On the drive to the airport our conversation turned to hijab...
it was triggered by a news report about a seller of hijab in jordan who said that those who wear it for fashion are too picky, they apperently want colors he does not have.
she was told by someone in miami that there are girls here too that wear it for fashion.
I said that there IS a difference between those who wear it because their older sisters were wearing it and those older sisters who decided to put it on for some reason. for some of the younger ones, its just another thing they grew up wearing, and the more fashion concious they get, the more fashionable the hijab gets. for some of the older ones its based on a search for identity and belonging, or a choice for modesty, or both.
I said we grow up here without a connection to a historical tradition of modest dress or hair covering, and those among us who desire to be as modest as God wants us to are left to read the original sources for our selves and figure out how to dress appropriately.
It just so happened that this vacuum was filled by revivalist arabs from the middle east who wore their head coverings in a particular way and called it the "hijab" or the "kufi". Not the "dupata" or the "topee".
The idea of covering the head as a traditional form of modesty goes all the way back to the Prophet. My mother mentioned that in Badaun, even to this day the men do not leave the house unless there is something on the head. Covering the head is a method of showing of respect and humbleness.
For the Women its a slightly different issue. My mother mentioned that modest loose fitting dress is what is most important, and it is what she made my sisters wear, and she would give them a scarf to place around the neck as an extra form of modesty.
She mentioned that when she came to america she did not wear the hijab. But she always had a dupatta as a extra piece of garment thrown over the bossom for modesty. And could be used to cover the hair when it was time to pray, or at times when it was important to humble oneself and show respect to the recitation of God's Word.
She said that it was an arab girl who first showed her the "hijab". she needed a place to stay during a break in university, and while living with us, she mentioned to my mother the places in the Quran where modest dress is mentioned, and how important it is for muslims in America to dress accordingly. My mother agreed. My mother said her father had always asked her to dress modestly. She even made a loose coat for herself for whever she would go out to university and along with the coat would be a dupata. But the dupata styles changed over time to the point that it was very hard for her to use. The dupata became more of a fashion statement.
My mother said that in the past, it wasn't like the dupatta was not fashionable, it was. There was a form of seclusion of women in society that allowed them to be very fashionable when they were among themselves and with their family in the "zenana", and they would go out in public with a "burqa" garment that could provide the necessary form of modesy as they went from zenana to zenana. Even the rickshas were covered to allow them to travel in seclusion. (the reasons and meaning of the seclusion of women to this extent is another topic). And, to this day, my grandmother wears a loose black burqa robe over her stylish dress when she goes outside. (wearing the burqa does not mean she wears a "niqab" to cover her face. my grandmother does not veil her face.)
Over time the notions of social modesty changed and the secluded zenana and concealing burqa became a thing of the past (or the "backward" as its critics might suggest) For people like my mother it made things challenging. She grew up in a family that valued traditional forms of modesty. For people like her, the fashions became too modern for her to follow. And in America, she had to resist the peer pressure of discarding the dupata entirely. She had to figure out how to be both, fashionable and modest. gone were the days of not worrying about modesty in fashion because they had a secluded zenana or burqa or loose long coat to wear outside. She even had to give up on dupata fashions and just wear an older style dupata or a nice scarf thrown over her shoulders.
it didn't help that my younger brother and sister would throw it off or remove it easily while they were in her arms. And when my sister and I got involved in muslim youth activities in the early 90's, my mother reconnected with the head covering called hijab she was shown many years earlier and how it was worn so confortably and stayed in place regardless of the kid in her arms... and so she started wearing it. and was emboldened when her own daughters started wearing it.
Friday, February 29, 2008
if i was on the Hialeah city council...
Among the issues that affect the prosperity of any city is the ability of that city to retain its citizenry, its businesses, and its industries. Its the citizens who live and work there that provide the taxes necessary for its survival. And its the citizens who give the city a reason to be.
So there are two categories of things that must be analyzed.
1- what can keep the citizens from leaving, and
2- what can drive them away
What can keep residents put can be simply stated as happiness.
What can keep businesses put can be simply stated as profitability.
What can keep industries put can be simply stated as a workforce.
the opposite of these can drive them away.
all of these are inter-related.
Now lets look at some major causes of unhappiness for citizen of my city:
-some high cost of living expenses like housing, food, & transportation
-low wages
-high property taxes
-lack of recreational and entertainment opportunities
the wages they earn are directly related to the issue of profitability of businesses.
the wages they earn are also directly related to them seeking to be a part of the local workforce.
It might be hard for a city government to control the prices of homes on the market, or the cost of milk on the grocery shelves, or gas at the pump. But, aside from these cost of living issues, there is much our city government can do to help local business stay profitable leading to higher wages, and help local industries find a trained workforce. And, for sure our city government can reduce property taxes and provide clean parks and recreation facilities.
Here's my idea:
How about we encourage local residents to work locally. It will reduce their transportation costs for sure. The encouragement can come in the form of an annual reward. A citizen can fill out a form with proof of residence and proof of employment and choose a reward that works best form them. One example of a reward that will also helps a local business includes a one-year free basic membership to a local gym. another is a discount on your property taxes if you own your property. another discount on property taxes can be given to those who live in the property they own. another can be given if the own a residential and a commercial or industrial property. another can be given if they own a residential property and own a local business.
Yes, these discounts may reduce the amount of money available for the city government...
So.. it does mean that the city would have to reduce some of its fat, become a little leaner. lets concentrate on the basics: sanitation, water&sewer, streets, police and firefighters. lets streamline the bureaucracy.
Our city is pretty much built out, and our goal is to keep the businesses and residents from leaving, so lets encourage them to make renovations and improvements on existing property. lets cut the requirements to upgrade an existing property to a minimum. just structural and safety related issues and design assistance when they run into problems with plan reviewers and inspectors.
We have a branch of the community college so lets encourage our local business to recruit a local workforce and give them incentives like waiving certain fees and free advertising on the city website or free banners on park fences if they do. And we can arrange for local students to get free tutoring through volunteers at the college or high schools. Or help the students at the community college get internships with our local businesses.
There is no shortage of ideas on how retain people and get them to spend in our city. And the above ideas will bring in people and business from outside of the city. So, while there may be a short term loss in revenue it will be offset with long term gains due to higher property values and more businesses and residents paying for permits to expand and grow.
Another problem our city faced in the 80s was the phenominom of "white flight". Over the past couple of decades our city has taken on a latin flavor and a brown skin tone that comes from genetics and not tanning. Well, there are very few whites to flee now. But I do not underestimate the power of America to assimilate its inhabitants. And in the process making itself culturally much richer. This will happen in our city too, if the current residents stay here. The children growing up cities and in our schools are bi-lingual, and while their parents or grandperents might not know english, they do. As long as these people do not move away, we will see a return to the use of english in most interactions over the next 20 years. If we keep our property taxes low and show the residents that there is no reason to leave. then the assimilation will continue. But if there is a constant turn around, with those who are able to move on, leaving to other cities rahter then expanding their roots here, and we have a city of mosty new immigrants, then not only is there no assimilation, but there is no growth. I think new immigrants benefit in a community where they have to interact with local residents who have an established local culture. And it is a good thing for us that our established local culture is no longer based on white nuclear families, we are much more dynamic now.
So there are two categories of things that must be analyzed.
1- what can keep the citizens from leaving, and
2- what can drive them away
What can keep residents put can be simply stated as happiness.
What can keep businesses put can be simply stated as profitability.
What can keep industries put can be simply stated as a workforce.
the opposite of these can drive them away.
all of these are inter-related.
Now lets look at some major causes of unhappiness for citizen of my city:
-some high cost of living expenses like housing, food, & transportation
-low wages
-high property taxes
-lack of recreational and entertainment opportunities
the wages they earn are directly related to the issue of profitability of businesses.
the wages they earn are also directly related to them seeking to be a part of the local workforce.
It might be hard for a city government to control the prices of homes on the market, or the cost of milk on the grocery shelves, or gas at the pump. But, aside from these cost of living issues, there is much our city government can do to help local business stay profitable leading to higher wages, and help local industries find a trained workforce. And, for sure our city government can reduce property taxes and provide clean parks and recreation facilities.
Here's my idea:
How about we encourage local residents to work locally. It will reduce their transportation costs for sure. The encouragement can come in the form of an annual reward. A citizen can fill out a form with proof of residence and proof of employment and choose a reward that works best form them. One example of a reward that will also helps a local business includes a one-year free basic membership to a local gym. another is a discount on your property taxes if you own your property. another discount on property taxes can be given to those who live in the property they own. another can be given if the own a residential and a commercial or industrial property. another can be given if they own a residential property and own a local business.
Yes, these discounts may reduce the amount of money available for the city government...
So.. it does mean that the city would have to reduce some of its fat, become a little leaner. lets concentrate on the basics: sanitation, water&sewer, streets, police and firefighters. lets streamline the bureaucracy.
Our city is pretty much built out, and our goal is to keep the businesses and residents from leaving, so lets encourage them to make renovations and improvements on existing property. lets cut the requirements to upgrade an existing property to a minimum. just structural and safety related issues and design assistance when they run into problems with plan reviewers and inspectors.
We have a branch of the community college so lets encourage our local business to recruit a local workforce and give them incentives like waiving certain fees and free advertising on the city website or free banners on park fences if they do. And we can arrange for local students to get free tutoring through volunteers at the college or high schools. Or help the students at the community college get internships with our local businesses.
There is no shortage of ideas on how retain people and get them to spend in our city. And the above ideas will bring in people and business from outside of the city. So, while there may be a short term loss in revenue it will be offset with long term gains due to higher property values and more businesses and residents paying for permits to expand and grow.
Another problem our city faced in the 80s was the phenominom of "white flight". Over the past couple of decades our city has taken on a latin flavor and a brown skin tone that comes from genetics and not tanning. Well, there are very few whites to flee now. But I do not underestimate the power of America to assimilate its inhabitants. And in the process making itself culturally much richer. This will happen in our city too, if the current residents stay here. The children growing up cities and in our schools are bi-lingual, and while their parents or grandperents might not know english, they do. As long as these people do not move away, we will see a return to the use of english in most interactions over the next 20 years. If we keep our property taxes low and show the residents that there is no reason to leave. then the assimilation will continue. But if there is a constant turn around, with those who are able to move on, leaving to other cities rahter then expanding their roots here, and we have a city of mosty new immigrants, then not only is there no assimilation, but there is no growth. I think new immigrants benefit in a community where they have to interact with local residents who have an established local culture. And it is a good thing for us that our established local culture is no longer based on white nuclear families, we are much more dynamic now.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
getting out of iraq
I kind of go back and forth on whether we should get out of iraq. Sometimes i think that we are a superpower trying to build an empire and should act like one, we can decide to take control of anyone we want (of course they have a right to fight us for it), and considering that we can learn from the mistakes of our english colonial masters, and use international agencies like the UN along with powerful international corporations to develop our new territory, WHY NOT? Its still not too late. If we want to continue the mission, lets recruit/draft and train all able bodied men to fight and win and provide real security for the army of developers to enter. BUT...
today i was looking at some of the videos our soldiers have shot while on duty in iraq. Its quite disturbing. Our men have: a macho attitude, a wildwest cowboy lawlessness, a bloodlust - the pleasure from killing and destroying. When they are attacked or shot at, they seem to loose control of themselves, the cursing, the desire to destroy takes over. Sometimes you can hear a voice in the background trying to maintain control, but its drownd out by the cursing and shooting. In watching all of these I felt like there is something our soldier lack. an internal quality. for many of them, beneath all the toughness, all the training to fight, there is little there. and when they are not in power or control it becomes obvious.
Our enemies believe in something, most of them are fighting for a cause. Our stated cause of "democracy and freedom" is noble but we don't rally believe in it, its not what our soldiers are really fighting for. If heard them in interviews, when they are asked, why they fight, they say something like, "i'm fighting for the guys next to me". They fight because they are ordered to. They fight because they are paid to. Only physical and material needs drive them. Apparently this is not enough to win control of a territory. Our leaders and generals and military training institutions have failed to give them something to believe in. Our enemies have not. So, the only way to win this thing is overwhelming force, like the English did. Because apperently we are no better then they were.
McCain is right, we need to send more troops there, and we should not be afraid to say that we want to stay there for as long as we want. We are a superpower. we deem that controling that territory is in our best interests.
And it comes at a cost... less money to spend on things inside our borders, welfare for the needy of this country, corporate welfare for those industries we want to develop, and better schools for every american, and job training and child care for every american in this changing economy, and some tax relief for homeowners and parents. We can't do these thing AND fight this war to win.
We have to decide our priorities. And If a new president chooses to not prioritize an emperial adventure, then so be it. It is not a defeat or a loss like the republicans say it is. It is a change of mission. We have to be smart about the use of our limited resourses. We can choose to keep what we have control over and leave the rest for those who are loyal to us. It is not a declaration of defeat. It is a diversion of resourses to that what is sustainable and in our interests. We should not pull out entirely from the region. We defeated its ruler and claim whatever land we want as our prize, to do whatever we deem necessary to our interests.
We should allow the kurds to declare independance and keep our troops there. In the rest of Iraq we can do what the Muslims did when they first conquered the area. They built garrison towns. We should build our own fortified cities, and let our troops live there until they are needed for missions. In the other cities, all we need is to buy the leader. Let him to stay loyal or else he will suffer the consequences. He can send his police to our city for training. He can let our business build infrastructure. etc. If there is a civil war between factions then we can provide support to the side that will be loyal to us. Our support can come in the form of whatever is possible for us to accomplish successfully.
today i was looking at some of the videos our soldiers have shot while on duty in iraq. Its quite disturbing. Our men have: a macho attitude, a wildwest cowboy lawlessness, a bloodlust - the pleasure from killing and destroying. When they are attacked or shot at, they seem to loose control of themselves, the cursing, the desire to destroy takes over. Sometimes you can hear a voice in the background trying to maintain control, but its drownd out by the cursing and shooting. In watching all of these I felt like there is something our soldier lack. an internal quality. for many of them, beneath all the toughness, all the training to fight, there is little there. and when they are not in power or control it becomes obvious.
Our enemies believe in something, most of them are fighting for a cause. Our stated cause of "democracy and freedom" is noble but we don't rally believe in it, its not what our soldiers are really fighting for. If heard them in interviews, when they are asked, why they fight, they say something like, "i'm fighting for the guys next to me". They fight because they are ordered to. They fight because they are paid to. Only physical and material needs drive them. Apparently this is not enough to win control of a territory. Our leaders and generals and military training institutions have failed to give them something to believe in. Our enemies have not. So, the only way to win this thing is overwhelming force, like the English did. Because apperently we are no better then they were.
McCain is right, we need to send more troops there, and we should not be afraid to say that we want to stay there for as long as we want. We are a superpower. we deem that controling that territory is in our best interests.
And it comes at a cost... less money to spend on things inside our borders, welfare for the needy of this country, corporate welfare for those industries we want to develop, and better schools for every american, and job training and child care for every american in this changing economy, and some tax relief for homeowners and parents. We can't do these thing AND fight this war to win.
We have to decide our priorities. And If a new president chooses to not prioritize an emperial adventure, then so be it. It is not a defeat or a loss like the republicans say it is. It is a change of mission. We have to be smart about the use of our limited resourses. We can choose to keep what we have control over and leave the rest for those who are loyal to us. It is not a declaration of defeat. It is a diversion of resourses to that what is sustainable and in our interests. We should not pull out entirely from the region. We defeated its ruler and claim whatever land we want as our prize, to do whatever we deem necessary to our interests.
We should allow the kurds to declare independance and keep our troops there. In the rest of Iraq we can do what the Muslims did when they first conquered the area. They built garrison towns. We should build our own fortified cities, and let our troops live there until they are needed for missions. In the other cities, all we need is to buy the leader. Let him to stay loyal or else he will suffer the consequences. He can send his police to our city for training. He can let our business build infrastructure. etc. If there is a civil war between factions then we can provide support to the side that will be loyal to us. Our support can come in the form of whatever is possible for us to accomplish successfully.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
a religious and spiritual lineage
My maternal great-grandfather, his son - my nana hazrat, and now nana hazrat's son are a part of a student/master chain (silsila) that goes all the way back to Abdul Qadir of Jilan who died in 1166 and from him all the way back to Ali who learned from the Prophet Muhammad.
Learned what?
...the Tariqa.
Tariqa meaning method.
a Spiritual method...
a how to...
On loving Allah.
There are "orthodox" sufis and "unorthodox" sufis.
The orthodox sufi's primary claim to legitimacy is the fact that he/she is part of an unbroken chain of teachers all the way to the prophet. Their #2 claim to legitimacy is the fact that they do not deny the Shariah of God.
Shariah means "the way" or "the path".
It is the way we should live our life. In surat al Fatiha, Allah refers to the "sirat al mustaqeem". The straight path. The word implies a destination.
What destination?
Towards The Divine Beloved Himself.
More then just Do's and Don'ts.
It is said that the way of God is Truth, it is divine, it is one and it is unchangable. Its principles can be found in God's revelation to Muhammad, the Quran. And also in the way that Muhammad lived his life. But in our attempt to extract these principles from these two primary sources, another thing creeps in....
Human interpretation.
One of the Interpreters of the way of God was Abu Hanifa who embraced the human intellect and our ability to use reason. Abu Hanifa learned of the way of God from a student of Abdullah Ibn Masud, Ibn Masud was a companion of the Prophet, and he became the chief judge in Kufa after the Muslims conquered Iraq.
Another Interpreter was Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who denyed the use of reason to discover God's will. Ibn Hanbal was a literalist, a tradition-ist when it came to the path God wants us to follow.
Abdal Qadir of Jilan was a Hanbali literalist when it came to Shariah, and his spiritual Tariqa, focused on eliminating the diseases of the heart. Greed, Jelousy, Arrogance, etc. His spiritual pracitices focused on orthodox worship instead of unorthodox means. By removing the diseases, one becomes selfless, open to loving, love - defined as giving one's self entirely to another.
In this case the other being The Divine Beloved.
The goal - to be in His company after we part from this physical world.
In the case of my great-grandfather, i assume he first became an initiated student (murshid) and then eventually a master (murid) in the Qadiriyyah, one of the oldest and most prominent spritual methods in Islamic history, the name given to the sufi brotherhood established by followers of Abdal Qadir of Jilan. And in terms of the method of interpreting the Shariah, the way, the path, the law of God. He studied the Quran, the traditions of Prophet Muhammad, and usul (methodology) of Abu Hanifa and eventually became a master of it as well, a mufti, a grand mufti in Hyderabad, with permission (official ijazat from a previous master) to give a fatwa, an opinion of what is the will of the Divine on any given matter.
So... My great-grandfather was a great "orthodox" sufi master. It is something to be very proud of. He has students throughout the sub-continent and many many people think very highly of him. And my grandmother grew up learning about Islam and spirituality from him. But that does not make her, or my mother, or me, sufi's, -just plain muslims.
Because technically none of us are initiated into the Qadiriyyah tariqa, and none of us follow a master's guidance in terms of our spiritual practices, rising through the stages of awareness until we reach the ultimate stage of consciousness (mu'arifa) where we experience extiction of ourselves (fana) and eventually subsist in the Divine presence (baqa).
All I can say is that some of my islamic religious/spiritual traditions were sanctioned by Qadiri sufis. and my methods of praying and fasting or marriage contracts, etc. are guided by Hanafi religious opinions.
Now... I also have family members who are initiated into the Chisti tariqa, one of the sufi brotherhoods that sanctioned some "unorthodox" practices like musical gatherings.
I myself am a fan of the more unruly, anarchic, and anti-authoritarian Qaladari wandering sufis.
Learned what?
...the Tariqa.
Tariqa meaning method.
a Spiritual method...
a how to...
On loving Allah.
There are "orthodox" sufis and "unorthodox" sufis.
The orthodox sufi's primary claim to legitimacy is the fact that he/she is part of an unbroken chain of teachers all the way to the prophet. Their #2 claim to legitimacy is the fact that they do not deny the Shariah of God.
Shariah means "the way" or "the path".
It is the way we should live our life. In surat al Fatiha, Allah refers to the "sirat al mustaqeem". The straight path. The word implies a destination.
What destination?
Towards The Divine Beloved Himself.
More then just Do's and Don'ts.
It is said that the way of God is Truth, it is divine, it is one and it is unchangable. Its principles can be found in God's revelation to Muhammad, the Quran. And also in the way that Muhammad lived his life. But in our attempt to extract these principles from these two primary sources, another thing creeps in....
Human interpretation.
One of the Interpreters of the way of God was Abu Hanifa who embraced the human intellect and our ability to use reason. Abu Hanifa learned of the way of God from a student of Abdullah Ibn Masud, Ibn Masud was a companion of the Prophet, and he became the chief judge in Kufa after the Muslims conquered Iraq.
Another Interpreter was Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who denyed the use of reason to discover God's will. Ibn Hanbal was a literalist, a tradition-ist when it came to the path God wants us to follow.
Abdal Qadir of Jilan was a Hanbali literalist when it came to Shariah, and his spiritual Tariqa, focused on eliminating the diseases of the heart. Greed, Jelousy, Arrogance, etc. His spiritual pracitices focused on orthodox worship instead of unorthodox means. By removing the diseases, one becomes selfless, open to loving, love - defined as giving one's self entirely to another.
In this case the other being The Divine Beloved.
The goal - to be in His company after we part from this physical world.
In the case of my great-grandfather, i assume he first became an initiated student (murshid) and then eventually a master (murid) in the Qadiriyyah, one of the oldest and most prominent spritual methods in Islamic history, the name given to the sufi brotherhood established by followers of Abdal Qadir of Jilan. And in terms of the method of interpreting the Shariah, the way, the path, the law of God. He studied the Quran, the traditions of Prophet Muhammad, and usul (methodology) of Abu Hanifa and eventually became a master of it as well, a mufti, a grand mufti in Hyderabad, with permission (official ijazat from a previous master) to give a fatwa, an opinion of what is the will of the Divine on any given matter.
So... My great-grandfather was a great "orthodox" sufi master. It is something to be very proud of. He has students throughout the sub-continent and many many people think very highly of him. And my grandmother grew up learning about Islam and spirituality from him. But that does not make her, or my mother, or me, sufi's, -just plain muslims.
Because technically none of us are initiated into the Qadiriyyah tariqa, and none of us follow a master's guidance in terms of our spiritual practices, rising through the stages of awareness until we reach the ultimate stage of consciousness (mu'arifa) where we experience extiction of ourselves (fana) and eventually subsist in the Divine presence (baqa).
All I can say is that some of my islamic religious/spiritual traditions were sanctioned by Qadiri sufis. and my methods of praying and fasting or marriage contracts, etc. are guided by Hanafi religious opinions.
Now... I also have family members who are initiated into the Chisti tariqa, one of the sufi brotherhoods that sanctioned some "unorthodox" practices like musical gatherings.
I myself am a fan of the more unruly, anarchic, and anti-authoritarian Qaladari wandering sufis.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
my lineage
Several years ago, while i was in Pakistan visiting my relatives, i was shown a book that contained the lineages of the various prominant families of Badaun, India. It contained the lineage of my paternal grandfather's Siddiqui family, and my maternal grandfather's Abbasi family. As i was trying to find sources of inspiration for naming my unborn baby boy, i remembered that i had a copies of the lineages. maybe they had some good names.
While going through them I was thinking about how the knowledge of ones lineage has slowly become irrelevent. My mother mentioned a time in Badaun when, at the tail end of marriage processions, the barber would be reciting the lineage of the family. If the prospective bride or groom could not provide a respectable lineage there would be no marriage.
Now if that's not an incentive to forge a lineage, then i don't know what is. But, I'm sure they had means of determining if it was legitimate since so much pride and honor was at stake. And of course, since the only way to be sure was to marry in the extended family, thats what they did most often. I was told by an uncle that Siddiqui's married Siddiqui's. This does not mean first cousins, according to the lineages that i saw, Siddiqui's have been in Badaun since the turkish conquest in the 1200's. My paternal grandmother(dadi) and my paternal grandfather(dada) were both Siddiqui's, I've seen both of the lineages and they meet about 8 generations up.
But these traditions started coming to an end after the partition. Many muslims left Badaun, And have have lost touch with the knowledge of their forefathers. Not to mention the changes in society that place less value on lineage then in the past. My own father had little knowledge of this stuff growing up in pakistan. He moved to the US and we grew up even more distant.
We've also decided that we can find our own marriage partners. My father had no priority of marrying into Siddiquis. Both of my sisters have married outside of the family. It happened by chance that my wife is half Siddiqui.
So what about my lineage... regardless of whether it is authentic or not, it exists. and, my interest in it probably grew out of the search for identity and self worth that children of all minorities go through. how cool would it be if its true that i am a direct desendent of the closest companion of prophet Muhammad, the first khalifa. And that my name is not based on his city of birth or residence (Makki), or his tribe (Qureshi), or his clan (Taymi), but was a title that was given to him by the Prophet (as-Siddiq). and I have determined that since I have tracked down this information, I now have the responsibility to pass it on to the next generation of my family here in america. To tell my kids what i wish ad been told to me: "You are not the person that is ridiculed in school. They don't know you. But you know who you really are, right? You are Maha! You are a Siddiqui! You are a Muslim! Be proud of it!"
While going through them I was thinking about how the knowledge of ones lineage has slowly become irrelevent. My mother mentioned a time in Badaun when, at the tail end of marriage processions, the barber would be reciting the lineage of the family. If the prospective bride or groom could not provide a respectable lineage there would be no marriage.
Now if that's not an incentive to forge a lineage, then i don't know what is. But, I'm sure they had means of determining if it was legitimate since so much pride and honor was at stake. And of course, since the only way to be sure was to marry in the extended family, thats what they did most often. I was told by an uncle that Siddiqui's married Siddiqui's. This does not mean first cousins, according to the lineages that i saw, Siddiqui's have been in Badaun since the turkish conquest in the 1200's. My paternal grandmother(dadi) and my paternal grandfather(dada) were both Siddiqui's, I've seen both of the lineages and they meet about 8 generations up.
But these traditions started coming to an end after the partition. Many muslims left Badaun, And have have lost touch with the knowledge of their forefathers. Not to mention the changes in society that place less value on lineage then in the past. My own father had little knowledge of this stuff growing up in pakistan. He moved to the US and we grew up even more distant.
We've also decided that we can find our own marriage partners. My father had no priority of marrying into Siddiquis. Both of my sisters have married outside of the family. It happened by chance that my wife is half Siddiqui.
So what about my lineage... regardless of whether it is authentic or not, it exists. and, my interest in it probably grew out of the search for identity and self worth that children of all minorities go through. how cool would it be if its true that i am a direct desendent of the closest companion of prophet Muhammad, the first khalifa. And that my name is not based on his city of birth or residence (Makki), or his tribe (Qureshi), or his clan (Taymi), but was a title that was given to him by the Prophet (as-Siddiq). and I have determined that since I have tracked down this information, I now have the responsibility to pass it on to the next generation of my family here in america. To tell my kids what i wish ad been told to me: "You are not the person that is ridiculed in school. They don't know you. But you know who you really are, right? You are Maha! You are a Siddiqui! You are a Muslim! Be proud of it!"
loyalty
the fact that I am actually writing this entry in a blog may be considered an example of overthinking the situation. what is the situation?
...employee loyalty
...employee morale
...employee discipline
there people who were loyal to my father.
they were loyal because he had what i believe are the three things that are prerequisites to loyalty:
1 - money (the means to help)
2 - compassion (the willingness to help)
3 - power (the ability to help)
i think 'A' becomes loyal to 'B' when 'A' goes to 'B' for help and 'B' helps without a second thought. 'A' may become more loyal if 'B' helps again before 'A' even comes to 'B' again. 'A' is not only aware that 'B' can help when help is needed, but also becomes aware that 'B' cares for 'A'.
the help can come in the form of any of the three things:
-money can help one pay for survival,
-compassion can help one feel respected,
-power can help one with protection,
sometimes the idea of loyalty does acknowledge a high and low relationship. where the loyalty is directed towards the one above. so what about the loyalty directed towards the one below.... below in position/rank or below in economic status. can i look at the relationship as equal but with different responsibilities? no. because the reality is that the power is involved. one person has power over the other.
while equality in everything is an attractive idea, it is not reality. if all individuals were equal, would we have no need for help, if all was equal, who would we turn to for help. anyways... all is not equal, so the more important discussion is about compassion, not equality. the moral responsibility of those with means and power to help those without means and power. the idea that what you have is on loan from an even higher power than you, and you can't take it with you when you die, so do some good with it. especially if the higher power likes it when you do good, and it will lead to people being loyal to you..... i'm rambling...
anyways, back to loyalty. can i, in my high position be loyal to someone with a lower position than me. kind of, i suppose, if loyalty to the one below you means that you will use the means at your disposal to protect him/her as well as help him/her with money. and thus closing the circle... when you need protection or assitance the loyalty will manifest in the one below you and he/she will protect and help you. and you will know that person is loyal when you give an order to do something and it is followed.
so what if one of the three, money, compassion, power, is missing?
well, since the process is kicked off by 'A' going to 'B' for help, then 'B' can only be of limited help. you might get a thank you. but you won't get loyalty.
loyalty can be to a person, or to a group of people, but what about a corporation? if the corporation's only concern is profit, then no. people will not be loyal to it. but if the corporation is compassionate and provides protection in the form of health care and liability, maybe. but i think people are really only gong to be loyal to the person at the corporation that pays them, assists them, and protects them, rather then the corporation as a whole. because people know that there is still a person that is making the decisions.
most of our employees were loyal to my father, not his company. and without my father, i have to earn their loyalty the old fashion way. paying them, treating them with respect, and coming to their side when they need me. I think i'm already compassionate, probably too compassionate. I can give those whose loyalty i need a raise, and I can fire a couple of people i don't need to demonstrate my power.
Firing people as a demonstration of power can backfire, the best demonstration of power is to protect a person from real physical harm, and if that is not possible then maybe real financial harm. maybe they are about to be fired and overrule it. or maybe they are about to be sued and i pay for an attorney to defend them. maybe that is why loyalty to a corporation or even to the head of a corporation will always be kind of limited.
...employee loyalty
...employee morale
...employee discipline
there people who were loyal to my father.
they were loyal because he had what i believe are the three things that are prerequisites to loyalty:
1 - money (the means to help)
2 - compassion (the willingness to help)
3 - power (the ability to help)
i think 'A' becomes loyal to 'B' when 'A' goes to 'B' for help and 'B' helps without a second thought. 'A' may become more loyal if 'B' helps again before 'A' even comes to 'B' again. 'A' is not only aware that 'B' can help when help is needed, but also becomes aware that 'B' cares for 'A'.
the help can come in the form of any of the three things:
-money can help one pay for survival,
-compassion can help one feel respected,
-power can help one with protection,
sometimes the idea of loyalty does acknowledge a high and low relationship. where the loyalty is directed towards the one above. so what about the loyalty directed towards the one below.... below in position/rank or below in economic status. can i look at the relationship as equal but with different responsibilities? no. because the reality is that the power is involved. one person has power over the other.
while equality in everything is an attractive idea, it is not reality. if all individuals were equal, would we have no need for help, if all was equal, who would we turn to for help. anyways... all is not equal, so the more important discussion is about compassion, not equality. the moral responsibility of those with means and power to help those without means and power. the idea that what you have is on loan from an even higher power than you, and you can't take it with you when you die, so do some good with it. especially if the higher power likes it when you do good, and it will lead to people being loyal to you..... i'm rambling...
anyways, back to loyalty. can i, in my high position be loyal to someone with a lower position than me. kind of, i suppose, if loyalty to the one below you means that you will use the means at your disposal to protect him/her as well as help him/her with money. and thus closing the circle... when you need protection or assitance the loyalty will manifest in the one below you and he/she will protect and help you. and you will know that person is loyal when you give an order to do something and it is followed.
so what if one of the three, money, compassion, power, is missing?
well, since the process is kicked off by 'A' going to 'B' for help, then 'B' can only be of limited help. you might get a thank you. but you won't get loyalty.
loyalty can be to a person, or to a group of people, but what about a corporation? if the corporation's only concern is profit, then no. people will not be loyal to it. but if the corporation is compassionate and provides protection in the form of health care and liability, maybe. but i think people are really only gong to be loyal to the person at the corporation that pays them, assists them, and protects them, rather then the corporation as a whole. because people know that there is still a person that is making the decisions.
most of our employees were loyal to my father, not his company. and without my father, i have to earn their loyalty the old fashion way. paying them, treating them with respect, and coming to their side when they need me. I think i'm already compassionate, probably too compassionate. I can give those whose loyalty i need a raise, and I can fire a couple of people i don't need to demonstrate my power.
Firing people as a demonstration of power can backfire, the best demonstration of power is to protect a person from real physical harm, and if that is not possible then maybe real financial harm. maybe they are about to be fired and overrule it. or maybe they are about to be sued and i pay for an attorney to defend them. maybe that is why loyalty to a corporation or even to the head of a corporation will always be kind of limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)