i've lost count of how many times i've heard agnostics or athiests mention that the main reason they have left religion is its inability to give a satisfactory answer to one question:
why does god allow people to suffer.
if He is all powerful
if He is loving
then why?
what is suffering
what is love
what is power
what is god
i think the problem happens when we limit our understanding of the nature of the divine force we call 'god'. our universe is dynamic and complex. things are more interconnected to each other then we percieve... action/reaction... cause/effect... I think god knows more than a human can ever know, and so it makes sense that god would do things a bit differently. maybe god's reason for making this universe with all its suffering is beyond our ability to understand. a universe that consists of powerful forces that scientists still try to make sense of. a universe with humans that have the ability to cause great harm or great good. maybe there is a reason I can't have joy ALL the time. We know of power, through experiences of powerlessness. and what we think we would do, if we had that power, we want god to do. no suffering for example.
the people who lose faith, really lose faith in the literal meanings of the bible or quran.
I think it was in one of Averroes' works where he describes different levels of understanding for different people. god has made his word universally applicable for all peoples and times. if the literal meaning does not make sense anymore then its time to look at deeper meanings. The literal stories are for those who cannot think beyond them. It is the starting point of understanding, not the end.
Now... I don't always understand the philosophical writings and interpretations of people who follow the mystical teachings of Ibn Arabi, and I don't always agree with literal interpretations of people who follow Ibn Taymiyyah. But, why should it be one OR the other? god has sent his word to guide me, and clear things up in times when I need clarification. Sometimes the literal interpretation is good guidance for me and make a whole lot of sense, like when it comes to deciding what I eat or drink. Sometimes the philosophical interpretation makes sense, like when it comes to deciding how I deal with friends who are gay.
What I do know is that if a man with as deep an understanding of philosophy, logic, and religion as Averroes believed in a god, then there must be a problem with my reasoning or my interpretation if i am having doubt. The problem is not with god's word, or with god's justice, or with god's love, the problem is with my interpretaion. It may be that I am missing some pieces of the puzzle.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
my mother's hijab
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 1, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Friday, May 25, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
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?
Monday, May 21, 2007
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
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
Friday, May 18, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2007
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)