The Strangeness of the Veil ...

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

"Islam came a stranger to this world and will leave a stranger from this world."

(Hadith referenced here.)

There are very few statements that have the effect of reducing me to tears. This is one of them. I cry with tears every time I read or hear this hadith. If only some people could know what is the meaning of pain ...

But I don't cry when some secular person says that he feels uncomfortable with the feminine veil and then a whole nation joins him in chorus. When millions of people who are completely unfamiliar with the veil start casting aspersions on it and bicker about how the veil is so "strange", then know that the stranger has come and he is here to stay.

Ahlan wa sahlan, marhaba, marhaba.

Eid Mubarak :)

If You Are a Porn Addict …

Then this Ramadhan-ul-Mubarak is just right for you. Here are a few tips to get you off the hook …

• Develop insight: That is, develop the understanding that you are indeed hooked on to the wrong thing. If you think that pornography is “OK”, then you’ll never develop your spiritual side, alas.

• Develop motivation: Why do you want to get rid of your addiction? The best motivation is to do so for the sake of Almighty God and His Beloved Prophet (peace be upon him).

• Avoid the wrong situations: As much as humanly possible, avoid those situations where porn is easily accessible, e.g. company with the wrong people, watching television, lone hours at the internet, etc.

• Follow every bad act with a good one: Such as two nafl of prayers, or a sadaqa (charity).

• Stay busy: An idle mind certainly is the devil’s workshop, so involve yourself in something constructive.

• Say the five prayers: Be staunch on the five obligatory prayers. If you don’t pray them, then start NOW. Do it, no matter how hard it is for you. Even if you have to shower before every prayer. Try to do the fardh, sunnah, and nafl rak’ats, all of them.

• Say the tahajjud prayer: No kidding here. Not only say the tahajjud prayer, but also spend some time crying before the Lord. If you can’t cry, then make a crying face (no kidding again). Such remembrance deep in the middle of the night will break the spell of the nafs and will work wonders for your overall personality.

• Keep nafl fasts: Remember that fasting is one of the strongest ways to keep the sexual urges at bay. Fast on a daily basis in Ramadhan. In the other months, you may consider fasting every alternate day or every Monday or any other schedule that suits you. (However, fasting on a daily basis has been recommended against in months other than Ramadhan.)

• Keep company with the Awliya (Friends of God) and the Sulaha (Pious People): At the very least, avoid company with people who will detract you.

• Update (Jan 21, 2007): Please read this link on how to give up masturbation.

The Superior Logic of the Qur’an …

وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ رَمَى

“And you threw not when you threw, but it was God who threw”

[Qur’an, 8:17]

The verse of the Qur’an quoted above refers to the incident(s) when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) threw gravels or pebbles at the pagans in war and miraculously hit them individually in the eyes. The traditional exegesis of the verse is that since it is humanly impossible to achieve such a feat, Almighty God attributed this feat to Himself.

However, the sacred verse puts the logicians in a quandary since it could be broken into three statements that are apparently not mutually consistent:

(1) The Prophet (pbuh) threw the pebbles
(2) The Prophet (pbuh) did not throw the pebbles
(3) God threw the pebbles

The problem seems to lie with the fact that statement (1) and (2) are contradictory, and yet the Qur’an is acknowledging both statements within the same breath – “and you threw not when you threw”! While on the one hand, this apparent contradiction serves to detract the hard-hearted disbelievers, it also gives us a glimpse into the superior logic of the Qur’an.

The conflict can be easily resolved if one realizes that, broadly speaking, every object and every event has two realities: an apparent reality and a hidden reality. The apparent and the hidden realities are different and could seem to be contradictory, but this apparent contradiction is only because of change of perspective. The case in study – the event of throwing of the pebbles - also had two realities: an apparent one, namely throwing of the pebbles by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and a hidden one, namely throwing of the pebbles by Almighty God (glorified be He). Both realities are true in their own perspective, and denial of any one is tantamount to kufr (disbelief). Thus, statements (1) and (3) quoted above are both true, while the conjunctive statement (2) prevents the literal equating of (1) with (3), an act that would be tantamount to shirk (associating partners with God).

But logic aside, this sacred verse is one of the most endearing expressions of love you would come across. They say that Love leaves Logic in its wake, so it is not surprising that the blessed Sufis, who immerse themselves in the hidden reality, have a way of understanding this verse that leaves the blind logicians in the proverbial dust. At the supreme height of Love, the Lover equates the action of the Beloved with his own, and says by way of explanation, “That action that you did, you know, I am the one who did it, not you”.

God bless the Sufis.

The Schizophrenic Love of Some Conspiracy Theorists …

Some schizophrenic people create artificial quarrels between the Friends of God (Awliya Allah) and divide people on groundless grounds. Thus there are ostensible Sunnis who acknowledge the Khulafa Rashidun but deny the spiritual dominion of Syedna Ali (may God ennoble his face). On the other hand, there are ostensible Shias who allege fealty to Syedna Ali (may God ennoble his face) but accuse Syedna Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usman (may God be pleased with them) of usurping power. These extremely dangerous trends are borne out of an atmosphere of ignorance and prejudice.

In my observation, many people are simply confused. The confusion in their minds is in dire need of resolution. It is in this context that Sheikh-ul-Islam wrote his book, The Ghadir Declaration. The book is available online free of cost and is a must-read for the knowledge-seekers. The preface of the book resolves the conflict created by the conspiracy theorists.

Description of the Beloved …

I once posted on Umm-e-Ma’bad’s description of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). The portrayal is beautiful because of its use of metaphors. Yet it falls short of the mark precisely because of its use of metaphor. Syedna Pir Mehr Ali Shah (may God be pleased with him) was once blessed with a vision of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). He described the vision in a short, succinct Punjabi verse that said it all:

Koiy misl nahin dholan dee
Chup kar Mehr-e-Ali
Ethay jaa nahin bolan dee

Translation:

There is no metaphor for the Beloved
Be silent, O Mehr-e-Ali
This is no place for making similes!

Shock & Awe …

The quintessential Shock & Awe is the Conquest of Makkah. It took the Makkans by such complete and utter surprise that there was no room available for resistance. It ushered in the Prophetic Revolution.

When Prophet Musa (alaihes salam) and his people were caught between River Nile and the Pharaoh’s army, Syedna Musa (alaihes salam) struck the Nile with his staff and the river split into two walls, thus creating a passage for Syedna Musa (alaihes salam) and his people to pass. When they had crossed the river in this dramatic fashion, they were followed by the Pharaoh and his army in blind pursuit, who never realized that this river would become their grave. What ensued was Shock & Awe in its most shocking and most awesome form. Think about two walls crashing upon each other and you will know what I am talking about.

At Pakistan Awami Tehreek (Pakistan Peoples’ Movement), Shock & Awe is the technique that will usher Pakistan into Quaid-e-Azam’s vision of the modern, Islamic welfare country. In my previous posts, I have affirmed that Islamic Renaissance cannot be achieved without regaining political supremacy for Islam. This is the thought process that underlies the creation of Pakistan and this is the thought process that calls for a political renaissance in Pakistan and eventual union of the Muslim countries into an Islamic Bloc. Given the stronghold of corrupt, feudal, sectarian, terrorist, and exploitative elements in the country, we are obviously heading towards a final countdown with these forces of evil. We are already rapidly approaching critical mass and it will not be long till when we will simply explode into a spectacular display of Shock & Awe.

Some people are skeptical. Some are downright cynical. My response to them is: Do you remember the raging infernos in the oil wells of Kuwait way back in the Gulf War? The Iraqis set the oil wells on fire because they probably thought there would be no way the Americans could extinguish such violent flames. Yet it took only one big dynamite explosion per oil well to nip the evil. The technique is simple, yet elegant: You surround the fire with lots of dynamite and you explode the dynamite. There is a big explosion, a lot of dust, and lo and behold! Liquid oil gushes forth with no evidence of fire whatsoever. How does the technique work? They say that when the dynamite explodes, it creates a momentary vacuum for a split second, thus robbing the fire of its much-needed oxygen for a split second, and that is enough to extinguish the fire.

If you can believe in the spectacular extinguishing power of dynamite, why can’t you believe in the revolution promised by Sheikh-ul-Islam? After all, it takes only a split second to kill a monster fire. You just need the right amount of dynamite.

"Jinnah", the Movie ...

Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three.

(Professor Stanley Wolpert)

Jinnah, the movie, begins with these words of eulogy in honor of Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. Jamil Dehlvi’s effort is a commendable one, partly because he brings forth a historically accurate picture of Jinnah and his times. Unlike Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi, which was a sadistic take on Jinnah, Dehlvi’s production presents its characters in a fairly balanced and neutral manner, seemingly guided by the principles of the man he seeks to portray, i.e. justice, fair play, and impartiality. Dehlvi presents the facts and events as they were and allows the audience to arrive at their own conclusions. However, this does not mean that Jinnah is a dry lesson in history. On the contrary, it is a very engaging account, with an element of fantasy sprinkled in the movie that not only serves to lighten the mood but also helps in eliciting Jinnah’s perspective.

The young Jinnah is convincingly played by Richard Lintern, who portrays Jinnah as the brilliant, self-respecting, and suave gentleman that he was. Dehlvi has skillfully balanced the cold, calculating, and astute Jinnah who dramatically dumb-witted his opponents in court and in politics, with the gentle and loving Jinnah who affectionately loved his sister and who dared a romantic escapade with the beautiful Ruttie. The elder Jinnah, played by Christopher Lee (again very convincingly), is shown to have matured into a statesman and a spokesperson for the Muslim community of India. As always, Jinnah is thoroughly self-respecting and will not settle for anything less than a separate country precisely because he believes it is the “only way” to self-respect. This perspective of Jinnah is effectively brought out in the following conversation that takes place between the viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, and the Quaid-e-Azam:

Mountbatten: Divide the country in two? Muslims on one side, Hindus on the other? Mr Jinnah and his madness!
Jinnah: No, Mountbatten. It would be equally insane to leave a Muslim minority at the mercy of a Hindu majority, many of who hate us. Now, if the English Parliament …
Mountbatten (cutting Jinnah short): The Prime Minister has given me full powers. I decide. That’s why I am here, as representative of the King Emperor.
Jinnah: Whom we respect. I am here as a representative of a Muslim nation whom you must learn to respect.

Some people have questioned the reasons for the creation of a separate Muslim state. They cite as arguments against the creation of Pakistan the genocides of 1947 and 1971, the secession of Bangladesh, the three wars fought over Kashmir, and the overall failure of successive Pakistani governments. Such spurious reasoning is the product of ignorance or sheer prejudice. Granted those are pathetic facts, but they do not serve as evidence against the creation of Pakistan. It would be dumb indeed to surmise that it would have been all flowers and sunshine if only we had remained part of a larger India. We should not forget Quaid-e-Azam’s incisive words in the conversation quoted above: “many of who hate us”. Yes, many of them hated us in the early twentieth century and many of them still hate us in the early twenty-first century. To be sure, it was this hatred that spurred the genocide of 1947; it was this hatred that conspired with the Soviet Union to incite the genocide of 1971; and it was this hatred that provided the ideological ammunition to fight three wars over Kashmir.

Though Quaid-e-Azam’s vision still lies in the future (albeit not-too-distant future – and that’s something which is the subject of my next post, insha’Allah), I would, for the moment, like to emphasize that Pakistan has the potential to spearhead the formation of an Islamic Bloc, a position it couldn’t hold if it were part of secular India. This alone is good enough reason for the creation of Pakistan, and woe to the disbelievers.

Who says that Pakistan is a failure, yet India is a success? For the record, allow me to mention that we are economically slightly better off than India (rates of abject poverty being significantly lower in Pakistan), we have very low prevalence of HIV/AIDS compared with India’s sky-high rates, and we have a cricket team that wins more often than it loses when it is in mortal combat with the Indians.

Long live Jinnah.

Terrorism Has No Religion ...

"Terrorism has no religion. It is a social and criminal phenomenon caused by various reasons. Islam is based on plurality rather than individuality. It demands harmonization and integration."

(Sheikh-ul-Islam, Professor Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri)

I just had to write this post, you know, just had to. You see, when proud lesbians become unflinching champions for Islam, then you know that something is amiss. Irshad Manji's latest trash is yet another pathetic attempt at making Muslims feel bad about themselves. I will not attempt to debunk Manji here coz she is nowhere near worth it, but one thing is clear: Such Islamophobic nonsense as hers does make an impact on the common Westerner (whatever a Westerner is). The acerbic responses to my previous posts on the topic of terrorism (1, 2) are evidence of this impact. The main thrust of my arguments in those posts was that it is hypocritical for the Western media to put the spotlight on Muslim terrorists when their own countries are committing terrorism of a far greater magnitude. But it seemed that my arguments were lost on the commentators at those posts. Evidently, they had bought into the story depicted by their media.

In connection with this mind-boggling phenomenon called terrorism, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Professor Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri delivered an excellent lecture (what else could you expect from him?) at London in the post-7/7 scenario in the presence of the London police authorities. In the lecture, Sheikh-ul-Islam explained the Islamic viewpoint on terrorism, the Islamic punishment of the terrorist, the reason why a terrorist turns to terrorism in the first place (a.k.a. "Why do they hate us?"), and the terrorizing role played by the Western media in this whole story. The lecture is a must-watch for all people. Watch it!

Pakistan: Mission Impossible? ...

And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels:
"Verily, I am going to place on earth generations after generations [of humans]."

They said:
"Will You place therein those who will make mischief and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You?"

He said:
"I know that which you do not know".

(Qur'an, 2:30)


Pakistan turns 59 and Avari asks whether Pakistan was a mistake. Avari’s question is essentially the same question that the angels posed to the Lord. The angels were shown only one side of the coin, namely the ugly, base side of the coin. The flip side of the coin was a reality that the Lord kept for Himself to be unfolded when the opportune time came, so He mitigated the angels’ concerns with the timeless words, “I know that which you do not know”.

Pakistan’s history is indeed one of mischief and bloodshed. I will not go into the sordid details here, since you all know about the mischief and bloodshed that has taken place (and is still taking place) in the Pure Land. All I want to point out here is that Pakistan as a project is a continuation - and a reflection - of the Divine project that is called Man. The divine project, which sought for Almighty God’s vicegerent on Earth, started off on an apparently dissonant note, when one of the sons of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) murdered his own brother in cold blood (Qur’an, 5:27-30). At that time, this did not mean that Project Man was a failure in any way. All it meant was that the project had yet to achieve completion.

The same is the case with Pakistan. Our bleak past in no way precludes our bright future. Impossible as it may seem to some people, the day is not far away when Pakistan will be a modern, welfare Islamic state that will serve as a modern-day role model for the other Muslim countries. We are a project held in abeyance, not a failed one. We are a homework placed on the desk that has yet to be completed.

Pakistan Zindabad!
(Long live Pakistan!)

That Elusive Tear ...

The tear that is shed in the middle of the night in the Remembrance of Almighty God is the most sacred liquid drop in the World. It is more sacred, indeed, than the drop of blood shed by a martyr. This elusive drop that is shed from the eye works a million miracles, if only we could know better:

· It creates a special secret bond between the Creator and the created that cannot be created in any other way.
· It breaks down the hidden conceit in an individual and makes one more humble.
· It tames the sexual beast.
· It is a source of Divine forgiveness.
· It foments a spiritual revolution that is followed by lifelong spiritual evolution.
· It causes endless goodwill in one’s family and society.
· It leads to a physically healthier human being.
· It is the most effective da’wah.

It is high time we searched for that elusive tear …

Islamic Renaissance and Political Supremacy …

It is He who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth in order that He shows its superiority over all other religion, even if the idolaters detest it.

[Qur’an, 9:33 and 61:9]

Courtesy of Sunni Sister, I came across this article by Imam Zaid Shakir, which asserts that Islam is a religion, not an ideology. To the extent that Islam should not be reduced to only a political ideology, I agree with Imam Zaid, but I respectfully disagree with his contention that the Qur’anic verse quoted above is meant to be taken in a purely religious (meaning spiritual) sense and not in a political sense. To be sure, the word used in the sacred verse is diyn, which means system for conducting life and not merely system of belief and ritual worship. The very definition of the word diyn implies that Islam is a spiritual code as well as a political system. We can therefore conclude that the verse is saying that the purpose of Messengership is twofold:

1. Establishing supremacy of Islam’s spiritual code over all other spiritual systems
2. Establishing political supremacy of Islam over all other political systems

Indeed, this verse forms the most forceful and incontrovertible evidence in favor of the notion that a political renaissance in Islam is inevitable. One cannot undermine one meaning of the verse in favor of the other since both meanings are included in the verse. The worldly and the otherworldly are concepts that find their endorsement from the Qur’an and Sunnah, and both are important in their own right:

Give us a beautiful life in this world and a beautiful life in the Hereafter, and save us from the torment of the Fire. (Qur’an, 2:201; also a favorite prayer with the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him)

The Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, did get the best of both worlds. And if you are one of the skeptics and cynics, then allow me to repeat the words of a non-Muslim that I posted a few days ago:

[Muhammad] was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

It is no coincidence that the Prophets and Messengers were immensely successful political personalities who challenged the exploitative leaders of their times and invariably succeeded against them in this world. For example, Prophet Musa, peace be upon him, challenged the exploitative leadership of the Pharoah. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, challenged the Quraysh and then the Byzantine and Persian Empires. Thus the prophetic mission is twofold: first, it is to deliver the Pristine Message; second, it is to deliver the people from oppression and exploitation.

Some people suggest in ignorant piety, “Oh well, they were the Prophets”, meaning that we cannot aspire to achieve similar results. Well, such defeatist piety is uncalled for in the Qur’an:

Indeed in the Messenger of God [Muhammad] you have a beautiful example to follow (Qur’an, 33:21)

The ideal political figure is thus the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the ideal Islamic State is the state established by the Prophet, peace be upon him. We will include the three-decade period of the Khulafa Rashideen under the banner of “ideal Islamic state” as is evident from the following hadiths:

The Khilafah in my Ummah will be for 30 years. (Tirmizi)
The Prophetic Khilafah will last for 30 years, then God will give it to whom He wills. (Abu Dawood)
It is incumbent upon you to follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my Righteously Guided Caliphs. (Abu Dawood)

Thus the first 40 years of the Islamic State (comprising of 10 years of State of Medina and 30 years of the Khilafa Rashidun) form the ideal period, while the subsequent 1,387 years form the less-than-ideal period. This less-than-ideal period has not been an even one. There have been relatively stable periods and sometimes the road has been rather bumpy, but it is a fact that 1200 of the past 1400 years have been marked by the political supremacy of Islam (notwithstanding the erratic behavior of some Muslim rulers). There are only two periods of time when Islam temporarily ceased to be a world power in political terms. The first of these two periods was a 52-year period from 1252 AD to 1304 AD when the Mongols swept through the Muslim empire and committed the bloodiest genocide of all time. The second period is the current period that could be said to start from 1914 AD when the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in World War I. This second period has also been marred by genocides (and we’ve talked about this in detail before). The common denominator in these two epochs is that Muslims took to dwelling on sectarian differences rather than dwelling on their non-sectarian similarities. Sectarianism and discrimination are the Muslim’s Achilles’ heel and have always been, and will always be, exploited by the enemy. We can conclude that while Almighty God’s promise to give political supremacy to His Diyn holds true, it is subject to the condition that we do not hold contempt for each other. This is the primary reason for the failure of many ostensibly Islamic parties, organizations, and movements (exceptions notwithstanding). God says,

Indeed, the party of God will dominate (Qur’an, 5:56)

This provides the answer to the question so many people ask, namely, “Has Islam failed to deliver?” The answer is that it is not Islam that has failed to deliver (it has delivered for more than a millennium!); rather, it is the lack of self-confidence (i.e. faith) that has failed to deliver. After all, contempt and faith are mutually exclusive terms.

They ask us whether Islam is more practical than communism, capitalism, fascism, individualism, and terrorism. My response is that Islam as a vibrant political power reigned supreme for a whole millennium. Which “ism” has this track record? As regards whether Islam is practicable in today’s world, I find no fundamental difference in today’s world and Ottoman Empire’s world (or for that matter, any other Empire’s world) that makes Islam less practicable, except our own complexes and insecurities. To sum up, Islam is the divine recipe for all times, whether you like it or not – wa lau karehal mushrikoon (and even if it is to the chagrin of the mushriks!).

On Slavery ...

"It is true that Islam has commended humanity in the treatment of slaves, and encouraged most forcefully their emancipation. We can see from the history of many different peoples in the Islamic world that slaves quickly integrated into the main society and achieved positions of great prestige and power, some even before they gained their freedom. And yet, if Islam regards slavery as a social evil, why did the Qur’an or the Prophet not ban it outright? There are, after all, other social evils which pre-existed Islam, and which Islam sought to abolish altogether-for example, the consumption of alcohol, or gambling, or usury, or prostitution. Why does Islam, by not abolishing slavery, appear to condone it?"

If you are bugged by that question, then here is the answer ...

Israel Does NOT Have the Right to Defend Itself …

The world map above shows the Muslim-majority countries in green, while the countries marked yellow are those where about half the population are Muslim. The Muslim-minority countries are marked in gray. Most of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims live in the green and yellow countries while the rest live in the gray countries.

The Muslim-majority countries form an almost contiguous land mass of an approximate area of 12 million square miles. If you observe closely, you will notice a Muslim-minority country squarely placed in the midst of the Muslim countries. If you cannot observe this anomaly of a country in the map above, then the close-up below will show it clearly right in the center of the picture.


This excuse for a country is called Israel, a land with an approximate area of 8 thousand square miles and population of about 7 million. This Muslim-minority country sitting right in the heartland of the Muslim world does stick out like a sore thumb, doesn’t it? Indeed, it’s been there since only 1948. Its creation was an opportunistic side-effect of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the post-colonial, post-world-war Muslim lands. Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians from their land and subsequent state terrorism upon its neighbors has effectively stripped Israel of the right to defend itself. I, for one, was wont to believe that we could live peacefully with an Israel that was cut down to its proper size. But given that history has amply proved that this country’s existence as a sovereign state is a threat to the very concept of peace, I will deduce that the world would be better off without it.

Woe to the rulers of the Muslim countries for being tacit partners in the ongoing high crime being committed against humanity. Whatever happened to 1.4 billion people?


Update (7th Jan 2009): I found this article in The Guardian to be a balanced and informative account of the Israeli predicament.

Wake Up, Muslims ...

We all take pride (don’t we?) in how Dr Michael Hart chooses to rank Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him – as Number One in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Dr Hart starts his book with the following words.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world’s great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.

I agree. But the question that revolved in my mind when I first read these words some fifteen years ago was,

“If Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him – was the most influential person in history, then why is there only one Muslim name figuring in the other 99 names?”

(This name being Syedna Umr ibn Khattab – may God be pleased with him - the Second Caliph amongst the Khulafa Rashideen. I will write more about him, insha’Allah, in the future. Strictly speaking, the Prophets Moses and Jesus – alaihum us salam – who are also on the list, were also Muslims, but we are talking here about the Ummah of the Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him.)

This is a very important and crucial question, since it is very strange that a man – a Prophet – tops a list of influential persons, and none (except one) of the billions of people strongly influenced by him manage to make it to the top hundred. After all, we’ve always been a sizable portion of the World’s population and today we number a quarter-and-a-billion – that’s a quarter of humanity. Of course, we could cry foul and say that Dr Hart has been prejudicial in his assessment, but I don’t think so, since he has been honest enough to place Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him – at Number One even though he knew it would go against the wishes of some of his readers.

The answer to this question lies in the fact that our long history could be divided into a first millennium of relative success followed by a half-millennium of downfall. For the past 500 years, we have been moving downhill and today we have probably reached the nadir of our 1,500-year career. The first millennium of success brought forth such an overwhelming list of influential names that to name only a few would be to do injustice to the others. I would refer my reader to the website, Muslim Heritage, to learn more about this oft-forgotten period of World History.

But it is our incredible downfall in the past half-millennium that has made us lose the influence that our worthy predecessors had on people. If we have forgotten even the names of our worthy predecessors, then why would Dr Hart care to include them in his list of the most influential persons in history? It is no small matter that Dr Hart says,

Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.

Notice his use of the word, still. This is a glowing tribute to the Holy Prophet – peace be upon him – since even though many of the people of his Ummah have fallen into moral and intellectual bankruptcy for the past five hundred years, his influence nevertheless is still powerful and pervasive.

I wish there were more of us in that list. Any volunteers?

The US – Israel Axis of Evil ...

Lessons to be Learned From 66 U.N. Resolutions Israel Ignores appeared in the Washington Report in March 1993, so the statistics may be out of date, but the article makes for a fairly balanced and concise view of the whole issue. I would suggest you read the whole article but here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite.

Like former Secretary of State James Baker's repeated assertion that both sides must want peace for it to occur, the Clinton-Rabin agreement ignores the sorry record of the 26 years since Israel's conquest of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. During that period Israel has unequivocally demonstrated that it does not want peace in exchange for territory.

However, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was unique. It came at the expense of the Palestinians, which was by Israeli design, and in exchange for Sinai, to which Israel never laid claim. Moreover, Israel received in return for signing the peace treaty with Egypt commitments from the U. S. that have now reached a level of economic and military aid unsurpassed in our history.

The result is that Israel has managed to retain what it has wanted most: East Jerusalem and the West Bank. After so many diplomatic initiatives, it seems fair to conclude Israel does not want peace on any terms but its own.

An end to expulsions is only the latest demand of the international community on Israel, whose defiance goes back to its very beginnings. There remain on the books of the United Nations a collection of resolutions criticizing Israel unmatched by the record of any other nation.

The core issues, as contained in resolutions passed before 1967, remain the Palestinian refugee problem, the status of Jerusalem, and the location of Israel's boundaries. These are the basic issues. They spring from 1948, not 1967.

The early U.N. resolutions call for Israel to repatriate or compensate the original 750,000 refugees of 1948-9 and to renounce Jerusalem as its capital and regard it as a corpus separatum, an international city dominated by neither Arab nor Israeli. (The U. S. position on Jerusalem is slightly different and, not surprisingly, closer to Israel's. It says Jerusalem should not be a divided city and its final status should be decided by the parties.) Finally, the original U.N. partition of Palestine awarded Israel an area only about three-quarters of its current official size. Israel's increase was gained at the expense of the Palestinians in the earlier conquests of 1948.

Other unreconciled issues from this earlier period include such sticky situations as a demilitarized zone that Israel had shared with Syria near the Sea of Galilee. Israel forcefully and unlawfully occupied this zone in the 1950s and 1960s, in defiance of its 1949 armistice with Syria.

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

In 29 separate cases between 1972 and 1991, the United States has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel. Except for the U.S. veto, these resolutions would have passed and the total number of resolutions against Israel would now equal 95 instead of 66.

Such a list of resolutions passed and resolutions vetoed is unparalleled in United Nations history. The list in itself forms a stunning indictment of Israel's unlawful and uncivilized actions over a period of 45 years and of America's complicity in them.

Yet references to this damning record are totally absent from the vocabularies of American leaders as they go about saying they are seeking peace.

HIV, AIDS, Stigma, and Discrimination ...

Would that we Pakistanis could learn the maxim:

“Hate the sin, not the sinner”

The stigma and discrimination against HIV/AIDS isn’t going to end until we follow this maxim, but it will take a revolution of sorts if we want people to think the way this maxim wants us to think. This revolution will have to begin with you. But you got to realize that HIV/AIDS isn’t the only stigma in Pakistan. All sorts of things become a stigma in my beloved country, for example:
· You are stigmatized if you are black in color (I am talking about color here, not race).
· You are stigmatized if you are poor
· You are stigmatized if you belong to a lesser caste
· You are stigmatized if you suffer from a mental disorder (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, etc)
· You are stigmatized if you are “low” in “status”
· You are stigmatized if you are infertile (this holds true for both men and women, but especially for women)
· You are stigmatized if you are ugly

I speak from personal experience in a public health setting. Many people would try to hide a family member’s mental illness or the fact that their child is an adopted one and not their biological child. Most poor people will take loan and spend at least a hundred thousand rupees on their daughter’s wedding only to save them from being stigmatized. If you are an infertile woman, then the people around you will give you less respect. If you belong to a lesser caste, you would wish you could lie about it. If your dad were a sweeper at the hospital, you would work your way out of this by telling people that your father is “employed” at the hospital.

Historically speaking, this stigmatism that has pervaded all strata of Pakistani society was (and still is) the mark of Hindu society. Our one-and-a-half-millennium long affair with the Hindu culture gave us this gift of stigmatization. Now it is time for us to throw it into the dustbin.

Pakistani society is a sexually corrupt society (yes, it is) sitting at the brink of a general HIV epidemic. While we are expecting the numbers of HIV-infected persons to rise in the coming years, I am not foreseeing any amount of reduction in stigma and discrimination against HIV/AIDS until you and I start caring for the HIV-infected person. Till then, the people living with HIV/AIDS will have to live in Hell.

Happy Birthday, our Beloved ...

Allama Iqbal, may God have mercy on him, said it all when, while passing around the Arabian peninsula on a sea journey, he said,

“I wish I were a grain of sand in the desert of Arabia. The winds would blow me from one place till I would come and rest in another place in the desert. Then the winds would blow me from that place too and I would come to rest in yet another place ... ”

I guess I can’t write a better article at the occasion of the birthday of the Beloved, peace be upon him, than these few lines.

Salla Allah o Alaihe Wa Sallam

God bless you all and have fun.

Who Said I Wasn't There ... ?

Who said I wasn’t there?

I was the dust that you threw in their eyes
I was the pillar that you leaned against
I was the mule that you rode upon
I was the tree that prostrated to you

Who said I wasn’t there?

I was the sandal underneath your feet
When they were hitting you with stones
I am the one who took you away from them
Then God sent the blessed shower of blood
So that it would be difficult to separate us

Who said I wasn’t there?

A Call to Prevent a Clash of Civilisations ...

Shaykh-ul-Islam Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is taking up the issue of the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) with the UN, EU, OIC, governments of all member states of the UN and with all embassy missions in Islamabad. As part of this diplomatic drive, he will send a detailed memorandum to all of these concerned parties all over the world, including world human rights organisations. The text of the memorandum is given below:

A Call to Prevent a Clash of Civilisations:

The world is facing yet another challenge following the world-wide controversy caused by the publication of blasphemous and defamatory caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in some European newspapers. The failure of governments to address this situation has allowed it to spread all over the world, with no end in sight. This situation has been unnecessarily allowed to spiral out of control and has threatened the concept of peaceful co-existence. If not addressed, it can lead to a potential clash of not only civilisations but religions and societies as well.

This memorandum aims to put the issue in perspective and to propose realistic and practicable measures to address it. Much of this debate has focused on the 'right of freedom of expression' with its defenders advocating the sacredness of freedom of speech which needs to be upheld no matter what the consequences. However in reality the issue is not one of curtailing the right to freedom of expression since this is a right that is not absolute and no one can claim so. Rights are reciprocal and their enforcement is interdependent on other fundamental rights. To insist that a right is absolute is erroneous since such a right can infringe other basic human rights. Every country that claims to be part of the 'civilized and democratic' world has put its own limits on freedom of expression in the interests of society in order to maintain a certain level of human behaviour, be it based on local norms and customs, culture or religion but in essence to protect the dignity of their moral and religious, social, and societal values.

So to suddenly create an outcry that the right to freedom of speech is being undermined by Muslim protests is clearly a fallacy. The free propagation of child pornography for instance or the incitements of religious or racial hatred in the media is banned in many countries and quite rightly so. In many European countries it is a crime to deny the holocaust, being a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and a jail sentence. When the British newspaper, The Independent (27 January 2003) depicted the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying, ' What's wrong, You've never seen a politician kissing babies before', this caused an uproar in Israel and other parts of the world raising tempers especially in the Jewish and Israeli community around the world. Whatever the matter of that caricature, the uproar was a natural reaction of a people for their leader. More recently when the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi compared himself to Jesus Christ the Vatican including Italian politicians immediately expressed shock and anger at these comments. A senior Catholic Church official added, "I know he will say he was speaking in jest but such things should not be spoken of in jest." The issue here is not one of curtailing freedom of expression but objecting to the ridicule and insult towards the sacred elements of an entire civilisation.

There is also a law of defamation normally under the Law of Tort that can lead to an individual being compensated for offence caused. The absolute right to free expression is curtailed in order to balance the rights of an individual. In the same way an act that causes offence to a whole community can never be justified under the banner of freedom of speech. Moreover in many countries it is illegal or at least discouraged to degrade or abuse the constitution or certain national institutions such as the army, courts of law, or parliament. Contempt of court also exists all over the world which severely limits freedom of speech, violation of which can lead to imprisonment. If the right to freedom of expression is absolute, why are there no objections to laws such as these?

To give respect to an individual's honour and dignity is a fundamental human right protected by law as is the prohibition on blasphemy and defamation as well as the right to religious freedom. The UN Charter, Constitutions and Laws from many countries provide protection to these rights.

The UN Charter recognises this right in Article 1(ii):

"To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

It is also recognised in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 9:

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The constitution of the USA, Amendment I of Bill of Rights states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Some US states have blasphemy laws on their statute books. The U.S state of Massachusetts General Laws states (chapter 272 section 360) "Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail...

Other countries having blasphemy laws are:

1. Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the criminal code)
2. Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)
3. Germany (Article 166 of the criminal code)
4. The Netherlands (Article 147 of the criminal code)
5. Spain (Article 525 of the criminal code)
6. Ireland: Article 40.6.1.i of the constitution of Ireland provides that the publication of blasphemous matter is an offence. Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred act 1989, this includes hatred against a group on account of their religion.
7. Canada Section 296 of the Canadian Criminal code. Offence against the Christian religion is blasphemy.
8. New Zealand Section 123 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961

Churches for instance hold sanctity in the Christian world and are protected under the constitution in some European countries. An example is the constitution of Denmark, section 4 [State Church] which states: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State." It is evident from the above mentioned laws that freedom of speech is a fundamental right but this right is not absolute. There are hundreds of books and newspaper articles that have been published attempting to criticize Islam and the basic tenets of its faith yet Muslims never object to scholarly debate since they are well aware that this is part of an ongoing debate on Islam and within the tenets of 'freedom of expression'. There have been countless newspaper articles completely misrepresenting Islam, often publishing clear lies and exaggerated stories about Islam and its law yet Muslims are tolerant and appreciate that this is part and parcel of living within societies who claim this to be part of their 'liberal democracies'. However when this right of 'freedom of expression' is abused and the most sacred elements of Islam are deliberately insulted then this will definitely create great unrest among Muslims around the world. By depicting the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as wielding a knife and wearing a bomb disguised as a turban on his head is a deliberate attempt to insult and stir up controversy, presenting him and his followers as violent terrorists. Another caricature portrays him as supporting suicide bombers and saying "Stop, Stop we have run out of virgins". How can such caricatures be justified under the banner of free speech? Moreover these caricatures were not printed within a vacuum but in an environment of an anti-Muslim bias where tensions were already running extremely high within the Danish community and indeed throughout Europe. Only recently the Queen of Denmark had made controversial remarks stating that: "We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

Moreover many countries have passed anti-terrorist legislation, severely restricting the civil liberties of individuals, with the legislation drafted in a manner that is clearly aimed at focusing upon Muslims in the countries concerned. There is a strong feeling that a substantial minority is being continually abused and misrepresented in the mass media through the portrayal of negative images not based upon reality, and then subjected to humiliating checks and procedures when going about their lives on a daily basis, all in the name of freedom of speech and national interest. It is thus highly surprising that the sacred elements of its faith are ridiculed just in the name of freedom of expression and speech knowing that the reactions will be extremely tense. There is no doubt that the publishing of these caricatures by the newspapers involved was an exercise to demonstrate control and power directed against Muslims, either subscribe to our culture and way of living or suffer the consequences and be ridiculed and debased.

Realising the significance of this right some world dignitaries have condemned the publication of these caricatures and have emphasised the restriction of the right of the freedom of speech too.

Kofi Annan: "I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgment." Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the re-publication of these cartoons has been insulting; it has been insensitive; it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong. "There are taboos in every religion. It is not the case that there is open season in respect of all aspects of Christian rites and rituals in the name of free speech. Nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of rights and rituals of the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh religion. It should not be the case in respect of the Islamic religion either. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation."

The US State Department: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims." Spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable." Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Foreign Minister: "The principle of freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance, respect of beliefs, respect of religions, which is the very basis of secularism of our country."

Vatican cardinal Achille Silvestrini condemned the cartoons, saying Western culture had to know its limits. It is thus clearly apparent that using freedom of speech to imply that there are no limits to what one can say or do is a myth. An act that offends the religious and moral values of a community such as solidarity, integrity and sanctity, resulting in endangering the peace, cannot be regarded as a right to express ones freedom of speech. Islam too teaches the principle of tolerance and co-existence, to live and let live. It discourages the defamation of other Gods and religious symbols teaching respect to mankind. (Al-Quran: Al-An'am: 6:108). Islamic Law lays great emphasis on the security, dignity and respect of all other religions together with their beliefs without any discrimination.

If internationally recognised principles of tolerance and co-existence are put aside and moral and religious values are dishonoured then the present situation will worsen and the prevailing tensions will intensify. Europe considers itself to be an educated and civilized society but its response to the gross infringement of the basic right to religion of one of its minority communities has become un-understandable. There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace. Those who advocate that the right to freedom of speech is being eroded and any restraints upon it cannot be tolerated must look within their own 'democratic societies' and the extent to which their civil liberties have been eroded through the recent anti-terrorist legislation. These are the measures that have curtailed the rights and liberties of individuals and have much more serious implications which need to be addressed. Muslims are feeling alienated and targeted thus when newspapers begin to ridicule the most sacred elements of their faith, reactions will inevitably be high. If the publication of the caricatures is not taken seriously and steps are not taken to resolve the situation, then it can generate socio-political and economic crises which may lead to a conflict between civilizations and between nations.

These are the reasons behind the anger against the publication of these condemnable caricatures and the anger at the disregard shown by the governments towards the rightful protests of the Muslim world against the offence. 1.25 billion Muslims all over the world have been deeply insulted and instead of creating moves to resolve the matter, the act is being continuously justified prolonging world-wide unrest.

In order to solve this international issue and dissolve the serious tension it has caused, I propose the following solutions be implemented:

1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications.
2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.
3. All Governments should then ensure that any such legislation is enforced through the due process of the law and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens again.

I expect that common sense will prevail and responsible leaders will rise to the occasion and repair the damage that has been done to inter-civilization relations. I also expect that the concerned leaders of the countries will display leadership and bravely extend cordiality to the Muslims of the world.

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
Founding Leader Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI)
Chairman Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT)

Anti-Blasphemy Rally ...

An anti Blasphemy Rally was organised by Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) in Islamabad to protest against the publication of the blasphemous caricatures by newspapers around the world. The rally demanded the newspapers to apologise unreservedly and also called upon the concerned governments to take action to prevent such blasphemy taking place again in the future.

The rally was addressed by Agha Murtaza Poya Senior Vice Chairman of PAT, Allama Ali Ghazanfar Qararvi, Abdul Hayy Alavi, Umar Riaz Abbasi and others. Addressing large crowds they said that freedom of speech was not absolute and it was not an open licence for blasphemy, disrespect, slander and defamation. They called upon the concerned countries to pay attention to the fact that condemnation of the publication of the caricatures by world leaders together with the UN, EU and the OIC proves they have no choice but to take prompt action against the newspapers and accept the fact they were wrong to allow the publications of the caricatures. They regretted that the governments of these countries could have prevented the world wide controversy if they had recognised the criticality of the matter and put an end to it right from the out set.

Caricatures are Violation of Basic Human Rights ...

Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, founding leader of Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI), has declared the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet (SAW) as the violation of basic human rights of believers of all religions world wide. He has condemned their publication and subsequent republication. He has said that such an act cannot be defended under the banner of freedom of speech. Respecting all religions and religious symbols is a universal right which has been breached by the publication of these caricatures. While freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, offending, insulting and defaming someone is also a breach of human rights.

Shaykh-ul-Islam announced that he will be taking up this matter with the UN, EU, OIC, governments of all member states of the UN and with all embassy missions in Islamabad. As part of this diplomatic drive, he will send a detailed memorandum of protest to all of these concerned parties all over the world. The aim will be to ensure that adequate action is taken against the newspapers and that such incidents never reoccur in the future. The memorandum will be posted on this website soon.

Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI) will be holding the coming Friday as a day of protest. Peaceful walks will be arranged all over Pakistan in protest of the publication of the caricatures.

Further updates on the issue will be posted.

Bombs, Cartoons, and Reality ...

A Beautiful Illustration of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him:


Though several Companions of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, have described the personality of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in beautiful words, the description provided by Umm-e-Ma'bad has no comparison. When the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, was on his travel of Hijrah, his first destination was the Cave of Saur. Upon his setting off from Saur, he came upon the dwelling of Umm-e-Ma'bad, who was a kind-hearted elderly lady. The Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Companions were thirsty. It was a special blessing that the lady's weak, emaciated goat gave a very large volume of milk that day. The Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, and his companions drank from that milk, but some milk still remained. When Umm-e-Ma'bad's husband came home later in the day after the guests had left, he surprisingly inquired about where so much milk came from. Umm-e-Ma'bad narrated the whole story of that day. He said, "Tell me more about this young man from Quraysh. Is he not the one whom I have heard so much about?" Upon this, Umm-e-Ma'bad offered a description of the Prophet - salla Allah o alaihe wa sallam - in the most choicest words. Umm-e-Ma'bad had neither knowledge about nor prejudice against the Prophet, peace be upon him, so she described everything just as she saw it ...


"Pious in habit; smart in appearance; appealing in etiquette; proportionate in physique; luxurious in hair; handsome in countenance; eyes black and wide; hair long and full; voice deep and rich; neck long and strong; forehead wide and brilliant; eyes filled with modesty; eyebrows thin and long; hair black and slightly curled; with a silent dignity that makes a place in the heart; appears very attractive from afar; but is ever more so handsome from close; sweet, enchanting, manner of speaking; speaks clearly, without excess or deficiency of words - as if pearls have been joined into a necklace; medium in height, so that appears neither short nor too tall - like the fresh stem of a fresh tree; impressive and magnetic presence; cynosure of his companions; he speaks, and they listen with intent silence; he orders, and they hurry to obey; stately, regal, neither reticent nor talkative!"


(Translated from Mohsin-e-Insaniyat - Benefactor of Mankind - Naeem Siddiqui's best-selling biography of the Prophet in the Urdu language)

Adab of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) ...

O you who believe, do not put [yourselves] forward before God and His Messenger, and fear God. Verily, God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. O you who believe, raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds may be rendered fruitless while you perceive not. Verily, those who lower their voices in the presence of God’s Messenger, they are the ones whose hearts God has tested for piety. For them is forgiveness and a great reward. (Qur’an, 49:1-3)

I have always wondered at these verses of the Qur’an as a child wonders at a shining jewel. There is a certain depth of meaning emanating from these verses that may be missed by the casual onlooker. I will summarize here some of the main lessons to be learnt from these sacred verses.

• The mere act of raising one’s voice above that of the Holy Prophet’s (peace be upon him) or speaking in a casual tone to him is equivalent to giving oneself more importance than God and His Messenger.
  
  
• Note how intensely God is protective of His Messenger when He says, “Do not put [yourselves] forward before God and His Messenger”. To realize the full intensity of what this means, consider as an example the case of a man warning his children not to talk aloud to their mother. He could make one of the following four statements:
  
  1. “Don’t talk aloud to your mother, for if you do so, you will be disrespectful to your mother”.
  2. “Don’t talk aloud to your mother, for if you do so, you will be disrespectful to your mother and me”.
  3. “Don’t talk aloud to your mother, for if you do so, you will be disrespectful to me and your mother”.
  4. “Don’t be disrespectful to me and your mother, so don’t talk aloud to your mother”.
  
  The first statement indicates the sentiments of a man who evidently loves his wife and does not want her to be wronged. The second statement is similar, but it indicates that the father is taking the issue personally and feels personally affronted if the children talk aloud to their mother. Obviously, the second statement indicates a greater degree of love. The third statement is indicative of an even greater degree of love, for the father is placing his name before his wife’s name, so he is taking the disrespect as a personal affront to an even greater degree. The fourth statement, however, shows the height of love. Here, the father starts with the warning, “Don’t be disrespectful to me and your mother”, and then goes on to explain exactly what he means by the warning. This is exactly the method of God when He seeks protection of His Messenger (peace be upon him).
  
  
• These three verses make it abundantly clear that the hypothesis that the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is a “man like us” can very rightly be tossed into the dustbin.
  
  
• The extreme importance of adab (i.e. respect, reverence, etc) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is illuminated by these verses.
  
  
• These verses have set the minimum standard of adab of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). Anyone whose adab is below this minimum standard will find himself or herself bereft of forgiveness and reward.
  
  
• Incidentally, these verses have also set the standard for forgiveness and reward. That is to say, only those persons will be considered for forgiveness and reward who meet the criterion of adab set in these verses.
  
  
• Lack of adab of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) results in one’s deeds being “rendered fruitless while [one] perceives not”. This is a horrible punishment indeed! And may God protect us against such a calamity! We know that some sins (like jealousy) eat away one’s good deeds, but for good deeds to be eaten up in such a way that one is not even aware of one’s loss is sure enough indication of personal avengement from God.
  
  
• The prerequisite for being tested for piety is not to say “La ilaha illa Allah Muhammad arrasool ullah”; rather, the prerequisite is to lower one’s voice in the presence of the Messenger (peace be upon him). Those people who fail to qualify for this minimum standard of adab are by definition entirely devoid of all piety since they are not tested for piety.
  
  
• One very interesting aspect of these verses is that these verses apparently do not seem to have a direct relevance for believers in the present era, since how many of us get the chance of speaking to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)? There are very few verses of this sort in the Qur’an which have commands that seem to apply only to the Prophetic era. For example:
  
  O you who believe, enter not the Prophet's houses, except when leave is given to you for a meal, [and then] not [so early as] to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without sitting for a talk. Verily, such [behavior] annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of [asking] you [to go], but God is not shy of [telling you] the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen, that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not [right] for you that you should annoy God’s Messenger, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him [his death]. Verily, with God that shall be an enormity. (Qur’an, 33:53)
  
  O you who believe, when you [want to] consult the Messenger [Muhammad] in private, spend something in charity before your private consultation. That will be better and purer for you. But if you find not [the means for it], then verily, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Are you afraid of spending in charity before your private consultation [with him]? If then you do it not, and God has forgiven you, then [at least] perform the prayer and give Zakat and obey God [i.e. do all what God and His Prophet order you to do]. And God is All-Aware of what you do. (Qur’an, 58, 12-13)
  
  The fact that these verses were not abrogated despite their apparent inapplicability to the post-Prophetic era shows very well the extreme love that God has for the Prophet (peace be upon him), since these verses are all about the (minimum required level of) adab of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

Christian Missionary Tactics ...

Stealth Crusade is an eye-opening article on the "contextualization" technique and similar incredibly deceptive tactics used by Christion missionaries to create doubts in the minds of Muslims about their religion. It is a must-read for all Muslims.

Wife-beating, Misogyny, and All That Jazz …

Antagonists of Islam have been raising quite some hell over verse 4:34 of the Holy Qur’an. Their main contention is that since the verse permits a husband to "beat" his wife in certain conditions, it has sanctioned physical abuse or violence. We will insha’Allah consider here not only the allegations made, but also why they were made, why some of our Muslim brothers have actually been apologetic about it, what the correct refutation to these allegations is, and what lessons we should learn from this whole issue of attacking the Qur’an.

First and foremost, we need to emphasize the obvious fact lost on so many that the Qur’an is in Arabic. The Holy Qur’an itself has proclaimed in several places that it has been revealed in the Arabic language (12:2, 13:37, 16:103, 20:113, 26:195, 39:28, 41:3, 41:44, 42:7, 43:3, and 46:12). The reason for the Qur’an being in Arabic is that it should be perfect in every respect:

And indeed We have put forth for men, in this Qur'an every kind of similitude in order that they may remember. An Arabic Qur'an, without any crookedness (therein) in order that they may avoid all evil which God has ordered them to avoid, fear Him and keep their duty to Him. (Qur’an, 39:27-28)

It is obvious that any translation of the Qur’an is NOT the Qur’an. The translation will necessarily be imperfect and will contain some degree of “crookedness”. Thus, the argument that the Qur’an says that a man is allowed to scourge, beat, or be violent towards his wife just because an English translation has used those words, is a reflection of the contender’s ignorance or prejudice. To deal with the issue at hand, we will have to turn to verse 4:34 of the Qur’an as it is in the original Arabic:

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللّهُ وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلاً إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

The verse has sometimes been translated as follows:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend [to support them] from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient [to God and to their husbands], and guard in the husband's absence what God orders them to guard [e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.]. As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them [first], [next], refuse to share their beds, [and last] beat them [lightly, if it is useful], but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means [of annoyance]. Surely, God is Ever Most High, Most Great. (Qur’an, 4:34)

The Arabic phrase adh-re-boo-hun-na has been translated to mean “beat” them. The root verb employed here is dharaba, which is used in the sense of “to strike”, but it can be used to mean anything from a gentle tap to a fatal blow, as is evident from its use in the Qur’an at other places:

Mild tap:

So We said: "Strike him (the dead man) with a piece of it (the cow)." Thus God brings the dead to life and shows you His Signs so that you may understand. (Qur’an, 2:73)

Then he turned upon them, striking (them) with (his) right hand. (Qur’an, 37:93)

Moderate strike:

And indeed We inspired Moses (saying): "Travel by night with My slaves and strike a dry path for them in the sea, fearing neither to be overtaken [by Pharaoh] nor being afraid (of drowning in the sea)." (Qur’an, 20:77)

Then We inspired Moses (saying): "Strike the sea with your stick." And it parted, and each separate part (of that sea water) became like the huge, firm mass of a mountain. (Qur’an, 26:63)

And (remember) when Moses asked for water for his people, We said: "Strike the stone with your stick." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each (group of) people knew its own place for water. "Eat and drink of that which God has provided and do not act corruptly, making mischief on the earth." (Qur’an, 2:60)

And We divided them into twelve tribes (as distinct) nations. We directed Moses by inspiration, when his people asked him for water, (saying): "Strike the stone with your stick", and there gushed forth out of it twelve springs: each group knew its own place for water. We shaded them with the clouds and sent down upon them Manna and the quails (saying): "Eat of the good things with which We have provided you." They harmed Us not but they used to harm themselves. (Qur’an, 7:160)

Severe blow:

(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." (Qur’an, 8:12)

And if you could see when the angels take away the souls of those who disbelieve (at death), they smite their faces and their backs, (saying): "Taste the punishment of the blazing Fire." (Qur’an, 8:50)

Then how (will it be) when the angels will take their souls at death, smiting their faces and their backs? (Qur’an, 47:27)

So, when you meet [in military engagement] those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity, or ransom [according to what benefits Islam], until the war lays down its burden. Thus (you are ordered by God), but if it had been God's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with others. But those who are killed in the Way of God, He will never let their deeds be lost. (Qur’an, 47:4)

The million-dollar question here is, “In what sense has the verb dharaba been used in verse 4:34?” It is over this question that all the dust is raised. To answer this question, we will turn to the fundamental rule of Qur’anic exegesis, which is that the exegesis of the Qur’an is carried by the Qur’an itself, or al-Qur'an yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'an explain one another) and yuhmal al-mutlaq cala-muqayyad (unqualified statements should be interpreted in the light of qualified ones). Since the implied intensity of the strike mentioned in 4:34 has not been qualified there explicitly, we will interpret it in the light of the qualified statement made at the only other verse in the Qur’an that categorically refers to “wife-beating”:

"And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith (your wife), and break not your oath. Truly! We found him patient. How excellent (a) slave! Verily, he was ever oft-returning in repentance (to Us) (Qur’an, 38:44)

Obviously, the kind of “beating” implied is one which does not cause emotional or physical injury but at the same time vents the husband’s anger and frustration, and also passes a strong signal to the wife that the marriage is in serious jeopardy. In this context, the verb “beat” is misleading and treacherous because wife-beating usually has the connotation of involving physical and/or psychological abuse. The word should perhaps be replaced by the relatively more accurate word "hit" or maybe "strike".

The second fundamental rule of Qur’anic exegesis is that the exegesis is carried out in consonance with the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him. In this connection, the following authentic hadith from Sahih Muslim is indeed a direct exegesis of verse 4:34 from none other than the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, himself:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should treat women well. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that – except if they commit a manifest indecency (fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and beat them without indecent violence (fadribuhunna darban ghayra mubarrih). Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! You have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."

This is the correct, final, and binding explanation / interpretation / exegesis of the verse in question. Note that the following conditions apply for the beating to be done:

• The wife should have been treated with kindness before.
• The wife has been indulging in manifest indecency (fahisha mubina means openly lewd behavior).
• She has not heeded to verbal admonishment.
• She has not heeded to the refusal of sharing bed with her.
• The beating has to be done without indecent violence (fadribuhunna darban ghayra mubarrih). This certainly does involve the command that the face should not be hit, as is evident from several hadiths.

Continuing with our theme that the second fundamental rule of Qur’anic exegesis is that the exegesis should be in consonance with the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, the obvious and natural question to ask is, “What is the practice of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, in this regard?” The simple and straightforward answer to this question is that the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, never beat any of his wives. Thus, we infer that “beating”, under the conditions stipulated above, is permitted but discouraged.

Now I will turn to an interesting comparison of Islam’s standpoint on wife-beating with the contemporary criminal law on that issue. The following crimes are related to wife-beating:

An abusive relationship is defined as one that is characterized by the use or threat of physical or psychological abuse.

Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause pain, injury, or other physical suffering or harm.

Psychological abuse refers to the humiliation or intimidation of another person, but is also used to refer to the long-term effects of emotional shock.

Domestic violence is any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse.

Battery involves an injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm.

Assault is a crime of violence against another person.

Violence refers to acts —typically connotative with aggressive and criminal behavior —which intend to cause or is causing of injury to persons, animals, or (in limited cases) property.

Injury is damage or harm caused to the structure or function of the body caused by an outside agent or force, which may be physical or chemical.

The common denominator in all these crimes is physical or psychological pain, injury, harm, and damage. The Prophetic commandment of darban ghayra mubarrih (without indecent violence) certainly absolves Islam (and protects Muslims) from the crimes quoted above. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the Islamic and modern concepts of violence are remarkably similar (though there are subtle differences).

Having cleared up the issue of wife-beating as far as Islam is concerned, we may well question, “Why do our antagonists make such a fuss about the verse in question when it is clear that no crime is being committed and the moral high ground, as set out by the beautiful method of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is to never beat one’s wife?” This is an important question, for it underscores a number of points regarding the psychodynamics of the Islamophobe. You will notice from any Islamophobic article on the Islamic viewpoint of wife-beating that the writer is hell-bent on proving that Islam enjoins or allows violent wife-beating. To that effect, he is ready to use any device through which he can achieve his required aim. He certainly does not believe in the first two fundamental rules of Qur’anic exegesis outlined above. Therefore, he will use meanings and interpretations of words and phrases that are in keeping with his diabolical agenda, rather than use those meanings and interpretations that are in keeping with the rule, “The Qur’an is its own exegesis.” He will also tend to ignore the prophetic Sunnah as a practical exegesis of the Qur’an. Instead of viewing the Qur’an and Sunnah as complementary, he will view them as independent entities and will even seek to prove a contradiction where all that is meant is supplementation. He might even use a hadith with weak authenticity and pit it against a Qur’anic injunction, totally ignoring of course several authentic hadiths which prove the contrary. Such a methodology is entirely understandable since he doesn’t quite love the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him. His final aim is to demonize Islam as a misogynist religion and ultimately prevent women from entering the fold of Islam because, ironically, more women than men are entering Islam (1, 2, 3).

It is unfortunate that some of our Muslim brothers have had to resort to apologetics that are usually the domain of Christian missionaries. This is probably because the level of knowledge has fallen very low these days, just as moral relativism has reciprocally increased exponentially, so we have forgotten the basic fact that Qur’anic exegesis is done through (1) the Qur’an itself, (2) the Sunnah, and (3) the exegesis of the early exegetes. These sources clearly show that the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, understood the phrase adh-re-boo-hun-na to mean "strike them" as explained in the foregoing discussion. The other meaning of dharaba as “to leave” (i.e. to get separated from one’s wife) is a valid meaning and even makes sense here, but it is not consistent with the sources of exegesis outlined above. We should be careful and vigilant that in trying to protect our religion from the slander of the Islamophobes, we shouldn’t get caught in their trap of moral relativism.

Reference: “Wife beating”, by G F Haddad (I strongly recommend that you read this article.)

God Alone Has the Power of Veto ...

And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels:"Verily, I am going to place on earth generations after generations (of humans)." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You?" He said: "I know that which you do not know". (Qur'an, 2:30)

God has been exercising his Power of Veto since time immemorial. It was God who majestically turned down the angels with the immortal words, "I know that which you do not know". It was God who saved Abraham from the fire, Joseph from the well, Jesus from the cross, and Muhammad from the Quraysh - peace and blessings be upon them all. It seems that God has the habit of throwing in the Ace at the last moment when you least expect it.

Do you seriously think that He will let the Muslim community wander endlessly in the wilderness and die of genocide?

The Psychiatrist’s Guide to Islamophobia ...

DISCLAIMER: While the following passage is meant to be a source of information, no claim can be made as to its being up-to-date and entirely correct. Reader discretion is advised. The author of this blog is not responsible for any exacerbation of symptoms that may arise as a result of reading this posting.


Overview and Epidemiology: Islamophobia is a syndrome caused by infection with a virus called the Human Islamophobia Virus (HIV, not to be confused with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, the causative agent of AIDS). Though the syndrome has been officially recognized for the past fourteen centuries, it is thought to have existed since pre-historic times. The first documented case of Islamophobia was a patient named Abu Lahab who lived in the Arabian city of Makkah circa 1400 years ago. The syndrome soon spread into an endemic in the aforementioned city, but it became pandemic and has now assumed the proportions of a worldwide epidemic.

Symptoms and Signs: The patient may present to the clinic on his own with a neurotic phobia of Islam, but more often than not he is brought to the clinic in a state of psychosis with manifest paranoid persecutory delusions often associated with delusions of grandeur. The patient may give a history of hypnopompic hallucinations involving visions of horses and swords. The symptoms start in early adolescence and last for a lifetime (see Treatment below). Physical examination reveals a high level of distress, irritable mood, and pathetic affect. Cognition is severely impaired; and speech is circumlocutory and filled with hate. Personality tests are noncontributory.

Treatment: The neurotic form of the syndrome can be cured with exposure therapy. Gradual increasing doses of Islam can lead to tolerance with excellent results. In such cases, therapy with antiviral treatment is not indicated and may even be counterproductive due to the occurrence of side-effects. In contrast with the neurotic form of the syndrome, the psychotic form has evaded cure so far. In the patient who suffers from the psychotic form of the syndrome, the virus is known to treacherously mutate itself when challenged with standard antiviral medication. The microbe has developed several specific types and strains, and it is thought that prevention is the best cure for this evasive virus. In this connection, trials are underway for a promising new vaccine at the Wahabbi Research Laboratories (WRL, also known as What-the-hell Research Laboratories). The new vaccine, called HBV (Hate Bush Vaccine, not to be confused with hepatitis B virus), has successfully passed the rodent stage and is now all set for trial on human subjects.

What Makes a Muslim Tick? ...

Have you ever seen a Muslim crying in the middle of the night, beseeching his Lord for forgiveness? Have you ever noticed how some Muslim scholars have written such works of incredible depth and analysis that defy the imagination of the intellect? Have you ever heard of the sufi who remains immersed in dhikr (remembrance) for hours on end? Have you ever heard of the mujahid (warrior) who is ready to sacrifice his most valued possession - his life - without even the slightest hint of hesitation?

Now, I know that one will find similar qualities across different religions and peoples, but to find all these qualities in the same religion, and sometimes in the same individual, is a unique phenomenon. So, what makes a Muslim tick? They say that money makes the mare go. But what makes the Muslim go? Surely not money! For if it were money that made the Muslim "go", then your Saudi Sheikhs would have been some of the greatest people on Earth. Anywayz, I will pose this question to my readers, and let's see what the verdict is ...

USA: THE Terrorist of the World ...

This is in response to a comment I received at my previous post titled, "Terrorists, Terrorism, and Terror". The commenter objected to my calling America as "the" terrorist of the World. Now I am not a Bush-hating, Usama-loving fanatic, but I believe what I said was true. A mere list of U.S. military interventions in various countries should be more than enough to prove my point. The following list of U.S. military interventions has been extracted from the book, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower", by William Blum, which I would highly recommend to those who are interested in knowing the other, uglier side of the coin.

A List of US Military Interventions in Various Countries

• China, 1945-51
• France 1947
• Marshall Islands, 1946-58
• Italy, 1947-70s
• Greece, 1947-49
• Phillipines, 1945-53
• Korea, 1945-53
• Albania, 1949-53
• Eastern Europe, 1948-56
• Germany, 1950s
• Guatemala, 1953-90
• Costa Rica, mid-1950's, 1970-71
• Haiti, 1959
• Western Europe, 1950s-60s
• British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64
• Soviet Union, 1940s-60s
• Vietnam, 1945-73
• Cambodia, 1955-73
• Laos, 1957-73
• Thailand, 1965-73
• Ecuador, 1960-63
• The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65, 1977-78
• France/Algeria, 1960s
• Brazil, 1961-64
• Peru, 1965
• Dominican Republic, 1963-65
• Cuba, 1959 to present
• Ghana, 1966
• Uruguay, 1969-72
• Chile, 1964-73
• Greece, 1967-74
• South Africa, 1960s-80s
• Bolivia, 1964-75
• Australia, 1972-75
• Portugal, 1974-76
• East Timor, 1975-99
• South Korea, 1980
• Fiji, 1987
• Bulgaria, 1990-91
• Albania, 1991-92
• Philippines, 1950s
• Italy, 1948-70s
• Lebanon, 1950s
• Vietnam, 1955
• British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64
• Japan, 1958-1970s
• Nepal, 1959
• Laos, 1960
• Brazil, 1962
• Dominican Republic, 1962
• Guatemala, 1963
• Bolivia, 1966
• Chile, 1964-1970
• Portugal, 1974-5
• Australia, 1974-75
• Jamaica, 1976
• Panama, 1984, 1989
• Nicaragua, 1984, 1990
• Haiti, 1987-88
• Bulgaria, 1990-91 & Albania, 1991-92
• Russian, 1996
• Mongolia, 1996
• Bosnia, 1998

U.S. Interventions in the Muslim World

• Iran, 1953
• Middle East, 1956-58
• Indonesia, 1957-58
• Iraq, 1958-63
• Indonesia, 1965
• Iraq, 1972-75
• South Yemen, 1979-84
• Libya, 1981-89
• Afghanistan, 1979-92
• Somalia, 1993
• Iraq, 1990s
• Indonesia, 1955