Christmas is a dangerous time for Muslim school children in the West

Now that Christmas festivities are behind us it is a good time to reflect on the effect they may have had on the next generation of Muslims growing up in the West.

Christmas is a well established religious and cultural event in the West. Though a majority of the population has rejected Christianity as a belief system, the Christian religion has had a profound effect on western culture. In the run-up to Christmas it is usual to enact the mythical stories relating to the birth of Christ and to venerate him as “son of God” by singing hymns and carols. 

For nominally Christian families it is all good fun as they participate in the playacting and singing of hymns and carols.  They simply do not let their absence of belief affect their enjoyment of the music and the playacting, which are treated merely as cultural phenomena. This may, at best, be considered mildly hypocritical for people who have lost faith in Christianity and pass themselves off as agnostics or atheists.

What about Muslim children though? That is, children from families who are staunchly Muslim and the concepts of

Tawheed [توحید : Oneness، divinity belonging to a single God, the One – الواحد ] and

Shirk [ شرک  -  attributing divinity to a created being]

are absolutely fundamental to their Islamic faith. 

In the Quran, Shirk is referred to as unpardonable. For a Muslim child to engage in the “celebrations” in the traditional Christmassy manner would be not just hypocritical but sacrilegious and blasphemous. Playing fast and loose with Quranic injunctions makes a mockery of God’s Guidance for mankind, which is what the Quran is.

This is a growing problem as an increasing number of Muslim families fail to get across to their children the essential meaning of Kalimah Tayyeba [کلمہ طیبہ ] and Surah Ikhlaas [سورہٴ اخلاص ]. The concept of a God who is beyond their senses but can be perceived through the many Attributes or Beautiful Names [ اسماء الحسنیٰ  ] appears to be alien for most Muslim children. Influenced by the prevailing atmosphere around them, more and more Muslim parents seem to be taking a relaxed view as their children cavort around on the school stage in much the same way as non-Muslim children do. At home, a glowing Christmas tree holds out the promise of presents from Santa Claus on Christmas Day!

Is Islam dying in the West, knocked out by the double whammy of modernist parents and mullah-worship of ignorant Muslims?

FOOTNOTE

Below are some of the “Beautiful Names” ( اسماء الحسنیٰ ), Attributes of God, which are mentioned in the Quran. There are many more. These help Muslims to understand the Majesty, Power, Mercy and Justice of the One God, the Creator of all that exists.

Ar-Rahmaan   The Exceedingly Merciful/Compassionate   الرحمان 

Al-Khaaliq      The Creator                                             الخالق 

Al-Vaahid       The One/Unique                                       الواحد 

As-Salaam     The Peace                                               السلام 

Ar-Razzaaq     The Provider/Sustainer                             الرزاق 

Al-Jaleel         The Majestic                                           الجلیل 

Al-Hakeem      The Wise                                                الحکیم 

Al-Vadood       The Loving                                              الودود                                       

Al-Haadi         The Guide                                              الهادی 

Al-Muhyi         The Giver of Life                                     المحیی 

An-Noor          The Light                                                 النور 

Al-Haqq           The Truth/The Reality                               الحق 

Al-Hakam         The Judge/Arbiter                                    الحکم 

As-Samad        The Eternal/ Everlasting                          الصمد 

Al-Hafeez         The Protector                                         الحفیظ 

Al-Kareem        The Bountiful/Generous                           الکریم 

Al-Aziz              The Powerful/ Irresistible                         العزیز    

Ar-Raheem       The Merciful/ Compassionate                   الرحیم   

Al-Avval            The First                                                 الاول 

Al-Aakhir           The Last                                                  الآخر 

Az-Zaahir          The Outermost/ The Evident                     الظاھر 

Al-Baatin           The Innermost/ Hidden                            الباطن 

Al-Ghafoor         The One who Forgives                              الغفور 

Al-Aleem            The Possessor of Knowledge                      العلیم 

As-Samee           The One who Hears                                 السميع 

Al-Hameed          The Praiseworthy                                     الحمید 

Al-Vaase              The Vast/All-Embracing/The Omnipresent  الواسع 

Al-Valee               The Friend/Helper                                     الولی 

Al-Qaadir             The All-Powerful                                       القادر 

Al-Mutakabbir       The Supreme                                          المتکبر 

Who or what is DAJJAL?

Most Muslims are aware of a hadith/hadees, a narration attributed to Messenger Muhammad, Rehmatul-lil-aalameen, which speaks of a one-eyed phenomenon emerging from the earth in the future. Blind in one eye, Dajjal would have mysterious powers which would enable it to hear and see all that is going on in the world, amass treasures of silver and gold and control nature, causing rain to fall and plants to grow, and have powers of life and death. People with weak faith would prostrate themselves before it but those with strong faith would see through this deception.

An excellent explanation of this hadith was given by Muhammad Asad in his book "The Road to Mecca". I am reproducing it here, in Asad's own words. You may find this explanation useful when faced with a zealous Muslim who insists on taking the story literally, completely missing its figurative meaning, "the parable of modern material civilization" [matter = earth].

Muhammad Asad speaking to an Arab sheikh: 

"Dajjal is one-eyed: that is, it looks upon only one side of life - material progress - and is unaware of its spiritual side. With the help of its technical marvels it enables man to see and hear far beyond his natural ability, and to cover endless distances at an inconceivable speed. Its scientific knowledge causes 'rain to fall and plants to grow' and uncovers unsuspected treasures from beneath the ground. Its medicine brings life to those who seem to have been doomed to death, while its wars and scientific horrors destroy life. And its material advancement is so powerful and so glittering that the weak in faith are coming to believe that it is a godhead in its own right. But those who have remained conscious of their Creator clearly recognise that to worship the Dajjal means to deny God."

The sheikh replied to Muhammad Asad, excitedly striking his knee:

"Thou art right, O Muhammad, thou art right! It has never occurred to me to look upon the Dajjal prophecy in this light. But thou art right! Instead of realising that man's advancement and the progress of science is a bounty from our Lord, more and more people in their folly are beginning to think that it is an end in itself and fit to be worshipped." 

English Translation of Hamid Mir's column in Jang, 27 March 2014

In the course of some exchanges on Twitter I ended up promising an Indian gentleman to translate parts of Hamid Mir's article on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, published in Jang today. The original article can be read here . I have already posted several blogs relating to Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, most recently here which is relevant in the context of comments Hamid Mir has made.

Jaswant Singh and Muhammad Ali Jinnah

In his article Hamid Mir shows that Jinnah was neither secular nor a maulvi. The main points he makes are:

      Jaswant Singh is one of the founder members of BJP. A few years ago he wrote a book entitled “Jinnah” in which he said that those really responsible for the division of India were Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The Hindu leaders could have  worked amicably with the secular and liberal Jinnah but they antagonised him needlessly.

 
This book infuriated the leadership of Bharatia Janata Party because the BJP and Congress had always held Jinnah responsible for the break-up of India. Jaswant Singh was expelled from the BJP following publication of his book. He maintained that he had been expelled because he dared to present some plain historical facts.

    Some BJP members supported Jaswant. In their view he had laid bare the fake secularism of BJP’s political rival Congress. Moreover, by holding the Congress leadership responsible for the division of India the book had actually benefited BJP at the expense of  Congress.

      It was also thought that L K Advani considered Jaswant Singh a dangerous political rival because of his previous experience as Foreign and Defence Minister, which would make him a candidate for the office of Prime Minister. Advani thus manoeuvred to have him expelled from the Party.

     Jaswant Singh’s exile lasted 10 months before he was admitted back into the party. For the 2014 Election Jaswant Singh wanted his party’s ticket for his traditional constituency in Rajasthan but his request was refused. He said he was being punished for declaring Jinnah to be a secular politician. He announced that he would fight the election from his constituency as an independent.

       It is now obvious that Narainder Modi has taken control of BJP and he has pushed aside not just Jaswant but Advani as well. Modi is now the sole candidate for Prime Ministership from his party.

     Jaswant Singh is not the first Indian writer to consider Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah a secularist. Previously, a lecturer in Political Science at Delhi University, Dr Ajit Javed, authored a book “Secular and Nationalist Jinnah” in which he acknowledged the honesty, courage and fearlessness of the founder of Pakistan. He also stated that the demand for the establishment of Pakistan was merely a political ploy to put pressure on Congress. He claimed that Maudoodi [a religious leader active in politics] refused to lead the Janazah prayer for Jinnah and instead performed a prayer of thanks.

     Many claims made in Ajit Javed’s book defy historical facts. Apart from the Indian writers there are also some Pakistani writers and intellectuals who do their best to present Jinnah as secular. Their amazing antics include:

    (a) always quoting a brief excerpt from a single speech of Quaid-e-Azam (one delivered on 11 August 1947),

    (b) taking delight in quoting falsehoods or half-truths contained in American author Stanley Wolpert’s book “Jinnah of Pakistan”, and

    (c) always referring to Jinnah’s wife Ruttie as a Parsee even though she had converted to Islam before her marriage to Jinnah and she was buried in a Muslim cemetery after her death.

       Quite recently, an English language magazine, published in Karachi, showed a picture of Quaid-e-Azam, with a white beard superimposed. An article in the magazine lamented that some people were trying to present Jinnah as a maulvi!

It is true that there are people who look only for Shariat in the speeches of Pakistan’s founder while they ignore references to justice, equality, tolerance and democracy. On the other hand, those people who are hell-bent on proving the Quaid to be secular are guilty of intellectual and historical dishonesty. It is well known that the founder of Pakistan entered politics as a member of Congress but, over the years, his political evolution and maturity took him to the Muslim League. He was neither a maulvi nor a secularist. He was an ordinary Muslim, free of sectarian and religious prejudices. He married Ruttie for love, whose Muslim name was Maryam. Owing to his legal practice and political activities he could not spend as much time with her as the couple would have wished. There were ups and downs in Jinnah’s marriage. When Ruttie died Jinnah was inconsolable and he wept uncontrollably at her grave.

    In 1929 Jinnah defended Ghazi Ilm Deen in court and in 1931 he refused to speak against Bhagat Singh.

    It was Allama Iqbal who persuaded Jinnah to study Islamic laws. Iqbal’s letter to Jinnah, dated 28 May 1937, is extremely significant. In it the great poet-philosopher is telling his friend that putting genuine Islamic laws into practice in a Muslim state will mean each and every individual will have a right to an assured income. This letter also mentions Islamic Sharia. 

Later the same year, on 16 September 1937, Jinnah ensured that a Shariat Bill, concerned with Muslim Personal Law, was passed by India’s Legislative Assembly. When this Bill was introduced in the Assembly it was criticised on the grounds that the shariat followed by each Muslim sect was  different which made the Bill highly controversial. Jinnah overcame that objection by getting Muslim members of the Assembly to agree to a common concept of shariat acceptable to their respective sects.

     In one of his books Mufti Rafee Usmani has written extensively about Quaid-e-Azam’s meetings with his father and other Muslim scholars. He says there were some religious leaders who had issued fatwas of Kufr in relation to Jinnah while other religious leaders (Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, Mufti Muhammad Shafee etc) supported him. They also severed their links with Dar-ul-aloom Deoband.

    Mufti Muhammad Shafee issued a fatwa, declaring support for Congress to be Kufr. On 23 March 1940 it was not just Pakistan Resolution that was passed but also one supporting the Palestinian Muslims. Jinnah worked hard to end sectarian differences among Muslims and to organise a conference of Muslim scholars of all sects. Many religious leaders and scholars supported Jinnah in his efforts to unify Muslims and to establish a separate homeland for them.

    Quaid-e-Azam had met the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Bana and they were in close touch. In his speech on 1^st July 1948, at the inauguration ceremony of State Bank of Pakistan, the Quaid spoke about the importance of conducting banking on Islamic principles. It was not a theocracy that Quaid-e-Azam wished to establish but an Islamic welfare state in which non-Muslims had the same rights as those that Rasul-e-Kareem gave to the Jews of Madinah in the Madinah Pact.

    In brief, Quaid-e-Azam was just an honest and sincere Muslim who was neither a secularist nor a maulvi.

Ramadhan in the British summer

Many years ago I had the opportunity to observe the lifestyles of a group of friends when Ramadhan fell mostly in June and the beginning of July, the height of the British summer when the days are long and the nights are short. The group comprised middle aged post-graduate university students from Pakistan and a couple of self-employed British market traders of Pakistani origin. The visiting Pakistanis were well informed on what passes for the “religion” of Islam and they managed to convince the British Pakistanis that they needed to deny their bodies food and drink from shortly after 2 am to well after 9.30 pm. There was an awkward question: if fathers were going without food and drink for well nigh 20 hours, would they be able to discharge their duties to their children? Apparently, the fathers didn’t need to worry about their children because they were the mothers’ responsibility! In that group, the mothers were full time housewives and didn’t go out to work so they had a neat solution:

In the evening the men gathered in the house of one of the Pakistani traders and ended their fast upon sunset, past 9.30 pm, with some light refreshments; next they performed their Maghrib prayers behind the Pakistani doing his PhD in some Islamic topic – I never understood the point of coming all the way from Muslim Pakistan to complete one’s Islamic studies in a "kafir" university! – and they then turned their attention to the elaborate food dishes prepared by the wife of  the host. Having gorged on the sumptuous food, they got up for Isha prayers behind the same bloke, who was generally accepted as the imam of that group. Then they would stay up chatting and laughing and eating until it was time to begin their saum shortly after 2 am. Then the guests would depart and the host would get ready to sleep, presumably after the Fajr prayers on his own. The wife of the host was free to go to bed at any time she wished once she had served the Iftar food and eaten herself. She had to because she had the responsibility of looking after the children when they got up early in the morning. The men were able to have uninterrupted sleep for some 7 hours and they opened their shops later than the usual times.

That arrangement worked well for that particular group. On one occasion I joined their Iftar party although it was well known that the length of my saum lasted between 13 and 14 hours (usually ending by 6.30 pm). I marvelled at their ingenuity to arrange their lifestyles around the mullah’s interpretation of Islam.

I have fond memories of that group though I was never able to make them see that they were  following the sunnah of the mullah, not the Sunnah of Muhammad Rasul-Allah, Rehmatul-lil-aalameen, the length of whose saum did not extend to such long periods. One needed to discharge one’s responsibilities on earth, which included earning a living in diverse circumstances and extending love and care towards the family. We should be careful not to turn Ramadhan into an instrument of self-torture, which may give us an illusion of “performing religious duties” but at the cost of neglecting the rights of our family and other people around us (in Islam those rights, haqooq-ul-ibad حقوق العباد , take precedence over religious rituals). I tried to make them see that my own circumstances were very different from theirs and it was simply not possible for me to follow their particular lifestyle. It was to no avail. They all stared at me with an air of incomprehension, probably inwardly declaring me to be a dead loss, one who had left the fold of Islam!

This year – as in recent years and during the next few years – we find ourselves observing Ramadhan during the British summer months. I know quite a few Muslims who have turned their backs on Ramadhan because “they cannot do it”. This blog may help them see that they can, only they don’t have to accept the mullah’s interpretation of how it should be done.

Lastly, the obverse of Ramdhan in the British summer is Ramadhan occurring in the British winter, when the denial of food and drink to the physical body will last, perhaps, 8 hours! Again, I find it difficult to accept that. Saum is supposed to train our Self, and help us become better human beings, with greater control over our physical and emotional urges. An 8-hour fast in the winter tends to greatly reduce the hardship element in the saum and seems to go against the spirit of Ramadhan.

ISLAM: misrepresented and misunderstood

A colleague at work recently told me about a chance encounter with a Muslim man who had shaved his head and had grown his beard very long. According to what this man had told my colleague, that weird appearance was a religious requirement for a Muslim! Knowing little about Islam, my colleague believed all the rubbish he had been told. I laughed and gave a reply along the following lines:


"The man you met was crazy. It is a pity that quite a few people in England base their opinion of Islam and Muslims on the antics of a tiny minority of Muslims. Do I or a majority of Muslims that you see around you look remotely like the specimen you describe? Doesn't a ready willingness to draw general conclusions about Muslims, based on the observation of an unrepresentative minority, indicate the prevalence of prejudice against Muslims in Europe?"


My friend conceded that I had a point. As an atheist he was inclined to believe the worst about religion, any religion. I told him that it was a mistake to think of Islam as a religion. It wasn't a religion in the sense that Christianity or Judasim were. Islam's Book of Guidance, The Qur'an, refers to Islam as Deen, a system to be followed in life, which does not require the services of priests. The existence of a Muslim clergy today is not supported by the Qur'an, which does not recognise an intermediary between God and human beings. A person attains nearness to the Power of God through his/her actions while living in this world of matter. Some points that came up in this pleasant conversation were:


1. Life in this world of matter is a preparation for the next stage of our life's journey in the world of non-matter. If our material existence on earth were the only reality, ending in death, then there was no need for us to follow any moral principles. We should live thoroughly selfish and self-indulgent lives, enjoying the good things of life and trampling other people's "rights" underfoot. 


2. The phrase "the world of non-matter" was a bit much for him. Does it exist or is it a figment of imagination? Take any object, I said, and start breaking it down into smaller and smaller pieces, ending up with the sub-atomic universe of Quantum Physics. Where do electrons and photons come from? 

The current theory is that as sub-atomic particles, which have no mass, pass through an invisible energy field, called Higgs field, they pick up mass, forming electrons, protons, atoms, etc. The particle that gives them mass is called Higgs boson, popularly referred to as "God particle", presumably because it gives shape/size/mass, leading to origin of life. 
[It is said the Higgs boson was originally referred to as "god-damned particle" because it explained many things in theoretical physics but physicists couldn't find it through experiment. Hence the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator in Switzerland, to prove the existence of Higgs boson].

So, matter is essentially created out of non-matter - waves of energy, Power of God - which, if anything, is more real than matter. One of the attributes of God given in the Quran is NOOR, heavenly Light. I happen to think that physics is gradually converging into metaphysics.


3. The tragedy of Islam is that the lives of Muslims are being manipulated by an oppressive clergy, which has no place in Islam. These clerics are obsessed with appearances. They ape the dead Arab culture of some 1500 years ago, and they measure piety in terms of the length of a man's beard. Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, lived his life in accordance with the Arab culture of his time. His outward appearance was similar to that of the people around him, and he did not stick out like a sore thumb as do the clerics who have set themselves up as experts on the "Islamic religion". 


4. The Book, Al-Quran, is for all humanity. The lazy Muslims no longer make any attempt to read it, preferring to  indulge in the many "religious" rites and rituals that the priests of their particular sects have laid down for them. This dead religion is a negation of Islam. 


This post is simply an account of a general conversation I had with a colleague. People who wish to know about Islam in depth can click on the following links to previous blog posts. 

Islam                               metaphysical aspects

The best book about Islam that I know of is Allama Parwaiz's Urdu book اسلام کیا ہے؟ (What is Islam?). He also wrote a book in English called "Islam: a challenge to religion", which can be read here:
http://www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/ICR/ICR.htm

DAVIS FLIES OUT

So,’ Raymond Davis’ – or, whatever his name was – flew to safety on 16 March 2010! [for the full background, see the last blog post, The Fall of the American Empire]

This CIA spy – claimed by the twin liars, Obama and Clinton, to be a USA diplomat in Pakistan - had broken several Pakistani laws: carrying firearms illegally, engaging in activities harmful to Pakistan and killing two Pakistanis. On 16 March he was indicted in court just for the crime of murder.  Events then proceeded with the speed of lightning.

The lawyer who had previously represented the families of the murdered men was nowhere to be seen. A new face spoke on behalf of the families and he claimed that, under Pakistani law, the families had accepted “blood money” from  Davis. Documents showing how much was paid to each relative, duly signed by the relative concerned, were presented in court. All relatives showed up in court and acknowledged that the monies were safely in their bank accounts. In total, the amount paid out came to some $2.3 million, a huge amount by Pakistani standards. Davis was not charged for any other offences and was declared a free man, having paid the blood-money and served his sentence of “imprisonment” lasting all of 48 days. He was driven to an airport, where the Americans had conveniently flown in an aircraft the day before, and  was flown to the USA base in Bagram, Afghanistan. 

The Brown Sahibs of Pakistan

Thus ended the saga of “Raymond Davis”, which had gripped the Pakistani nation for the previous one-and-a-half months! This shameful ending shows what is truly wrong with Pakistan: its corrupt and spineless “westernised” Establishment - comprising the federal government, the provincial government, the army, the judiciary and the bureaucracy – is so used to aping the Americans in all sorts of ways that it has lost the moral courage to stand up for justice and for the honour of Pakistan. For the Brown Sahibs and Memsahibs of Pakistan this state of unending servitude to the Americans co-exists with the perpetuation of the colonial system left behind by the departing British in 1947.

The Brown Sahibs speak English Pakistani-style, secure in the knowledge that the "Berlin Wall" of English they have erected around themselves cannot easily be breached. Standing high up on that wall, they look down on the “natives”, who speak the national language Urdu or one of the regional languages. Notwithstanding Urdu’s status as the national language, the official language remains English, which is at best poorly understood by some 97% of the population of Pakistan.

The suffocating hold of English on national life is a primary reason for the widespread illiteracy of our nation. We simply do not have the resources to teach the whole population a foreign language which the corrupt and grasping  Brown Sahibs use as a status symbol and as a tool to keep the natives subdued. The consequences have been terrible: the illiterate or badly educated Pakistanis have taken a liberating religion like Islam and turned it into a monstrosity which is unrecognisable from the Qur’an that I read. The Brown Sahibs, on the other hand, are too busy aping the ways of their American masters to have the time to read and understand the Qur’an. Since they get their education through English-speaking foreigners, they are mostly ignorant of Islamic history and they do not know, for example, that the greatest centres of learning in medieval times, and the most tolerant societies on earth, were to be found in the Islamic world.

Thus it is that we, as a nation, are unable to have a sense of pride in our history (the Sindh civilisation stretches back thousands of years, though our Muslim identity was acquired much later), our Deen, our languages and our culture. We have sacrificed too much at the altar of gaudy westernisation. If only we could learn from the West instead of copying its worst aspects thoughtlessly!

I have written at length about Pakistan’s language problem, which you can read here. You might also be interested to read Mushfiq Ahmad's article published in The News recently: The bill to 'kill' Urdu

Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted

Following the shameful capitulation of Pakistan’s Establishment to the Americans, the usual chest beating and protests and demonstrations have begun. If nothing else, these actions will allow the dispossessed Pakistanis to vent their anger at the Brown Sahibs’ betrayal, who had focused on the personal aspect of this case and ignored the issues of national importance. The British newspapers, and several Pakistani newspapers, have revealed the sort of activities that Davis was engaged in.

Right now a petition has been presented in a Pakistani court which says that the judgment relating to Davis must be considered null and void because it was based on partial justice at best, and did not take into account the issues of vital importance to the Pakistani nation, for example, Davis’s espionage activities and his links with established terrorist organisations. Ironically, the largest terrorist organisation, the CIA, is never referred to as one! 

There is also a debate going on about the dirty tricks used by Pakistan’s Brown Sahibs to get the relatives of murdered men to co-operate and accept the blood-money. In a comment on my last blog post I had given a link to a report about the forcible poisoning of a relative of Fahim, one of the men murdered by Davis, to serve as a warning to all the other relatives to toe the line and not to press charges against Davis – which you can read here. Subsequently, relentless pressure was applied and astronomical sums of money were offered to win the relatives’ co-operation. The icing on the cake was the offer of USA visas! All the relatives have disappeared from view and may have been flown out to their new abodes in Obamaland. The judge who had hurriedly allowed Davis to go free has disappeared, too, perhaps fearing a violent backlash from the public. Wonder if he, too, has a one-way ticket to Obamaland?

The desperate lengths to which the Americans have gone simply highlights the immense importance that the Americans attach to the knowledge possessed by Davis, who appears to have been one of their key men in Pakistan. In these circumstances, the Brown Sahibs’ collusion in Davis’s escape amounts to treachery - but it will go unpunished because they are the ones who control Pakistan. I am reminded of the dying words of Fahim's young widow Shumaila, who committed suicide. As she lay dying, she said wistfully that she wanted a life for a life and wished to see Davis hanged. But she also knew that in today's  Pakistan it was impossible to have a fair trial against an American, who would be protected by the Pakistani rulers. Subsequent events have proved her right.

Lastly, there is a good deal of uncertainty about the treatment meted out to the relatives of the young man who had been crushed to death when a vehicle from the USA’s Lahore consulate drove the wrong way up a one-way street in a failed attempt to rescue Davis after he had committed the murders. I expect details will emerge in the coming days.

Tailpiece

The following day the Americans celebrated winning their man's freedom by launching a drone attack on a meeting of tribal elders in North Waziristan. Over 40 innocent Pakistanis died in the tragedy. The Brown Sahibs have issued the usual condemnations. However, as we know from WikiLeaks revelations, what goes on behind the scenes is something else altogether. Is the latest condemnation simply a ruse to deceive the Pakistanis into giving up their protests and demonstrations? The weasel words these people utter never go as far as saying the Pakistan Air Force will be ordered to shoot down the drone if the Americans attack again.  


20 March 2011 : I am glad that Pakistan's press, especially the Urdu press, is echoing similar views to those I have expressed in relation to the role played by Pakistan's elite in the Raymond Davis drama. Those who feel at home with Urdu will particularly like reading the following articles:    
غیرت  کی ڈولی    "Ghairat ki doli" by Ali Mas'ood Sayed:
 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/mar2011-daily/20-03-2011/col10.htm

آج دل بہت اداس ہے   "Aaj dil bohat udaas hai" by Hina Khwaja Bayat:
 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/mar2011-daily/20-03-2011/col9.htm

الله اس ملک کی حفاظت کرے   "Allah Ta'aala is mulk ki hifaazat karay" by Javed Chaudhry: http://express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101196304&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20110320

Some sections of the English press, on the other hand, are making fun of such deeply held convictions by the Pakistani nation. The small minority of Brown Sahibs and Memsahibs laughingly refer to the rest of the nation as "ghairat brigade"! Are these dishonourable people totally bereft of any notions of honour as Pakistanis?

Dialogue with a Giant

 Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan.

In December 1943, Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, gave an interview to a British journalist, Beverley Nichols. On returning to England from his tour of India, Nichols wrote a book, “Verdict on India” (publisher: Jonathan Cape). One of the chapters in this book has the title “Dialogue with a Giant”, a reference to Quaid-e-Azam. Extracts from this chapter are presented below. On the occasion of Pakistan’s Independence Day this month, we would do well to reflect on how far we have moved from Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as a nation united under the banner of Islam, not so much a religion as a Code of Conduct. What this interview - and several of the Quaid's speeches - show is that, the Quaid was neither secular (as claimed by the so-called liberals) nor was he a religious demagogue in the sense that so many of Pakistan's self-styled religious leaders are.  

Nichols:

How would you describe the ‘vital principles’ of Pakistan?

Jinnah:

In five words. The Muslims are a Nation.

Nichols

When you say the Muslims are a nation, are you thinking in terms of religion?

Jinnah:

Partly, but by no means exclusively. You must remember that Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and practical Code of Conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence …… [pause]

.... [continuing]:

In all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus…….  Take one example, the eternal question of the cow. We eat the cow, the Hindus worship it. A lot of Englishmen imagine that this ‘worship’ is merely a picturesque convention, an historical survival. It is nothing of the sort. Only a few days ago, in this very city, the cow question became a matter for the police ……. But the cow question is only one of a thousand.

Nichols:

Are the Muslims likely to be richer or poorer under Pakistan?

Jinnah:

Supposing you were asked which you would prefer, a rich England under Germany or a poor England free – what would your answer be?

Nichols:

It’s hardly necessary to ask.

Jinnah:

Quite. Well, doesn’t that make your question look a little shoddy? This great ideal rises far above mere questions of personal comfort or temporary convenience. What conceivable reason is there to suppose that the gift of nationality is going to be an economic liability? A sovereign nation of a hundred million people – even if they are not immediately self-supporting and even if they are industrially backward – is hardly likely to be in a worse economic position than if its members are scattered and disorganized, under the dominance of two hundred and fifty million Hindus whose one idea is to exploit them.

….. the Muslims are awake …  they’ve learnt, through bitter experience, the sort of treatment they may expect from the Hindus in a ‘United India’. A ‘United India’ means a Hindu-dominated India. It means that and nothing else. Any other meaning you attempt to impose on it is mythical. ‘India’ is a British creation, it is merely a single administrative unit governed by a bureaucracy under the sanction of the sword. That is all. It is a paper creation, it has no basis in flesh and blood.

Nichols:

The ironical thing is that your critics say that Pakistan itself is a British creation – that it is an example of our genius for applying the principle of ‘divide and rule’.

Jinnah (with some heat):

The man who makes such a suggestion must have a very poor opinion of British intelligence, apart from his opinion of my own integrity. The one thing that keeps the British in India is the false idea of a United India, as preached by Gandhi. A United India, I repeat, is a British creation – a myth, and a very dangerous myth, which will cause endless strife. As long as that strife exists, the British have an excuse for remaining. For once in a way, ‘divide and rule’ does not apply.

Nichols:

What you want is ‘divide and quit’.

Jinnah:

You have put it very neatly.

Nichols:

You realize that all this will come as something of a shock to the British electorate?

Jinnah:

Truth is often shocking. But why this truth in particular?

Nichols:

Because the average, decent, liberal-minded voter, who wishes Britain to fulfil her pledges, and grant independence to India, has heard nothing but the Congress point of view. The Muslims have hardly a single spokesman in the West.

Jinnah [bitterly]:

I am well aware of that. The Hindus have organized a powerful Press and Congress – Mahasabha are backed up by Hindu capitalists and industrialists with finance which we have not got.

Nichols:

As a result they believe that Congress is ‘India’, and since Congress never tires of repeating that India is one and indivisible, they imagine that any attempt to divide it is illiberal, reactionary, and generally sinister. They seriously do believe this. I know that it is muddle-headed, but then a democracy such as ours, which has to make up its mind on an incredible number of complicated issues usually is muddle-headed. What they have to learn is that the only liberal course, the only generous course, the only course compatible with a sincere intention to quit India and hand over the reins of government  ….

Jinnah:

And the only safe course, you might add, is …

Both: PAKISTAN!

To appreciate Islam more as a Code of Conduct and less as religion (as commonly understood), you might like to click on the following link:

http://sakibahmad.blogspot.com/2009/10/islam.html

Feminists join mullahs in making Islam irrelevant

Imamahs leading mixed congregations of the faithful.

On 10th June a report appeared in a British newspaper, The Independent, under the heading “First woman to lead Friday prayers in the UK”. The opening line of the report began, “A Canadian author will become the first Muslim-born woman to lead a mixed-gender British congregation through Friday prayers tomorrow”. Very helpfully, the newspaper published a picture of a mixed congregation with the imamah, Raheel Raza, sitting at the front.


Slightly tongue-in-cheek, I sent off a comment which was published at the newspaper’s website:


“Given that people who lead prayers in mosques are often self-regarding, unpleasant individuals, we should be talking about reforming the way prayers are conducted. Talking about appointment of imamahs is really a non-issue, at best a ridiculous imitation of the practices recently introduced in some religions.


The basic point that we need to grasp is that Islam is NOT a religion. It is a Deen, a Way of Life, a System, that we have to observe in our daily lives. When we remember Allah, our attention needs to be directed to Him alone, cutting out all distractions. Islamic prayers are not like Christian prayers where women sit demurely by the side of men. In Islamic prayers you rise and bow and prostrate, and you may become so absorbed in the remembrance of Allah that you become forgetful of proper decorum. If we have a mixed congregation it would become impossible to let go of our inhibitions and lose ourselves in the Zikr. It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she/he rises from a prostate position and your eyes - inadvertently, of course - come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up”.


Four days later The Guardian, another British newspaper, carried an article by Shaista Gohir (Gohar?) titled, “Women must be leaders in faith”. The full article is given below.

Women must be leaders in faith

A woman led Muslim prayers in Oxford last week. Her actions and those of others like her, across faiths, deserve our support

Shaista Gohir                                           


guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 June 2010 13.30


So far, it seems only Muslim women from abroad dare lead men in Friday prayers in the UK. A Canadian, Raheel Raza, became the second Muslim woman to do so at the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford last week. An African-American convert, Amina Wadud, was the first Muslim woman to lead mixed prayers at the same centre in 2008. It's not surprising that British Muslim women are not brave enough to follow their footsteps – both have been demonised after leading men in prayers in their own countries.


Why is the idea of female imams so controversial amongst many Muslims? When Amina Wadud shocked the world in 2005 by leading mixed-gender Friday prayers in New York, I must admit even I felt uncomfortable. I had been brought up to believe only men could be imams, something I never questioned until recently.


An honest study of Islamic texts reveals that women are not forbidden to lead men in prayer – the Qur'an does not even address this issue. In fact the conditions required are Islamic knowledge, skill and piety – none of which are gender related. However, (mostly male) scholars maintain there is consensus on the impermissibility of women leading men in prayer despite lack of evidence to back up their position. In many quarters, this issue is not even open to debate, despite the fact that centuries ago it was discussed without controversy and a diversity of opinions was respected. According to female scholar Halima Krausen, a number of male scholars, such as Abu Thawr al-Kalbi, Abu Isma'il al-Muzani, al-Isfahani, at-Tabari and Ibn Taymiyya, had nothing against women leading mixed prayers. One woman, Umm Waraqa, is known to have led men in prayers in her household during the time of Prophet Muhammad.


Male clergy often cite questionable hadiths or take them out of context to criticise women such as Wadud. One argument often marshalled is that women's bodily movements arousing desires in men. Are men really so weak that they can't keep their eyes off a fully covered woman's posterior during prayer? I believe men have invented arguments about their sexual excitement – it is only their ego that prevents them from praying behind a woman.


Despite these powerful arguments supporting the permissibility of women leading mixed congregation prayers, I doubt the practice will become widespread in the near future as religious institutions are controlled by men. And most Muslim women are more concerned about fighting for equality on basic grounds such as education and economic empowerment. I don't think leading prayers is a battle that many are yet ready to fight, even if they believe in it. But Wadud and Raza are paving the way for more female imams to come forward to lead other women in prayer. Last year Hawaria Fattah became the first female imam in Europe after being recruited to a mosque in Belgium. This is a pioneering appointment even though she only works with Muslim women.


Restricting women's role in religious structures and practices is not exclusive to Islam. Historically all the world's major religions have done this. The first female rabbi was Regina Jonas, who was only ordained privately in 1935 in Berlin. The next ordination came in the US, in 1972, when Sally Priesand was made a rabbi in the Reform tradition. Since then, all branches of Judaism, except Orthodoxy, have found a way to ordain women.


Female priests may have been ordained in various branches of Christianity. However, its largest denomination, Roman Catholicism, has consistently refused to allow women into the priesthood. Those ordained unofficially are often excommunicated. This status quo continues to be challenged – last week a group marched to St Peter's Square demanding a debate on this issue. Opening the doors to the priesthood would mean women could ascend to the papacy – and perhaps the possibility of a future female pope is too much for the Catholic church.


Women are suffering the consequences of oppressive misinterpretations of religious texts in all faiths. It's time more of us questioned their legitimacy. No topic should be out of bounds for discussion, including the question of female religious leaders. The act of attempting to break down the last barriers to female participation sends an unequivocal message about equality.

============================
On reading this article I responded with the same comments as those I had made earlier in connection with the article in The Independent. I also gave a link to my blog. The author’s response, published at the website on 15 June, was:

“You have nicely illustrated my point about men making excuses about how easily they are supposedly aroused and distracted. If you are that deep in prayer, nothing should distract you. And if you have sinful thoughts, then why should women pay the price for being excluded? Shouldn't men be the ones excluded into another room who have such thoughts.


You conveniently forget to mention verse 24:30 in the Quran which commands men to lower their gaze. The Qur'an does not even remotely suggest that men are sexually more excitable than women. In fact I have discovered the following hadith which is conveniently ignored: “God has created the sexual desire in ten parts and he gave nine parts to women and one to men.” The same narration goes on to say, of shyness, women have been given nine parts of that too. So if women can control all nine parts of their desire when men are bending in front of them, sometimes wearing the tightest of jeans, it’s about time men took responsibility for their own urges too, and not hold women responsible.


So if you are having bad thoughts, please take responsibility.


I know there are many criticisms on here about all religions being patriachal 
which is true..........but they would be less so if more women were involved, especially in leadership roles. So even if you are against any form of religion, surely women's increased involvement is a good thing.”

Clearly we were not on the same wavelength. Ms Gohir, I could see, had read widely and she could take on most mullahs in a discussion on Islam as religion. Only, to me, Islam was not a religion and the feminists were making the same mistake that mullahs had made earlier. I carefully composed a reply:


Dear Ms Shaista Gohir,


Words are an imperfect means of conveying deeply held convictions. The way we use words, and interpret them, tend to reflect our own experience and it is easy to misunderstand another person’s point of view.


You talk about “sinful thoughts” – I am not sure what you mean. Do you have any control over the random thoughts that might occur to you? There are times when we think consciously and there are other times when thoughts just descend out of nowhere. Is a person responsible for the latter kind of thoughts?


The points I was trying to get across were:


1. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam that Muhammad Mustafa gave to mankind 1500 years ago. Having a priesthood is a distortion of Islam – a practice picked up from the Jews and the Christians.


2. In the early years of Islam mosques were not just places of worship – they were also what we might today call ‘community centres’, where the problems of the community would be addressed. The Caliph himself, or other leaders of the community, would be present to offer prayers to Allah and then to seek His Guidance in solving the problems of the community.


3. The kind of “worship” that is offered in the mosques today is, in my opinion, of very little value. I doubt if you have attended many prayer sessions or listened to the sermons that the Muslim priests deliver. Most are impractical and have been devalued through repetition. You will rarely hear anyone addressing the ills of so-called Muslim societies, which are anything but Islamic: widespread corruption, lies and deceit; and exploitation/ oppression of the general population by the privileged classes on a massive scale.


4. Remembrance of Allah is unlike anything else we might do. To receive and feel His Power within our ‘selves’ we need to reduce all kinds of distractions as much as possible and that means minimising the activity of our thinking mind. Thus, for example, the music that is played in many places of worship is considered inappropriate when it comes to remembering Allah. A direct link between the Creater and a created being is not dependent on such props [“He is closer to us than our jugular veins”]. It is in this sense that I consider men and women praying alongside each other to be a negation of true worship – simply because they will be too aware of each other’s presence and their minds will remain active - this has nothing to do with "sinful thoughts". I am sorry for the rather flippant comment I made in my previous post. However, I wasn’t just referring to men – my comments applied equally to women:


“It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she/he rises from a prostate position and your eyes - inadvertently, of course - come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up”.


I think you would appreciate my point of view better if you were to read the very first and the very last posts in the blog to which I provided a link. Would it be OK to use your article, and some of the comments thereon, in a future blog post? I don't suppose there will be any objections from the Guardian, which will be duly acknowledged?

Ms Shaista Gohir responded as follows:


"Thank you for such a detailed response. I will check out the links you have provided. And yes you should use my article to create debate whatever your take is on this. I think this issue should not be out of bounds and debated without it becoming too polarised which it did become back in 2005, when Amina Wadud first hit the headlines.


If men disagree and don't want to pray behind a woman for whatever reason then they shouldnt have to. However, they should not imply it is because of divine will and just be honest that it is simply male opinion on this issue. Likewise a woman should not have to accept the status quo and be able to challenge practices that she feels are man made without being demonised.


In terms of priesthood, I agree, in Islam we are not supposed to have intermediaterie between us and God and we give too much blind obedience to scholars / imams without checking out religious texts for ourselves."


I felt Shaista Gohir hadn’t quite appreciated the reason why I felt it served no purpose for men and women to offer prayers standing next to each other. It seems to me that the feminists have entered into a race with the mullahs to convert Islam into a meaningless religion similar to what Christianity has become. The feminists are trying to widen the mass of rituals we have today instead of cleaning up the mess and sending the mullahs packing from the mosques. I would be very happy if Shaista Gohir would deliver a Friday khutba about the plight of women in “Muslim” countries or about something else she feels strongly about. However, she should not then try to herd men and women into a room and get an imamah up front to “lead” them in prayer.