Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
What is the Sharia? by Shaykh AH Murad
"Those who are fanatics will perish." -reported saying [hadith]of the Holy Prophet peace be upon him.
listen here
"Limits of the Law" a most illuminating talk by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad.
DESCRIPTION
"In this sermon, the sheikh relates a hadith (saying) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in which he divided actions into the compulsory, the forbidden, and things about which God has been silent out of mercy for mankind."
***************************************
cyclewala adds: I wish both the Extremists Taliban types and the Liberals could be made to listen.
Friday, March 13, 2009
"I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking" by Zoe Lewis
Found on the excellent Mind Body Soul blog
This is an excerpt, read it all here.
******************************************
Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking
A playwright who embraced the feminism espoused by her mother and flaunted by Madonna now feels betrayed
Zoe Lewis
"I never thought I would be saying this, but being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their graves? Possibly. My mother was a hippy who kept a pile of (dusty) books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bed (like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning). She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. I fought with my older brother and won; at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.
Now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. I want love and children but they are nowhere to be seen. I feel like a UN inspector sent in to Iraq only to find that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no. "
This is an excerpt, read it all here.
******************************************
Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking
A playwright who embraced the feminism espoused by her mother and flaunted by Madonna now feels betrayed
Zoe Lewis
"I never thought I would be saying this, but being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their graves? Possibly. My mother was a hippy who kept a pile of (dusty) books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bed (like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning). She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. I fought with my older brother and won; at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.
Now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. I want love and children but they are nowhere to be seen. I feel like a UN inspector sent in to Iraq only to find that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no. "
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Teaching History & Identity Politics in Pakistan
re-edited 27th March. Previously titled, "What's wrong with Mubarak Ali?"
******************************************
Back when I was a secularist, I did admit that Pakistan was created on the basis of religion. It was at the time, an inconvenient and unpleasant truth, but truth all the same. Sadly, most Pakistani secularists are not so honest.
Take for example the oft-repeated fib, that religious groups en masse opposed the creation of Pakistan. Despite the fact that the entire majority Barelvi sect [All-India Sunni Conference], and a large chunk of the Deobandis [Maulana Thanvi RA & the Usmanis] worked for Pakistan.
Similarly, amongst the Ahle Hadith, the Jamat-e-Islami of Maulana Maududi opposed the creation of Pakistan. But even amongst them many supported Pakistan, including such luminaries as Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, the editor of Zamindar newspaper.
"THE MURDER OF HISTORY IN PAKISTAN"
Famous secularists such as Dr Mubarak Ali, make two dramatic statements about the teaching of history in Pakistan:
1. "Our History does not begin in 711 with Muhammad bin Qasim" [i.e. but much earlier with the Indus civilization etc]
and
2. "There has been a Murder of History in Pakistani Textbooks" [i.e. by right wing/Islamist ideology]
There are serious implications in these statements that go beyond academics:
1. that there is is such a thing as an objective history, free from ideology,
2. Pakistan's identity is a regional one [as in the "Indus Saga" of Mr. Aitezaz Ahsan] and thus "our history" should commence with Moenjodaro, etc. and not bin Qasim, or Medina which lies outsides the region. It seems it is a "distortion" of history to place ourselves in a Muslim past!
WHO ARE WE?
At least, it is undemocratic of secularists to thrust their own conception of what it means to be a Pakistani into textbooks, and to drive out other people's perception of Pakistaniat. All in the name of an objectivity which doesn't exist.
Perhaps Secularists see themselves as "Indus people" as is quite the fashion these days. Myself a Sufi, I feel kinship and belonging at all Sufi shrines, whether in Morocco or Multan, but nothing much at Moenjodaro.
The land which became Pakistan was overwhelmingly, Sufi and the founding fathers were predominantly of Aligarh's Progressive Islam, i.e. Sir Syed & Maulana Hali and culminating in Allama Iqbal.
Over the years due to a lack of implementation of a commonly acceptable version of Islam [such as either Allama Iqbal's vision or that outlined in the 22 points of the Objectives Resolution] and the influence of our Westernized elite, a vaccum has been created between people's Islamic aspirations and reality. This vaccum was bound to be filled, and was filled by extremism.
SECULARISTS MURDER HISTORY TOO
A problem with the seemingly sensible objection to textbook shortcomings in Pakistan, is that the phrasing of questions is loaded. The answer is usually contained in the question. How one frames the question, the words used, dictate the parameters of the debate.
By this statement, that our history begins in Moenjodaro, long before Bin Qasim, there is an a priori assumption or rather assignation of a "regional identity."
But who's to say one's ethnic, tribal, caste or religious identity is not more significant? For instance, if I define myself as an alavi or bokhari, who is Dr. Mubarak Ali to tell me that my identity should be based in Moenjodaro and not say, Bokhara?
MUSLIM HISTORY DOESN'T BEGIN WITH BIN QASIM
In any case, Muslim historical consciousness does not view 712 as The Beginning. Rather, our sense of history begins with Adam and Eve, peace be upon them, or even before.
CAN THERE BE A NEUTRAL HISTORY?
Can history ever be truly neutral?
One may list 'facts' but apart from the philosophical problem of what constitutes a fact, there's the issue of which facts we see worthy of recording, how we word them, and the greater problem of fitting these facts into a narrative assigning meaning.
In other words there is no escaping a conceptual framework/narrative, the choice of which must always be subjective.
So is Secular Humanism any more neutral than some Islamist ideology?
Of course not. Both are based on certain assumptions/beliefs of what is true. These assumptions are merely preferences of thought which cannot be "proven" one way or the other: at least not empirically or logically.
CASE STUDIES
For a crude example, lets look at the reading of the Great Moghal, Akber.
To humanists, Akber is an enlightened ruler who tried to bring his subjects' warring religions closer, and showed remarkable tolerance and flexibility, going as far as to invent a syncretic religion, the Din e Ilahi, which he hoped would combine the best of all religions, but alas bigoted religious fundamentalists such as Mujaddid Alif Sani persisted with their obscurantist obstructions to Akber's grand humanist project.
To the orthodoxy, however, the Din e Ilahi, was a thinly disguised cult of Emperor-worship. The King was the manifestation of God on Earth: to this end, Akber mother and his son's mother were both conveniently retitled Maryam [the son of Mary being "God" in Christianity].
Christianity also provided the halo, useful iconography for Akber's court painters. The Sabians provided the concept of star worship, the Nine Jewels the constellation and Akber the Sun [Fatehpur Sikri]. Hinduism provided the concept of "Darshan," Vision- Akber's daily balcony preening ritual. Innocent enough in Islam, but an act of worship for Hindus. The Sufi policy of sulah e kull [peace towards all] was somehow converted to Akber's Tawheed ul Adyan [the unity of all religions].
All in all, a blatantly self-serving cult along the despotic lines of Ancient Egypt, and any pesky cleric who dared challenge this courtly cult, such as Mujaddid Alif Sani, was promptly thrown into prison and tortured. Whilst fawning boot-lickers & salaried eulogizers such as Abul Fazl prospered with wine, concubines [Akber himself had over 200] and wealth.
Is there a "neutral" version?
Subjectivity is impossible to avoid. Dr. Mubarak Ali shows his own secularist bias often, notably in his article about "historical errors" in the Shahbnama. There aren't any historical errors, rather the Sufi Shahab's divergences from Dr. Ali's own secularist sources or interpretations.
HOW DO ORDINARY PAKISTANIS SEE THEMSELVES?
By and large, Pakistani identity is Muslim. We don't come across any Moenjodaro motors, Siddhartha Cafes, or Ahimsa Bus Services. We DO see, countless Hotels Gharib Nawaz, Ghousia Niharis, Medina Pan shops, and Qalandari Chaat Houses.
Pakistanis appear to overwhelmingly define their identity in religious [mostly Sufi] terms first, ethnic or class second, and regional last. While these other identities sow seeds of conflict, the religion binds us.
The disjunct between the Secular elites' view of Pakistan, and that of the common man was illustrated recently.
While English newspapers and websites carried several articles and special supplements on Women's Day, they did practically nothing to commemorate the Birthday of the Prophet, peace be upon him, two days later. The exact reverse could be seen in the Urdu press and on the Streets of Pakistan.
ONCE AGAIN, PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIYA?
To sum up, proposing a regional identity for Pakistan and rewriting textbooks to accommodate this view is misleading, and unrepresentative of how Pakistanis define themselves.
Quite apart from the fact that this region has rarely been one nation in history- the "Indus State" is a historical fantasy- this attacks the very foundation of Pakistan, the Two Nation Theory.
Talk of reforming Pakistani textbooks finds a sympathetic audience abroad. But to replace Muslim ideology with Secular ideology in textbooks under the cover of "objectivity," is a sham.
Thus the "Indus Saga"; sidelining of Hazrat Allama Iqbal in the debate as to the meaning and direction of Pakistan; promoting Quaid e Azam Jinnah as Pakistan's sole ideologue; ignoring the Quaid's last speech [State Bank- on this website]; pruning his speeches for a few carefully chosen excerpts:
all are attempts to propose an alternative identity to Pakistan, and thus defeat it's very raison d'etre, a Muslim state.
However, we have faith.
Pakistan was created by God. There is after all, another world, another series of cause and effect at work, which most cannot see. The role of the Auliya is well-highlighted for those "in the know."
God-willing, some of us will remember the Quaid saying the Qur'an shall be our Constitution, Allama Iqbal's inspiring poetry & that great slogan which rang out at Freedom rallies: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha illAllah
By all means, teach children history of the region, teach them about Moenjodaro and Taxila and the Buddha. There is a lot to learn from them. The region is part of our identity, but not the whole. So let's not forget our Muslim identity.
******************************************
Back when I was a secularist, I did admit that Pakistan was created on the basis of religion. It was at the time, an inconvenient and unpleasant truth, but truth all the same. Sadly, most Pakistani secularists are not so honest.
Take for example the oft-repeated fib, that religious groups en masse opposed the creation of Pakistan. Despite the fact that the entire majority Barelvi sect [All-India Sunni Conference], and a large chunk of the Deobandis [Maulana Thanvi RA & the Usmanis] worked for Pakistan.
Similarly, amongst the Ahle Hadith, the Jamat-e-Islami of Maulana Maududi opposed the creation of Pakistan. But even amongst them many supported Pakistan, including such luminaries as Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, the editor of Zamindar newspaper.
"THE MURDER OF HISTORY IN PAKISTAN"
Famous secularists such as Dr Mubarak Ali, make two dramatic statements about the teaching of history in Pakistan:
1. "Our History does not begin in 711 with Muhammad bin Qasim" [i.e. but much earlier with the Indus civilization etc]
and
2. "There has been a Murder of History in Pakistani Textbooks" [i.e. by right wing/Islamist ideology]
There are serious implications in these statements that go beyond academics:
1. that there is is such a thing as an objective history, free from ideology,
2. Pakistan's identity is a regional one [as in the "Indus Saga" of Mr. Aitezaz Ahsan] and thus "our history" should commence with Moenjodaro, etc. and not bin Qasim, or Medina which lies outsides the region. It seems it is a "distortion" of history to place ourselves in a Muslim past!
WHO ARE WE?
At least, it is undemocratic of secularists to thrust their own conception of what it means to be a Pakistani into textbooks, and to drive out other people's perception of Pakistaniat. All in the name of an objectivity which doesn't exist.
Perhaps Secularists see themselves as "Indus people" as is quite the fashion these days. Myself a Sufi, I feel kinship and belonging at all Sufi shrines, whether in Morocco or Multan, but nothing much at Moenjodaro.
The land which became Pakistan was overwhelmingly, Sufi and the founding fathers were predominantly of Aligarh's Progressive Islam, i.e. Sir Syed & Maulana Hali and culminating in Allama Iqbal.
Over the years due to a lack of implementation of a commonly acceptable version of Islam [such as either Allama Iqbal's vision or that outlined in the 22 points of the Objectives Resolution] and the influence of our Westernized elite, a vaccum has been created between people's Islamic aspirations and reality. This vaccum was bound to be filled, and was filled by extremism.
SECULARISTS MURDER HISTORY TOO
A problem with the seemingly sensible objection to textbook shortcomings in Pakistan, is that the phrasing of questions is loaded. The answer is usually contained in the question. How one frames the question, the words used, dictate the parameters of the debate.
By this statement, that our history begins in Moenjodaro, long before Bin Qasim, there is an a priori assumption or rather assignation of a "regional identity."
But who's to say one's ethnic, tribal, caste or religious identity is not more significant? For instance, if I define myself as an alavi or bokhari, who is Dr. Mubarak Ali to tell me that my identity should be based in Moenjodaro and not say, Bokhara?
MUSLIM HISTORY DOESN'T BEGIN WITH BIN QASIM
In any case, Muslim historical consciousness does not view 712 as The Beginning. Rather, our sense of history begins with Adam and Eve, peace be upon them, or even before.
CAN THERE BE A NEUTRAL HISTORY?
Can history ever be truly neutral?
One may list 'facts' but apart from the philosophical problem of what constitutes a fact, there's the issue of which facts we see worthy of recording, how we word them, and the greater problem of fitting these facts into a narrative assigning meaning.
In other words there is no escaping a conceptual framework/narrative, the choice of which must always be subjective.
So is Secular Humanism any more neutral than some Islamist ideology?
Of course not. Both are based on certain assumptions/beliefs of what is true. These assumptions are merely preferences of thought which cannot be "proven" one way or the other: at least not empirically or logically.
CASE STUDIES
For a crude example, lets look at the reading of the Great Moghal, Akber.
To humanists, Akber is an enlightened ruler who tried to bring his subjects' warring religions closer, and showed remarkable tolerance and flexibility, going as far as to invent a syncretic religion, the Din e Ilahi, which he hoped would combine the best of all religions, but alas bigoted religious fundamentalists such as Mujaddid Alif Sani persisted with their obscurantist obstructions to Akber's grand humanist project.
To the orthodoxy, however, the Din e Ilahi, was a thinly disguised cult of Emperor-worship. The King was the manifestation of God on Earth: to this end, Akber mother and his son's mother were both conveniently retitled Maryam [the son of Mary being "God" in Christianity].
Christianity also provided the halo, useful iconography for Akber's court painters. The Sabians provided the concept of star worship, the Nine Jewels the constellation and Akber the Sun [Fatehpur Sikri]. Hinduism provided the concept of "Darshan," Vision- Akber's daily balcony preening ritual. Innocent enough in Islam, but an act of worship for Hindus. The Sufi policy of sulah e kull [peace towards all] was somehow converted to Akber's Tawheed ul Adyan [the unity of all religions].
All in all, a blatantly self-serving cult along the despotic lines of Ancient Egypt, and any pesky cleric who dared challenge this courtly cult, such as Mujaddid Alif Sani, was promptly thrown into prison and tortured. Whilst fawning boot-lickers & salaried eulogizers such as Abul Fazl prospered with wine, concubines [Akber himself had over 200] and wealth.
Is there a "neutral" version?
Subjectivity is impossible to avoid. Dr. Mubarak Ali shows his own secularist bias often, notably in his article about "historical errors" in the Shahbnama. There aren't any historical errors, rather the Sufi Shahab's divergences from Dr. Ali's own secularist sources or interpretations.
HOW DO ORDINARY PAKISTANIS SEE THEMSELVES?
By and large, Pakistani identity is Muslim. We don't come across any Moenjodaro motors, Siddhartha Cafes, or Ahimsa Bus Services. We DO see, countless Hotels Gharib Nawaz, Ghousia Niharis, Medina Pan shops, and Qalandari Chaat Houses.
Pakistanis appear to overwhelmingly define their identity in religious [mostly Sufi] terms first, ethnic or class second, and regional last. While these other identities sow seeds of conflict, the religion binds us.
The disjunct between the Secular elites' view of Pakistan, and that of the common man was illustrated recently.
While English newspapers and websites carried several articles and special supplements on Women's Day, they did practically nothing to commemorate the Birthday of the Prophet, peace be upon him, two days later. The exact reverse could be seen in the Urdu press and on the Streets of Pakistan.
ONCE AGAIN, PAKISTAN KA MATLAB KIYA?
To sum up, proposing a regional identity for Pakistan and rewriting textbooks to accommodate this view is misleading, and unrepresentative of how Pakistanis define themselves.
Quite apart from the fact that this region has rarely been one nation in history- the "Indus State" is a historical fantasy- this attacks the very foundation of Pakistan, the Two Nation Theory.
Talk of reforming Pakistani textbooks finds a sympathetic audience abroad. But to replace Muslim ideology with Secular ideology in textbooks under the cover of "objectivity," is a sham.
Thus the "Indus Saga"; sidelining of Hazrat Allama Iqbal in the debate as to the meaning and direction of Pakistan; promoting Quaid e Azam Jinnah as Pakistan's sole ideologue; ignoring the Quaid's last speech [State Bank- on this website]; pruning his speeches for a few carefully chosen excerpts:
all are attempts to propose an alternative identity to Pakistan, and thus defeat it's very raison d'etre, a Muslim state.
However, we have faith.
Pakistan was created by God. There is after all, another world, another series of cause and effect at work, which most cannot see. The role of the Auliya is well-highlighted for those "in the know."
God-willing, some of us will remember the Quaid saying the Qur'an shall be our Constitution, Allama Iqbal's inspiring poetry & that great slogan which rang out at Freedom rallies: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha illAllah
By all means, teach children history of the region, teach them about Moenjodaro and Taxila and the Buddha. There is a lot to learn from them. The region is part of our identity, but not the whole. So let's not forget our Muslim identity.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Re-post on Repentance, by Hazrat Sharfuddin Maneri
I had posted this before but seeing it's continual relevance am posting this again...
***************************************
From the Hundred Letters of Makhdum ul Mulk Hazrat Sharfuddin Yahya Maneri [Firdausi Sufi Order].
"The actual meaning of repentance is “turning back’. There are, however, many ways of turning back, which vary according to the stages, the actions, and the stations of those who repent. Ordinary people, out of fear of punishment, turn from oppressive behaviour to being sorry. The elect turn away from their evil deeds because they have become congnizant of their obligation to revere their Master. The elect of the elect, perceiving the insignificance and instability of all creatures and, indeed, their nothingness in the light of the glory of the Maker, are able to turn away from all that is not God.
Once this has been grasped it should be noted that repentance, although it does not happen “once and for all,” does not thereby cease to be genuine. If a penitent person, after resolving not to fall into a particular sin again, through negligence actually does so, he can heed the command to repent, consider its merit, and rejoin the ranks of the penitent. Once a man made a resolution in this fashion but again fell. Immediately he went to the shrine of a saint where one of the shaikhs told him: “By the mercy of God I repented seventy times and each time I fell again, but after I begged pardon for the seventy-first time, I fell no more!” He also told him of another person who had made a similar resolve and after falling again, he hesitated to return to the shrine. “How do I know what is my present spiritual state” he asked himself. He then heard a voice within him say, “You submitted yourself to Me and I forgave your sins. Again you were unfaithful and spurned Me. Now I have given you time to repent. If you wish to return, I shall receive you in peace.”"
************************************
***************************************
From the Hundred Letters of Makhdum ul Mulk Hazrat Sharfuddin Yahya Maneri [Firdausi Sufi Order].
"The actual meaning of repentance is “turning back’. There are, however, many ways of turning back, which vary according to the stages, the actions, and the stations of those who repent. Ordinary people, out of fear of punishment, turn from oppressive behaviour to being sorry. The elect turn away from their evil deeds because they have become congnizant of their obligation to revere their Master. The elect of the elect, perceiving the insignificance and instability of all creatures and, indeed, their nothingness in the light of the glory of the Maker, are able to turn away from all that is not God.
Once this has been grasped it should be noted that repentance, although it does not happen “once and for all,” does not thereby cease to be genuine. If a penitent person, after resolving not to fall into a particular sin again, through negligence actually does so, he can heed the command to repent, consider its merit, and rejoin the ranks of the penitent. Once a man made a resolution in this fashion but again fell. Immediately he went to the shrine of a saint where one of the shaikhs told him: “By the mercy of God I repented seventy times and each time I fell again, but after I begged pardon for the seventy-first time, I fell no more!” He also told him of another person who had made a similar resolve and after falling again, he hesitated to return to the shrine. “How do I know what is my present spiritual state” he asked himself. He then heard a voice within him say, “You submitted yourself to Me and I forgave your sins. Again you were unfaithful and spurned Me. Now I have given you time to repent. If you wish to return, I shall receive you in peace.”"
************************************
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Naat by Hazrat Rahman Baba
This makes clear Hazrat Rahman Baba's Sufi affiliation and beliefs. These days popular Sufis are subverted to nationalistic and liberal/humanistic agendas, through a selective reading of their work, that too, misunderstanding through providing one's own context.
Now this is the blessed month of Rabiul Awwal. Those who attacked the tomb of a Lover of the Holy Prophet peace be upon him, in this sacred month, Beware! The Holy Prophet is aware of his lovers.
The lovers of God and His Prophet [peace be upon him] do not die. God-willing, Rahman Baba will live in the hearts of people forever, unlike these Salafi militants.
Some relevant verses of Hazrat Rahman Baba
"Whoever is not befriended by God Rahman; Even if he has armies, he is all alone."
"I am a lover and I deal in love, I am neither Khaleel, Daudzai nor Mohmand."
"If the body of Muhammad had not been born, God would not have created the world."
"If you are always looking at the faults of others, For God’s sake why are you so unaware of your own faults?"
-- Hazrat Rahman Baba, may God sanctify his secret, Sufi poet of the Pushtuns, approximately 1650 – 1715 A.D.
-From his online Divan
Hazrat Rahman Baba's tomb atacked
Hazrat Rahman Baba's tomb.
Read here:- Militants blow up Rehman Baba’s shrine From The News.
********************************************
Cyclewala adds:-
The prime suspect is not the Taliban this time [not that the Taliban are pro-Sufi] but rather a Salafi militia. They have previously attacked the shrines of famous Sufis, Pir Baba of Buner and Haji Malang Baba, in the same reigon, and also led massacres against local Sufis [esp. Naqshbandis].
This militia seems to enjoy the support of some ex-ISI people.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Maulana Rumi and Evolution
Maulana Rumi and Evolution- Sufi interpretation of the so-called Evolution verses.
People often find support for their own ideas by selective quotation of figures held in great esteem in the Muslim world.
As I wrote in my last post: These days popular Sufis are subverted to nationalistic and liberal/humanistic agendas, through a selective reading of their work, that too, misunderstanding through providing one's own context.
So it's no surprise that Progressives find "proof" that Bulleh Shah was a socialist, Mansur Hallaj made references to Quantum Mechanics, and Maulana Rumi figured out evolution long before Darwin.
Many otherwise intelligent people succumb to such philosophical error. Everyone brings their own context to the text, and therein find proof, or rather reinforcement of their own prejudices... as long as the text is read selectively.
So Darwinists find evolution in Rumi, Socialists find revolution in Bulleh Shah, Nationalists, a Pathan in Rahman Baba, and feminists discover that Shah Latif had a woman heroine. These saints are then recruited to their cause. A few years later someone else comes along and laments they were not socialist/feminist/nationalist/secular/ Darwinist enough.
So it is with Maulana Rumi's so-called "evolution" verses. These verses are not on evolution. Darwinists merely provide their own context in an optimistic mis-reading of Sufism.
Here are the verses:-
I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear Death?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar With angels blest;
but even from angelhood I must pass on:
all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones,
'To Him we shall return'
-Translated by A. J. Arberry
These verses interpreted in the Sufi context, refer to the Islamic order of Creation: the mineral, vegetable, animal and human worlds. [jamadat, nabatat, haywanat, insan]
Each world depends on the preceding for it’s subsistence. Plants depend upon minerals and "consume" them, animals eat plants and we humans eat the animals.
From the unenlightened point of view, the death of each [mineral or vegetable] seems an end, but actually they become the building blocks of a higher order of life.
So we come to Man, the pinnacle of creation, yet with the potential to be the lowest of the low [asfala safileen]. He too fears his death and clings to life. But if he "dies before death" as in the famous hadith [oft quoted by Sufis as the essence of Sufism] and annhilates his Ego, Man can transcend this Earthly life and achieve Nearness with God, the stations of Fana and Baqa, to which even the angels cannot aspire.
This I believe is the real meaning of Maulana's verses. If any more proof is needed, one can look at dozens of other verses where Maulana Rumi explicitly affirms the Creation ex-nihilo of the Prophet Adam, and repeats the Qur’anic argument against the Divinity of the Prophet Jesus: by comparing his birth without a father from Divine Decree [kun fa ya kun] with that of Adam, born without father or mother. See for instance Book IV of the Masnavi in the story of Bilqis.
O take heed, ye people of Understanding!
Sufism is not New-Age; it is Islamic mysticism. Please learn it from a Sufi master. Not mistranslations or "creative reinterpretations."
God bless & peace.
People often find support for their own ideas by selective quotation of figures held in great esteem in the Muslim world.
As I wrote in my last post: These days popular Sufis are subverted to nationalistic and liberal/humanistic agendas, through a selective reading of their work, that too, misunderstanding through providing one's own context.
So it's no surprise that Progressives find "proof" that Bulleh Shah was a socialist, Mansur Hallaj made references to Quantum Mechanics, and Maulana Rumi figured out evolution long before Darwin.
Many otherwise intelligent people succumb to such philosophical error. Everyone brings their own context to the text, and therein find proof, or rather reinforcement of their own prejudices... as long as the text is read selectively.
So Darwinists find evolution in Rumi, Socialists find revolution in Bulleh Shah, Nationalists, a Pathan in Rahman Baba, and feminists discover that Shah Latif had a woman heroine. These saints are then recruited to their cause. A few years later someone else comes along and laments they were not socialist/feminist/nationalist/secular/ Darwinist enough.
So it is with Maulana Rumi's so-called "evolution" verses. These verses are not on evolution. Darwinists merely provide their own context in an optimistic mis-reading of Sufism.
Here are the verses:-
I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear Death?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar With angels blest;
but even from angelhood I must pass on:
all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence Proclaims in organ tones,
'To Him we shall return'
-Translated by A. J. Arberry
These verses interpreted in the Sufi context, refer to the Islamic order of Creation: the mineral, vegetable, animal and human worlds. [jamadat, nabatat, haywanat, insan]
Each world depends on the preceding for it’s subsistence. Plants depend upon minerals and "consume" them, animals eat plants and we humans eat the animals.
From the unenlightened point of view, the death of each [mineral or vegetable] seems an end, but actually they become the building blocks of a higher order of life.
So we come to Man, the pinnacle of creation, yet with the potential to be the lowest of the low [asfala safileen]. He too fears his death and clings to life. But if he "dies before death" as in the famous hadith [oft quoted by Sufis as the essence of Sufism] and annhilates his Ego, Man can transcend this Earthly life and achieve Nearness with God, the stations of Fana and Baqa, to which even the angels cannot aspire.
This I believe is the real meaning of Maulana's verses. If any more proof is needed, one can look at dozens of other verses where Maulana Rumi explicitly affirms the Creation ex-nihilo of the Prophet Adam, and repeats the Qur’anic argument against the Divinity of the Prophet Jesus: by comparing his birth without a father from Divine Decree [kun fa ya kun] with that of Adam, born without father or mother. See for instance Book IV of the Masnavi in the story of Bilqis.
O take heed, ye people of Understanding!
Sufism is not New-Age; it is Islamic mysticism. Please learn it from a Sufi master. Not mistranslations or "creative reinterpretations."
God bless & peace.
A warning in the wake of Lahore
This could happen: an attack on the holiest sites of Christianity by supposedly "Islamic" terrorists.
The spectacular media success of 9/11 sealed a worldview already hostile to Islam and suspicious of Muslims.
Enemies of Islam now fund terrorism. False flag operations abound. This to win the media war and convince the masses that Terrorism, and consequently Radical Islam are the world's biggest threats.
If this can be done, then budgets, contracts and other economic and strategic aims can be secured under the pretext of preserving "civilization" itself. Therefore, present the world a stark choice between two false extremes: it's either "our way" the civilized West [really a cover for Capitalism] or else it's the Taliban - who were of course, created and funded by the Capitalist greed-machine via the CIA, when fanatical determination made them useful pawns and cannon fodder against the Communists in the Cold War.
Radical Islam does exist, & it is often lumped together with conservative Traditional Islam, even tho' obviously that terrorism is modern phenomena. However, Traditional Islam has nothing to do with terrorism: no madressa-educated Barelvis have ever committed terrorist acts, it's always extremist Salafis, and that too usually school-educated.
Why isn't this highlighted in the media? Why are orthodox conservatives lumped together with the violent extremists?
Partially it's ignorance, partially lack of sympathy. Traditional religion is inconvenient to the modern world, which runs on greed, lust, avarice and consumption. Islam also disallows interest & usury is the backbone of Capitalism. Islam while allowing women to work, insists woman's primary role is a homemaker, not contributor to the consumer economy.
Thus opposed to the global hegemony of the Corporate-Consumer-Capitalist system, Traditionalists are to be demonized, lumped together in the minds of the masses with the fringe group of Salafi Radicals actually involved in violence.
Quite in disregard of the fact that attempts to modernize the Muslim world, such as secular education facilitate the spread of Salafist ideas.
******************************
Terrorists are well infiltrated, international espionage agencies are already involved. All manner of shadowy "jihadi" groups have sprung up, looking to recruit angry young men.
Who gains from all this? Obviously not Muslims. Even though that's the first rule of criminal investigation: who stands to benefit?
*********************************************
As for Lahore, it is indeed tragic. Such a tour shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. We knew plans were afoot to destabilize and isolate Pakistan; tourists are obvious and easy targets. Kill a tourist, demonize Islam and Pakistan.
Alas the Govt. has to shoulder the blame. The Lankans were provided poorly-trained and ill-equipped Police, not Rangers. That said, they fought bravely: 6 men sacrificed themselves for our guests.
It is sadly obvious that the focus of the Federal Govrnment has been the overthrow of the Provincial Government. Police and intelligence were diverted to petty & personal political agendas.
Also remarkable are the contradictory statements. When fingers are pointed to India they say "it is premature" to assign blame- true enough- but in the next breath insist the attackers are Pakistani!
This is a long tradition of statements that damage Pakistan's image, by groups perhaps posing as palatable pro-West alternatives to the Taliban. We don't have to guess where their loyalties lie. Certainly not with Pakistan or the Muslims.
This event is so shameful on so many levels. Worst of all, as visitors to Pakistan know, it's yet another blow to our wonderful tradition of Islamic hospitality. May God rot these traitors to Islam & Pakistan.
***********************************
For us Sufis, one more thing remains to be said. Despite the ill-prepared and scant police escort, despite the well-armed & trained terrorists, they were unsuccessful: by a miracle, not one of the Sri Lankans was killed or seriously hurt. Imagine if even one of our guests had died. But gunfire missed, grenades failed to explode, and our Pakistani Police took the bullets.
This is no accident or luck. God is protecting Pakistan, the enemies should beware. They are tightening the noose around us, but have roused from our slumber and are united. No matter how strong our enemies are, "super-powers" even, no matter how much damage they do, [and things may get worse] ultimately, it is our true Sufi Islam that will triumph.
innallaha ma'as Sabireen.
HAQQ HAQQ HAQQ
The spectacular media success of 9/11 sealed a worldview already hostile to Islam and suspicious of Muslims.
Enemies of Islam now fund terrorism. False flag operations abound. This to win the media war and convince the masses that Terrorism, and consequently Radical Islam are the world's biggest threats.
If this can be done, then budgets, contracts and other economic and strategic aims can be secured under the pretext of preserving "civilization" itself. Therefore, present the world a stark choice between two false extremes: it's either "our way" the civilized West [really a cover for Capitalism] or else it's the Taliban - who were of course, created and funded by the Capitalist greed-machine via the CIA, when fanatical determination made them useful pawns and cannon fodder against the Communists in the Cold War.
Radical Islam does exist, & it is often lumped together with conservative Traditional Islam, even tho' obviously that terrorism is modern phenomena. However, Traditional Islam has nothing to do with terrorism: no madressa-educated Barelvis have ever committed terrorist acts, it's always extremist Salafis, and that too usually school-educated.
Why isn't this highlighted in the media? Why are orthodox conservatives lumped together with the violent extremists?
Partially it's ignorance, partially lack of sympathy. Traditional religion is inconvenient to the modern world, which runs on greed, lust, avarice and consumption. Islam also disallows interest & usury is the backbone of Capitalism. Islam while allowing women to work, insists woman's primary role is a homemaker, not contributor to the consumer economy.
Thus opposed to the global hegemony of the Corporate-Consumer-Capitalist system, Traditionalists are to be demonized, lumped together in the minds of the masses with the fringe group of Salafi Radicals actually involved in violence.
Quite in disregard of the fact that attempts to modernize the Muslim world, such as secular education facilitate the spread of Salafist ideas.
******************************
Terrorists are well infiltrated, international espionage agencies are already involved. All manner of shadowy "jihadi" groups have sprung up, looking to recruit angry young men.
Who gains from all this? Obviously not Muslims. Even though that's the first rule of criminal investigation: who stands to benefit?
*********************************************
As for Lahore, it is indeed tragic. Such a tour shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. We knew plans were afoot to destabilize and isolate Pakistan; tourists are obvious and easy targets. Kill a tourist, demonize Islam and Pakistan.
Alas the Govt. has to shoulder the blame. The Lankans were provided poorly-trained and ill-equipped Police, not Rangers. That said, they fought bravely: 6 men sacrificed themselves for our guests.
It is sadly obvious that the focus of the Federal Govrnment has been the overthrow of the Provincial Government. Police and intelligence were diverted to petty & personal political agendas.
Also remarkable are the contradictory statements. When fingers are pointed to India they say "it is premature" to assign blame- true enough- but in the next breath insist the attackers are Pakistani!
This is a long tradition of statements that damage Pakistan's image, by groups perhaps posing as palatable pro-West alternatives to the Taliban. We don't have to guess where their loyalties lie. Certainly not with Pakistan or the Muslims.
This event is so shameful on so many levels. Worst of all, as visitors to Pakistan know, it's yet another blow to our wonderful tradition of Islamic hospitality. May God rot these traitors to Islam & Pakistan.
***********************************
For us Sufis, one more thing remains to be said. Despite the ill-prepared and scant police escort, despite the well-armed & trained terrorists, they were unsuccessful: by a miracle, not one of the Sri Lankans was killed or seriously hurt. Imagine if even one of our guests had died. But gunfire missed, grenades failed to explode, and our Pakistani Police took the bullets.
This is no accident or luck. God is protecting Pakistan, the enemies should beware. They are tightening the noose around us, but have roused from our slumber and are united. No matter how strong our enemies are, "super-powers" even, no matter how much damage they do, [and things may get worse] ultimately, it is our true Sufi Islam that will triumph.
innallaha ma'as Sabireen.
HAQQ HAQQ HAQQ
Sunday, March 1, 2009
interview
My interview about this blog is up over at the Pakistani Spectator website as well as interviews of lots of other Pakistani bloggers. If you're into that sort of thing, check it out.
AUTOSTOP by Ivan Illich and Jean Robert
The late, great Ivan Illich
AUTOSTOP. Contribution by Ivan ILLICH and Jean ROBERT to a symposium on bicycle freedoms in Berlin,
Summer 1992.
We want to tell a story that reflects some nonsense about our way of life, and that story is about traffic. We tell the story because we believe that tomorrow morning all could live in a more quiet and perhaps even bicycle-centered society if only people believed that modesty can guide political choice.
Reasoning shows that transport can enhance freedom of movement only within the limits in which one can renounce it. Today, such renunciation is barely viable in a society where the traffic jam has become paradigmatic for all kinds of consumption. Transportation, public or private, carries inevitable consequences. Beyond a certain threshold, it diminishes personal mobility in proportion to more passenger miles generated. Thus transportation is a monument to the basic experience of the age. The more refined and more integrated the transporation system, the more we live in a society of morning joggers tied down during the rest of the day.
Starting with this insight, we invite you to a mental experiment. By limiting the compulsory auto-disepowerment produced by transportation, a society can increase the freedom of movement enjoyed on foot or bicycle.
Not so long ago, everyone knew that the world was accessible. And until quite recently, the ”third world” lay within reach of their feet for most of its inhabitants. People could trust their feet, experience their world. And for several decades now, U.S. border guards have admitted their helplessness as they are overrun by auto-mobile transgressors — moving on foot.
In the 1950s, Mexico City was already a metropolis of nearly three million inhabitants, with some forty plazas containing popular markets. Most of these markets were on the same spot where Cortez had found them 450 years earlier. In any given week, less than one out of every hundred persons moved beyond the border of their respective barrio. Since then, the population of the city has increased seven-fold. Engineered traffic patterns tear neighborhoods apart; multi-lane, one-way throughways separate people into artificial ghettoes; a high proportion of the population is the boxed-up victim of daily, long-range transport — there is an efficient subway. Such transport encloses students as well as pensioners, employees as much as women needing pre-natal tests. Five million persons — according to official count — must travel daily to reach inaccessible places.
Historically, walking was never an act of pure leisure. At times, it could be dangerous, painful, disappointing, but at other times adventuresome, enjoyable or exhilarating. But that is not the issue. What counts is that using one’s feet came at no cost. Of course, everyone had to find the pennies to pay the ferryman. A mule or carriage were confined to the rich. Generalized mobility was enhanced by social virtue: tolerance of the outsider, hospitality, charity and conviviality at resting places. For the majority, these were are important than inns. People lived in the experience that the place on which they stood was a place they had reached with their feet.
We would like to ask a question: What does it mean that so very little of that which enabled and graced freedom came in the nature of a commodity? Now modern engineers claim that feet are underdeveloped means of self-transportation! Indeed, what equipped our forefathers was inexpensive, from staff and sandals to cloak and sack; later, the bicycle. Distances, when they were counted, were measured in days; they were perceived as life time, not as watch time. There was nothing like the concept of a passenger mile on land until the postal coach appeared, late in the 18th century; and then the railroad in the early 19th.
The railroad created the minute and the fare that measured the time cost of bridging passenger miles. These concepts are basic and acquire full validity with motorized traffic. Only on the basis of such assumptions could the locomotion of human beings be made into a commodity. And this commodity — traffic — was produced by employed workers, whether railroad men or chauffeurs, proto-passengers making up the consumers. All this changed with Henry Ford’s Model T. This innovation brought the news that mobility would be an industrial product to be enjoyed only through unpaid labor. Each employee now had the ”privilege” of purchasing a car. With this investment, he had to deliver his own work force to the factory door. For many, then, the car became the condition for selling themselves on the labor market, to purchase household needs, to educate their kids, to visit their aged parents.
For twenty-five years we have reflected on transportation because we see in it an Ideal Type of post-industrial commodities: a synthesis of installment payments, operating costs, insurance premiums, and unpaid labor to make the investment actually useful. Shadow work — the unpaid, time-consuming, disciplined, risky improvement of a commodity to make it pay — became a foundation of modern existence. It is quite surprising how completely this self-enslavement has remained a blind spot among the first two generations of car owners. But we now see that a powerful spell has been cast over them. A mixture of fashion, vanity, commodity fetishism, and greed sharpened by clever, no-holds-barred advertising created the fatasy of the automobile as a liberator — from schedules, waiting lines, limited horizons, pre-established routes. For most of those born before 1970, the auto is still an enticing symbol of personal freedom through an industrial product. But for a later generation, this is a transparent oxymoron. Rarely does one find the distance between two generations so great.
Now let us come to our story. And the reader can decide whether it is a serious project or a cautionary tale. The story begins with a judgment, one passed down by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, the use of tax-supported roads shall be limited to vehicles in public service. In effect, this means that every car with a free seat must stop when asked. To implement the decision, Congress passes a law that restricts licences to drivers who produce passenger-miles and earn income by doing so. No Samaritans needed. Henceforth everyone who is ot a driver will be chauffeurred, and all drivers are available as chauffeurs.
Is the unthinkable feasible? Can a simple judicial judgment turn the way we now think about economic ”goods” topsy turvy? Without any technical innovation, can a society transform its social and physical environment? Can a small change in the character of trasportation lead to a moral reevaluation of place?
How imagine the details? Every citizen receives a Hack-Card. If a would-be passenger signals a passing car with an empty seat, the driver most stop. The car contains a computer with as many slots as there are seats. For the construction of the black box, ways of billing the patrons and paying the drivers, Toshiba and the IRS are obviously competent. Or let Sprint instruct highway departments on the management of channels (they have experience following the court decision on the monopoly formerly enjoyed by Bell Telephone).
Let charges be entered on one’s tax return (which could make travel cheap and/or free for those with limited incomes) or let them be sent out like the phone bill today. Place regular waiting stops where people signal their direction, and where every passing car with an empty seat must stop if hailed. Make them cozy or warm on lonely corners, and shade them where the sun beats down. Let the people themselves police their waiting lines, as they have learned to do gently in Havana or Mexico. They can report any vehicle which runs a stop. If muggers are rampant in the area, what better place to be but in a car, with one's HackCard signalling the whereabouts for the police?
For those who see a project here, there are many practical questions to be examined. For example: How much would traffic accelerate by eliminating tie-ups? How much space would be created for pedestrians and bikes? How many would renounce transportation, and when? And who would finally be able to afford it? How many new jobs would be created for drivers as against those lost in the car industry? What social consequences would result from discontinuing company and government fleet cars? Could one limit the privilege of the policeman to step ahead in line when in uniform? What would be the ecological impact? And would such a decision accelerate the transition to less polluting vehicles? How much would be saved in public investments? How quickly could this saving create the funds to cover the societal ”loss” through fewer cars being manufactured, purchased and driven? How to face taxi driver unions when they try to challenge the Supreme Court decision? How tell a better story to open up ”the sociological imagination”?
If this is just a cautionary tale, why do we have the experience of people getting angry when we tell it? Are they angry because we do not propose a new technology? Nor defend an ideology? This seems but a simple proposal for thoughtful consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)