophe of the Muslim nation smarting and suffering eternally at the frustration of its every social and religious ideal? What safeguards can compensate our nation awakened to its national conscious for the destruction of its distinct national status? However effective and extensive the safeguards may be, the vital organs and proud symbols of our national life, such as army and navy, foreign relations, trade and commerce, communications, posts and telegraphs, taxation and customs, will not be under our control, but will be in the hands of a Federal Government, which is bound to be overwhelmingly Hindu. With all this, how can we, the Muslims, achieve any of our ideals if those ideals conflict - conflict as they must - with the ideals of Hindus?

The history of the last century, in this respect, is full of unforgettable lessons for us. Even one who runs may read them. To take just one instance. Despite all these safeguards and gurantees we have enjoyed in the past, the very name of our national language - URDU, even now the lingua franca of that great continent - has been wiped out of the list of Indian languages. We have just to open the latest census report to verify it. This by itself is a tragic fall. Are we fated to fall farther? But that too is dust in the scales by comparison with the tremendous national issues involving our whole future as a nation and a power not only India but also in the whole of Asia.

In the face of these incontrovertible facts, we are entitled to ask for what purpose we are being asked to make the supreme sacrifice of surrendering our nationality and submitting ourselves and our posterity to Non-Muslm domination? What good is likely to accrue to Islam and Muslims by going into the Federation is a thing which passes our understanding. Are we to be crucified just to save the faces of our leaders or to bolster up the preposterous that India can be a single nation? Is it with a view to achieve a compromise at all costs, or is it to support the illusion that Hindu nationalism is working in the interests of Muslims as well as Hindus? Irony is flattered to death by a mental muddle of such a nature and on such a scale. We have suffered in the past without a murmur and faced dangers without demur. The one thing we would never suffer is our own strangulation. We will not crucify ourselves upon the cross of Hindu nationalism in order to make a Hindu-holiday.

May we be permitted to ask of all those statesmen - Muslim or British or Hindu - supporting the Federal Constitution, if it is really desirable to make our nation sacrifice all that Islam has given us during the last fourteen hundred years to make India a nation? Does humanity really stand to gain by this stupendous sacrifice? We dare say that still in Islam the ancient fire glows and promises much for the future, if only the leaders would let it live. Whilst in Europe, excluding Russia, in about the same area as that of India and with about the same population, there live and prosper as many as twenty-six nations, with one and the same religion, civilisation and economic system, surely it is not only possible but highly desirable for two fundamentally different and distinct nations, i.e. Muslim and Hindu, to live as friendly neighbours in peace and prosperity in that vast continent. What bitter irony is it that our leaders have not the courage to stand up and demand the minimum for our political salvation.

We are face to face with a first-rate tragedy, the like of which has not been seen in the long and eventful history of Islam. It is not the question of a sect or of a community going down; but it is the supreme problem which affects the destiny of the whole of Islam and the millions of human beings who, till quite recently, were the custodians of the glory of Islam in India and the defenders of its frontiers. We have a still greater future before us, if only our soul can be saved from the perpetual bondage of slavery forged in an All-India Federation. Let us make no mistake about it. The issue is now or never. Either we live or perish for ever. The future is ours only if we live up to our faith. It does not lie in the lap of the gods, but it rests in our own hands. We can make or mar it. The history of the last century is full of open warnings, and they are as plain as were ever given to any nation. Shall it be said of us that we ignored all these warnings and allowed our ancient heritage to perish in our hands?

Rahmat Ali (Choudhary). Mohd Aslam Khan (Khattak). President, Khyber Union. Sheikh Mohd Sadiq (Sahibzada). Inayat Ullah Khan (of Charsaddah). Secretary, Khyber Unionsee,

like i said: knowing who you are makes you strong. it makes you able to talk like that. and then work for 15 years to make it happen. along comes a problem, you think about what it is and what it means and the failures of your leaders to deal with it, then you come up with a solution of your own, and finally you organize to achieve your goal.Anyways... After 9-11 some of our community's best thinkers called for a pause to reflect upon what had happened and what it means, rather then react. I agreed with it, and I still think was good. And in the past few years our generation has produced much thought about the issue of a Muslim American identity and challenges facing us as a minority community. I was lucky to be a part of one such group in Texas in the late 90's and a great discussion group after 9-11. Are we not DOING enough? maybe. but its not easy to fight for our rights if we are still in the middle of figuring out who we are, and especially if the majority of us are not being threathened in direct ways. Graffiti on 1 mosque out of 10 in a city is not like all ten burning. Would we be going about our usual routine if that happened? Are we up to the challenge if things get that bad? I think we are... at least I am.

a missed opportunity

I had a very interesting discussion with a friend last weekend. He's a lawyer and an activist. When the Pakistani ambassador was in town, he was going to ask the ambassador to assist in the defence of Pakistanis threatened with deportation. Anyways, I asked him how that meeting had gone, and during the conversation he started talking about the post 9-11 environment in general. He feels that when we look back at this time, we will realize that our generation missed an opportunity to make a real change for Muslims in America. Government action after 9-11 should have motivated us into action, yet our generation did nothing. When historians look back, they will not see anything we did at this pivitol moment as having an impact on the course of this country. For example, from history, a young generation of indian muslims in the early part of the 20th century, facing a challenge very similar to our in terms of minority rights and cultural and religious identity started a movement that enventually led to the independance of india and pakistan. Will we be able to look back and see the start of any sort of movement that is working for a substantial change in our situation?

the rival caliph

here's a story about the most interesting period in Muslim history.
its a historical fiction based on real events:

The year is 73 After Hijra.
Its been 63 years since the Prophet died.
The rule of the Khalifa is firmly established in Egypt, Syria, and Persia.
And armies are poised to go eastward towards India and westward towards the Sahara

On a hill outside of a city, in a valley surrounded by dessert, a man and his young son dressed in white sit peacefully looking out at the graceful sand dunes. "SubhanAllah," he whispers to himself, "glory be to Allah," as he bears witness to the beauty of God's creation. Out in the distance, on the road that leads to to Medina, he sees a rider approaching on horseback kicking up a large trail of sand and dust. "He must be a messenger. He is coming towards the city at great speed. There must be some important information for the Khalifa," the father says to his son.

On the outskirts of the city, the rider races past groups of men dressed in the uniforms of the Khalifa's army. They are gathered together in their tribes with supplies being distributed. the commanders of these group are wearing a different color turbans than the rest. One of them calms his soldiers down,"Relax, that was a horse from the Khalifa's stable! There must be important news from Medina."

Inside the city, the call to prayer is being said for the Sunset prayer. the rider slows down as he passes groups of people dressed in white going the same direction that he is. The men in the group wear two white sheets, one wrapped around the lower body and another draped over the shoulder. They are all heading towards a large building in the center of town. "I guess the Khalifa is at the Sacred Mosque. That rider looked like one of his messengers," says one of the men to his wife. "I pray to God that everything is all right, he looked very upset," she replies.

The horse comes to a stop at one of the many doors to the Sacred Mosque. The messenger ties his horse to the post and enters the mosque uttering a short prayer in arabic. He is looking downward as he crosses the threshold, making sure that his right foot enters first. He looks up, and in front of him is the new rectangular building in the center of the mosque courtyard draped in a new cloth with arabic calligraphy. "Salam Alaykum," he says as he walks into mosque. "Wa Laykum asSalam," says an old man sitting nearby, looking up from his Qur'an and replying to the greeting of peace. The old man notices the troubled look on the messenger's face and says, "Oh it's not that bad young man, you know the Rasul said that if he had the chance, he would have expanded the Kaba onto the foundations of Prophet Ibrahim's original mosque. The Khalifa did a good thing here." "I'm not bothered by that sir, I worry about what might happen if the Banu Ummaya reach us again. Please pray for us," the messenger says, as he looks around scanning the mosque for any sign that the Khalifa is present. The old man nods yes and returns to reading his Qur'an.

The messenger walks into the courtyard and heads towards the usual place where the Khalifa sat with his ministers before they offered the Sunset prayers. As he comes close he hears a voice say from behind, "What news from Medina?" It is Khalifa Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. The fist length white hair on his beard are still wet as he returns from doing his wudu. "Sir, our army has retreated from the front lines. The Bedouin tribes that were going to help defend the city are surrendering. They have learned that Hajaj himself is commanding the invading army. The stories told by Iraqi refugees in the city have scared them. What do you command me to do, sir?" The Khalifa does not react to the bad news. And as the call to stand for prayer is made by the Muazzen, he looks into his messengers eyes and gives a reassuring smile. "Its time for Salah. Lets go pray Maghrib first, then we plan our defense of Mecca." As they walk towards the lines of worshippers circling the Kaba, the Khalifa says, "You were just a little boy when Banu Ummaya tried to invade us the last time, it back when I was elected Khalifa..."

flashback:
13 years ago, in the year 60 after hijra.

introduction-
The Khalifa Muawiya, who had ruled the Muslim ummah for 20 years had been sick and there were rumors floating around of his death. Muawiya had appointed a governor for Medina from among his clan, the Banu Ummaya and had made Damascus his capital. In his last visit to Medina he had asked his governor to gather the notable of the second generation and whoever remained of the Rasul's companions, and wanted them to pledge allegiance to his son Yazid as the next Khalifa. They had dismissed Muawiyas request and the Khalifa had returned to the Ummaya base of support in Syria to plan for his son to become his successor with or without them. Not much time had elapsed since this incident.

Inside the old Masjid Nabawi, amidst the palm trunk columns in the oldest parts of the mosque sat two groups of men. One group was around Husayn ibn Ali, grandson of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. In other group sat Abdullah ibn Zubayr, the first child born in Medina to the Muhajireen community from Mecca. Both Husayn and Abdullah father's were the Prophet's first cousins. Husayn's mother was the Prophet's daughter Fatima, and Abdullah's mother was AbuBakr's daughter Asma. By 60 AH the two of them had grown into the leaders of the 2nd generation Muslims of Medina.

A man entered the mosque and gave each of them a message, "the Governer summons you to the government house immediately to discuss an important matter." He conveyed the message and then left. Abdullah got up and walked over to Husayn and sat down next to him and said,"What do you think the governor wants?" "I don't know, maybe Muawiya really is dead and he wants us to give allegiance to Yazid." replied Husayn. "Are you going to go?" asked Abdullah. "yes, I want to see what he has to say." replied Husayn. Abdullah then said, "I'm not going to go, and I don't think you should either, we should get out of here. Since we don't plan on giving allegiance to Yazid we should go to Mecca. We can be protected at the Kaba." Saying this Abdullah got up, went back to his companions and left the mosque to make preparations to leave the city as soon as possible. Husayn got up and prepared his companions for the meeting with the governor...

chapter 1: meeting with the governor
chapter 2: Husayn to Karbala
chapter 3: IbnZubayr in Mecca
chapter 4: the rise of Marwan
chapter 5: the man named Hajaj
Final chapter: the defence of Mecca

privitization

there is violence in pakistan again, this time its different, its about who has power. ok ok its not different. but one of the background issues is different. in the case of the pakistan steel mill, the judge at the center of the storm suspended moves by the government towards privitization.

a government can:
1-develop an industry as a public institution to benefit its people.
2-make public a private institution to benefit its people.

but can it
3-privatize a public institution to benefit its people?

what does it mean to privatize?
it is a change of ownership.

right now the government manufactures steel and sells it to the poeple and the revenues (in theory) go towards maintaining and improving the government or that factory. there should theoretically be no profit motive other then the public good.

to give ownership to a corporation that protects its shareholders (a single person or collection of investor) from liability, and allow them to manufacture steel and sell it to the people for profit. to set a price that is determined by the law of supply and demand, which covers their costs for maintaining and improving the factory and allows them to make however much money they want for themselves.

of course the government will still be able to gain revenues by taxing the corporation. so there is no loss there as long as the tax is collected, of course the corporation simply passes on the cost of the tax to the people by raising the price. in the end the money goes to the government from the same source. the buyers of the steel. but if the owners made a profit for themselves the government can still get a portion of that money when it collects taxes from individual owners. in the end its the people who end up paying more for the steel in order for the corporation to make its proft.

this is true as long as there is only one steel mill and it is privately owned. but the people benefit when there is more then one and the steel mills have to compete for costomers. of course they can get together and fix the price so that they both benefit. but thats were the government comes in. it must allow for competition by breaking up monopolies and punish price fixing.

is this what will happen in Pakistan? i don't think the Pakistan Peoples Party thinks so. I met know supporters of the PPP who are against the privitization effort because they think it will only benefit the new owner. there is also an element of workers rights. employees of the steel mill are government employees and i guys that means they have some rights and job security, while employees at private corporations are vulnerable to decisions made to gain profit.

i think in theory they have a point. steel could be seen as public good, and the fact that there is only one mill means that this monopoly could set whatever price they want. and that the workers will not have the same benefits and job security they currently have.

but in reality they are assuming too much, they are assuming that the government is not corrupt in its operation of the mill, that money isn't already being made by those who are at the top, that the workers are not subjected to the will of the that the top official's cronies.

the biggest risk in privatization is that the quality will suffer because of the profit motive and the lack of competition. but this will only lead to another corporation making a mill that produces better steel. so while for the short term it will not be good, for the long term good of pakistani steel and manufacturing, privatization is the way to go. pakistan is too currupt for any public institution to live up to its maximum potential.

immigration

a few days ago i had a conversation with a friend about immigration.
i think there should be no immigration....

because...
i think there should be no border control.
lets take this idea of a global village a little further.

political borders are a good idea
-to define a sovereignty,
-to define a jurisdiction for the law,
-to define a place of identity,
-to define an area of service.
but that's it....

people should be allowed to come and go as they please.
people should be able to apply for citizenship.
and if they are granted citizenship then they get to participate in democratic control,

but regardless of them being citizens or not, if they choose to work within these borders then they have to pay taxes. employers can give them a pay check and if they don't have a social security number then instead of the usual payrol taxes that are cut for us citizens they would have their own tax which is cut from their paycheck. lets call this tax, a guest worker tax or something. maybe like 2.5 percent or so. half of which will go for us to maintain and protect this political entity and into a defence department fund to maintain military bases on US soil for self defence. and the other half would go into a trust fund that provides services to sick and poor guest workers who choose to live here but are unable to support themselves. like a network of government run shelters with clinics and soup kitchens and social workers.

if they choose to buy property in a city, they would still have to pay property taxes like everyone, to support the local government services. and utility bills like everyone, to pay for the infrastructure. and sales taxes like everyone, to support all sorts of things.

but until they apply for citizenship they don't get to vote for changes to the system.
but if they choose to enter our economic and our social environment they should be free to do so, we will be nothing but better for it.

what about those who want to harm us? what about security? I ask you, can we ever really be secure from those who want to harm us? if they want to do it badly enough they will ALWAYS find a way. This does not mean that we don't have a well funded and able military to defend us from an invading army, or that we don't fund an able military that can take another territory and make it a part of our nation if our elected representatives vote on it. But it does mean that we must control our behavior and be responsible for the actions we take around the world that make more enemies who will want to do us harm.

i wish we would deal with this situation realistically. we need immigrants. and security is an illusion. the only real way to be secure is to not feul hatred against us by wielding our power arrogantly.

only loneliness

at this moment i am alone in my room...

In the past I was in the company of many friends,
and i enjoyed it.
but occasionally...
the stress of a social life
and its responsibilities took its toll,

and there was a longing for solitude.
a break to be alone and contemplate,
a time of rest so that i can find that peaceful center within,
before returning to a social environment.

at this moment i am alone in my room.
For the past year i have been in the company of my wife,
and i enjoyed it.
but occasionally...
the stress of married life
and its responsibilities takes its toll,

and one would expect a longing for solitude.
i get a moment to be alone in my room...
...but there is no rest.
...and there is no peace.
...only loneliness.

i long for the company of my wife.
i have fallen in love with her.
i guess solitude is not for lovers.
she is my peaceful center within.

useless rebellion

there is news today of a renewed cycle of violence in palestine. israel bombed gaza in what it claims is retaliation to attacks and now hamas says that it will resume suicide bombings in israel. i don't understand the strategy of suicide bombings against civilians. i understand suicide missions against a military target, like a check post or guard tower or patrol or a base. that seems reasonable to me for a fight between unequals. but why civilians?

let me think this through out loud:

one national military vs. another national military
one offensive vs. one defensive
one winner and one loser
and after the peace talks
there is a new border

what should the losing national military do?
1-organize and fight a second round.
a chance for Egypt and Jordan to regain their territory

2-sign a peace deal and move on to other issues.
they have understood that they were the losers
and they are not strong enough to go head to head and win.
so they have sighed peace agreements.

what should the inhabitants of the defeated territory do?
how do you go from being powerless to having some power?

1-realize that they are residents of another country now.
they are lucky this is not the middle ages where they would have been sold into slavery, they have to realize that things will not be the same, there is a new master of the land now, a new king who has taken their land by force and they were not able to stop in war. they would have been begging for mercy and if granted would have tried to adapt to and take advantage of the new situation. but lucky for them, in our time, humanity has determined that there is something called human rights, and they can organize and try to establish some rights for themselves and try to become equal citizens of this new country that they belong to, become citizens of israel since they longer live in jordan(west bank) or egypt(gaza).

2-organize a rebellion against the new country and gain independence.
to force the new power out of the land that it conquered.
this is difficult if the new power's desire to retain the land is as strong as the inhabitants desire to expel them. israel's imperial agenda has a strong historical and religious component. making it quite monster to defeat.

How do you force an invader out?
1-organize, strategize, recruit fighters, train.
its not difficult if the new power is unjust, the people will find the rebellion and join it. but if it gives them rights, security, and opportunity for success, then a strong recruitment effort is needed, maybe even brainwashing to convince the recruits that things are not as good as they seem. but israel has not been a just conqueror, its every action in the conquered land breed new rebels.

2-take out its physical methods of control.
from within the conquered land and outside. maybe attack occupation forces, maybe attack check points, maybe attack supply chains. We have violent examples from the american revolution that show how to drive out an imperial power. We also have non-violent examples from the Indian revolution that demonstrate that we can disrupt control by not cooperating.

3-demoralize the enemy.
i think this is what the palestinians think suicide bombings will achieve. but its not the occupation military they wish to demoralize, its the citizens of the conquering nation. maybe it comes from a belief that the citizens are the source of strength for the enemy.

4-create an alternate government before Independence.
gain the support of the inhabitants and legitamacy to rule
its natural that there will be competing forces internally, and its natural that they will want to fight for control of the alternate government amongst themselves. but its a shame that they don't realized that their struggle for independence is not yet over.

so anyways i think they have a bad strategy to demoralize the enemy, it keeps making the enemy angry and fuels a desire for them to not only NOT give them independence, but to obliterate them in anger. imagine if the world wasn't watching.

courage and action

today i added some more items i wrote during my fight to save my badai abbu. they date from 9-6 to 9-9 of 2006. Here's a follow up on what happened.

He died a few days after i set up the nurse.

After hiring a nurse and making sure that the family allowed him to attend to my uncle, i was informed by the nurse that a doctor should come and do some testing. the results were not good. it was basically too late and his deterioration was too far along, and there were signs of potential organ failure. nothing much could be done other then to comfort him and care for him, which the nurse did.

I got a call from my cousin informing me of his death a couple days after I had returned to Islamabad. I flew back to karachi as soon as I could and was able to attend his funeral prayer, carry his casket to the grave, and bury him myself.

Was it worth it?

the family relations will never be the same.
i will meet them when i go back in a few weeks. it will be awkward for me. i can't smile and pretend that it never happened. but i will drop by to say salam and see how everything is going. they are also my relatives. and if my actions for my uncle were based upon some sort of duty towards family, i'm sure that some sort of duty towards my aunt and cousins is still in effect. but i have'nt thought about what that duty is.

its when family fails to take care one of its own that any outside body should interfere. I now understand a real reason how a family can fall apart. will i be that member of my family that fails to take care of his own because of how they reacted to my actions? or will they fail to come to my aid in times of trouble because of my actions towards them?

I don't know.
I pray i'm able to rise above.
I pray i'm able to live up to the ideals i set for myself.
InshaAllah I will.

so was it worth it? of course it was. the future will present its own challenges. our action in the present is what defines us. simply taking action defines us as courageous people. and if those actions are based upon right principles and solid morals then we can define ourselves as principled and moral people. it would be a shame to look back at those times when we failed to act and realise that we were nothing but cowards. i'm glad I have a brother who helped me rise to the challenge and overcome my fear of action in that trying time. In the end, its the immediate family that one must count on, and I thank Allah for a brother like Fawad.

connecting to our roots

I had an idea a few years ago while I was an advisor of Muslim Youth of North America. There had been a trip to China led by Dr. Umar Farooq Abdallah. It was a tour of Muslim China. I thought it was a great idea. I thought that there should be more tours to places of importance to Muslim history led by scholars. It would be great for American high school age Muslims who need to connect to and develop a sense pride in a Muslim Identity.

Its not just simply an ignorance of Muslim History that can be remedied by a class or lecture. Its tough growing up as part of a minority that is often vilified. It leads to a desire to deny that identity. Nobody wants to be an outcast, especially a youth. What can be done to replace a desire to deny it with a desire to belong to it? Maybe a fun trip that allows a youth to experience the beauty and achievements of Muslim history.

This idea came back to me while I was listening to the Pakistani ambassador. I thought of making a much narrower focus of the trip. I think I can design a tour for the children of Indian and Pakistani-Americans. I was thinking about my daughter, and how the more removed we get from the country of origin, the more difficult it is to connect to that aspect of our identity. A cultural festival or sattelite TV or a family wedding can only do so much. Unless the youth actually visits the motherland and beholds its achievements as well as its failures, that identity will be superficial. And most likely will not be passed on to the generation to come.

My family was able to go often. I think I know my roots. Not many are as lucky. What if they don't have the means? What if they can only go once in their life? Well, that trip better be a good one, especially if its at the right age when a youth that belongs to a minority is going through an inner struggle to sort an identity. It would be an awesome service. I think I put together something like this for the newly reinstated Pakistan Culture Society as long as the Ambassador can help with some logistical support.

pakistani-american

I am never too far from the issue of identity.
Who am I? What am I? etc.

my biology based personal, family, and ethnic identity:
i am the father of Maha, the man named Asad, the son of Hamid, from the clan of Siddiquis, of North Indian Arabs.

my value based religious and sectarian identity:
i am Asad the anarcho-Sufi wannabe, Traditionally Sunni raised, Reform minded Muslim.

my professional and educational identity:
i am Asad the Associate Architect, Chairman of the Board, and Teacher

political and geographic identity:
Asad the...

this is an important one because our geo-political environment has a big impact on our culture. it goes far beyond just issues of citizenship and civic rights and social responsibilities. it is a very important part of our identity. our environment plays a role on the the language we speak, food we eat, the clothes we wear, the houses we live in.

I think about my parents, my wife, my daughter...

hmmm...
You can be a Pakistani and you can be an American.

and you can be an American-Pakistani like my wife.
She is a Pakistani, but one that happens to reside in America.

and you can be a Pakistani-American like my daughter.
She is an American, who's mother is Pakistani.

but what am I?
my parents were born in India, and became Pakistanis, only later to move to US and become Americans. Did they cease being Pakistani-Americans when they gave up their Pakistani citizenship? No! Being Pakistani meant something other then just citizenship or a place of birth to them. Maybe its about a connection to a place where you spend your formative years.

I wonder they ceased being Indian when they became Pakistanis? In that case they could have also chosen to cease being Pakistani when they became Americans. But they did not do that. They retained a connection to India. eventhough they did not call themselves Indian-Pakistanis. Their immigrant identity was important to them, but their pride in their new country of citizenship was even more important.

Eventually they ended up in America. and while their latest immigrant identity is important to them, I wonder if it is superseded by pride in their latest country of citizenship? They have lived longer here in America then either India or Pakistan. At what point does someone Become just an American like they became just a Pakistani?

Its a strange sort of pride that i still don't fully understand. Its a fondness for an idea that never became fully realized. They are proud of being Pakistani, eventhough they were not born there, and they hate its politics, they hate its corruption. My father chose to give up on Pakistan for the sake of a better job. I don't know if he thought much about these issues of identity in such abstact theoretical ways. He was much more ambivelent to these things, he moved around all his life. He just lived life, he was happy simply Hamid the owner of All State. My mother on the other hand grew up in Karachi and only moved here because her husband lived here, so I can understand her attachment to the country she grew up in.

So what am I?
I was born in and grew up in Hialeah. So a Hialean?
or am I an Indian-Pakistani-American from Hialeah?
or a Pakistani-American?
or a just an American?

I am NONE of the above and ALL of the above.
call me Abu Maha ibn Hamid Siddiqui al Hialeahi

the honorable mr. so and so

For the past couple of days Pakistan's ambassador to the US had been in here South Florida. I was invited to attend a few of the events surrounding his visit. Its interesting how people use these moments of proximity to those in power. Some are there purely for the photo op, for a chance to prove to themselves that they are not completely insignificant.

Others use it as an opportunity to be significant, some will vent frustration about broad issues like corruption or injustice or poverty or human rights or development, as if this guy will go back to his superiors and say:
"mr.president a nice lady in miami who i have never met before has informed me of such and such, and i heard the same complaint in some of the other cities i visited, i think we must take action now."

Wouldn't it be great if it was that easy!

Some will try to get a commitment for action on a particular situation. Like my friend the attorney, defending Pakistanis who the US government is trying to deport. Why is it that the Saudi Embassy will fight very hard to defend its citizens in such cases, yet Pakistan will allow Immigration agents to split up families and deport them with no cause, without any significant involvement from the embassy.

As if the role of Ambassador does not include serving Pakistani citizens, and just be the good yes man "they" want him to be.

It brings up a good question.
Why would he risk his status? Would I if i was in his position?

I was invited to these events yet I chose just to observe, I did not say anything. Would I take advantage of my proximity to take action on a cause, and risk the displeasure of the powerful, and risk not being invited to sit at their table. But those are just assumptions I am making. Assumptions based on either a fear of the unknown or a desire to continue feeling important because I'm one of the few invited to attend the party. Maybe the powerful would not take displeasure at my action, maybe the powerful would still keep me at my rank.

But in the end who cares what the powerful think or what happens to me. Maybe the cause is more important. And to miss an opportunity to take action is proof of my uselessness and the meaninglessness of my rank.

More important then to achieve a high rank or a seat at the table, is to use that rank and that proximity to help others. Its in helping others, in that self sacrifice, that we gain real respect from others. And even if I were removed from my position, I would still retain the real power that comes when people respect you, admire you, and turn to you in times of need.
I pray that the Ambassador realizes his true potential.

hijab is fard?

In the panel discussion at Georgetown, during the question and answer portion of the program, an older turkish lady came to the mic and stated her opinion about how surprised she was with American religiousness when she first arrived in this country from her own secular Turkey. Then she went on to express her views about islam. She mentioned that she had read everywhere in the Quran and did not find that the hijab was required, and also feared the rise of the extremists who advocate the hijab.

One of the panelists was the first female president of MSA. She chose to reply to this older turkish woman by mentioning how much she respected women with other opinions and was not out to force anyone to do anything, unlike the Turkish government. Which is pushing its anti-hijab policy on students who cover. Of course, she said this very passionately, and drew applause from the audience. The old turkish lady tryed to say something in return but never got a chance, the young activist went on with her comments about rights, freedom, and tolerance.

During the next question, the old lady decided to leave the hall. She looked like someone who no longer felt comfortable in the gathering. I wish the young activist had shown more understanding towards this lady. The view she expressed is held by many people. Yes, while this young activist may have learned to respect those who read the Quran and find that hijab is not required, this is not the case with many of the religious zealots. They view the non-wearing of the hijab as a sin. They do not tolerate another opinion on the subject.

A good example is a guy I met that night at my friends house. We endedup having a long conversation about this subject. He was not willing to acknowledge any other opinion then the wearing of hijab as a fundamental part of religion. It led to a very interesting conversation.

I said that it could be possible to hold another opinion.
He said no, that hijab is a matter of consensus.
I asked him who he was talking about.
I mentioned that nothing in Islam has ever had consensus,
of course, I had to clarify this... "other then the very basic of things like the fact that Muslims must pray, and fast, and give charity." On every other subject, muslims have disagreed. They even disagreed on what it meant to have consensus. So I asked him what sholars is he refering to? Because if he is stating that something is fundamental requirement of the religion, a FARD, the burden is on him to prove it. To say something is fard is very serious.

I mentioned the fact that the same scholars he was refering to (but could not name) divided the issues into matters of Usul and matters of Furu. The fundamentals of the religion and the details of the religion. And they even differed with each other on the meaning of these categories, nevermind the disagreements on what the categories contained. Does Usul refer to the principle beliefs (aqida) and Furu refer to the religious laws (fiqh); is Usul about methodology, or maybe its about the general law and Furu refer to the technicalities of that general law. Anyways, I brought this up to him to demonstrate the fact that he should NOT just dismiss my claims with a statement like "but there is consensus." He should know what he is talking about.

The Turkish lady should have been shown more respect. As young activists we grew up unaware of what the caliphate had degenerated into and what it must have taken to create a new nation out of the ashes of the first World War. And while we can condemn the zealot secularist, we should not forget to acknowledge the existence of zealot revivalists. We must advocate for understanding, and tolerance on all sides.

the opposite sex

I got a call from my cousin today asking me about my thoughts on the issue of hanging out with the opposite sex. I've had a different upbringing then most in the mainstream. When I was growing up, I never had female friends with whom I hung out. My friends, those whom I chose to be my companions, were boys...

whether in my schools, in my neighborhood of Palm Springs Hialeah, in my immigrant community of Pakistanis, or in my religious minority community of Muslims... All boys!

Why no girls? well its complicated. Of course girls were around. But, I never considered them as my friends. Thinking back on it now, I guess I put them into other categories.
1)family
2)friends of my sister, or sisters of my friends
3)colleagues in my classes or youth organizations

but there was no forth category of:
4)girls I chose to be my friends

not until college. and even then I found it very awkward to deal with girls as friends. I would not know how to talk around them, or how to compose myself around them.

Why? Maybe because of my involvement in youth groups that taught us to constantly be on guard with the opposite sex. Maybe because of the way my mother raised me. But, I can't really remember any instance of my mother telling me not to make friends with a girl. I don't understand why I didn't. I got involved in youth groups at an early age. Religious modesty and rules of interaction were matters of dogma that were ingrained in me.

I guess I was always conscious of the fact that they were female. I guess I would identify their sex before I would identify them as who they were. I'm sure my body language conveyed a message that I was uncomfortable with them. I guess thats why they didn't like me very much. At least thats what I hear from those who knew me in college. My inability to feel comfortable around women extended into any conversations I would have with potential fiances. Anyways, towards the end of my stay in Austin, I began to open up a little. And included some girls into my circle of friends.

My background has put me in a disadvantage. And I'm sure some uneasyness will show itself in any interactions I will have with professional architecture colleages. I still feel awkward making friends with a woman. And the only woman I really hung out with is my wife. And the real hanging out happened after we got married.

truth of love

Last night I sat in a bookstore cafe reading a book called "crouching father, hidden daughter". As I drove home, I thought about my understanding of love. It keeps evolving. I wondered if there are really different types of love or if these are just different degrees of this one thing. I wondered about my love for my mother, my grandmother, my sisters, my wife, and now my daughter. Is it different for each? I don't think I've come to any conclusion yet, but I do think that my love for my wife has a unique place. My mother and grandmother have worked their magic since I was born, and my sisters and daughter have worked their magic since they were born. Those relationships CHOSE me, they were not chosen BY me. I have chosen to have a relationship with my wife. And I wonder if an emotional connection based on choice is different from those based on birth.... Anyways, I learned the truth of this: with any relationship involving love (any type and/or degree), there are two players involved, the lover and the beloved. And when a lover acts lovingly to the beloved, the beloved starts to love the lover in return. So, while there is nothing in this world like a feeling of love for a beloved, it is action that takes us to the ultimate station of existence. A Lover who is Loved in return.

I ain't No Goofy Soofy

Last week I attended an event at Georgetown University. It was about Islam in America, and the panel included prominent journalists, scholars, and leaders. But there was one panelist who was different from the rest and can be identified with Pakistan more than America. It was Salman Ahmad from the Pakistani Rock group Junoon. Apperently he is in the US now and from a look at his web site it appears he is teaching and keeping himself very busy spreading the word of peace and unity.

I like him. I think his work is great. But I think he could be much more powerful and influential if he backed up some of his claims about sufism with more scholarship. It would just take a couple of books for him to add depth to anything he says about the subject of mystism, music, poetry, and Bulleh Shah.

He says that he is inspired by the sufi poet Bulleh Shah and Sufi Islam. But he seems to display a lack of knowledge about the subject when he speaks. Especially when its to a university crowd or sitting among scholars who may have read up on the subject.

What is his Bulleh Shah's Sufi Islam. He seems to put it at odds with the Islam taught by the Mullahs. I define Islam a submitting to the will of Allah, and when one submits the self ceases to exist. this denial of self can take many forms, one form is the intensely experience based self sacrifice of those called sufis, where remembrance of the divine leads to a self awareness that one is nothing, that there is nothing real, nothing worthy of recognition but Allah. The life of the sufi becomes a series of emotional, experience oriented actions that continue to reinforce this awareness. Yes, This is Islam, this is submission to Allah.

On the other hand, there is the form of submission that recognizes that Allah is not just Real and worthy of recognition and awareness, but that Allah has also given us a revelation composed of words that teach us how to deny our self. That by denying our desire to do what we want and instead do what Allah tells us to do in his revelation, Is this not also Self sacrifice? So is this not also Islam? Yes, This is Islam, this is submission to Allah.

Salman seems to pit these two forms of Islam against each other when he speaks about the subject. I wonder if he is aware of those who have mastered both forms of submission. I think he is.

What he fails to mention is that the Sufi Islam he refers to is actually a form of submission of a specific group of sufis. He should not try to speak for all sufis. he should say that he follows a way of Islam that was practiced by the Qalandars. I love the Qalandars, they are my heroes as well. They are revolutionaries who do not deny Allah, or his Revelation, but deny the authoritarian human who claims to be the advocate of Allah. The Qalandar followed his own path towards the Divine Beloved. This did not mean he violated the revelation. It only meant that he denied the extreme adhereance to ritual and form. His was a life of meditation and contemplation that led to expressions of His love of Allah in any form: the poetry of Baba Bulleh Shah, the dance of Lal Shahbazz, or the philosophical writings of Fakruddin.

To simplify the way of the Qalandar and turn it into sweeping generalizations about Sufi Islam versus Mullah Islam is to miss the point and would make many Sufi Scholars of Mullah Islam lower there head and feel pity at his ignorance.

a new post!!!

its been a while...
so at my wifes request,
i will try to start posting again.

there is much that has happened since the last post.
three words: MAHA SUMR SIDDIQUI


my incredibly cute little baby girl with the chubbiest cheeks.
MASHALLAH!!

She also has a powerful leg slam.
MASHALLAH!!

INSHALLAH,
she will be great at soccer and martial arts.