On becoming human being - self knowledge

Superb Sufi talk by Shaykh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi in Jerrahi Dergah on September 09, 2006 at Chestnut Ridge, NY.

Baba Ashfaque Ahmed on Hazrat Ratan Hindi

Earth Day special: Tapped Trailer

Sidi Dr. Martin Lings on Modernity

“In the eyes of the champions of this ‘renaissance’ that we are now supposed to be enjoying, what is to be ‘strongly discouraged’ (makruh) is everything that is left of the Islamic civilisation in the way of customs (sunnah) such as wearing the turban and not shaving off the beard, whereas what is ‘strongly recommended’ (mandub) is everything that comes from the West…

The result is that the rising generation is more ignorant of the practices of the
Messenger of God, and more cut off from those practices, than any generation that has come into existence since the dawn of Islam. How then shall we augur well of the present situation? And how shall we not shrink from the word ‘renaissance’ as from an evil omen?

All this was foreseen by the Prophet. He said, ‘You will follow the ways of those that were before you span for span and cubit for cubit until if they went down into the hole of a poisonous reptile you will follow them down.’

That descent is now taking place; and it is called development and progress.”

Sidi Sirajuddin Martin Lings, may God elevate his station.
***********************************
subhan Allah, this clarity of insight [firasat] only comes with real Faith in the Messenger of God, PBUH.

Babajan Durrani at the Urs of Baba Qadir Auliya

Upcoming Sufi website on Baba Qadir Auliya

This promises to be a great website, inshaAllah, on the teachings of the legendary 20th century Darvesh, Hazrat Baba Qadir Auliya, may God sanctify his secret. It is run by my dear Sufi brother Babar.
http://www.faizeqadir.com/

Zionist influence on the BBC

************************************************
How Can You Trust The Cowardly BBC?

The BBC Trust is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which abused Bowen

By Robert Fisk

April 16, 2009 "The Independent" -- The BBC Trust's report on Jeremy Bowen's dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest.

But I am mincing my words.

The trust – how I love that word which so dishonours everything about the BBC – has collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed – against all the facts – that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth.

Let's go step by step through this pitiful business. Zionism does indeed instinctively "push out" the frontier. The new Israeli wall – longer and taller than the Berlin Wall although the BBC management cowards still insist its reporters call it a "security barrier" (the translation of the East German phrase for the Berlin Wall) – has gobbled up another 10 per cent of the 22 per cent of "Palestine" that Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas were supposed to negotiate. Bowen's own brilliant book on the 1967 war, Six Days, makes this land-grab perfectly clear.

Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone's interpretation of international law except its own?

Even when the International Court in The Hague stated that the Israeli wall was illegal – the BBC, at this point, was calling it a "fence"! – Israel simply claimed that the court was wrong.

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 called upon Israel to withdraw its forces from territories that it occupied in the 1967 war – and it refused to do so. The Americans stated for more than 30 years that Israel's actions were illegal – until the gutless George Bush accepted Israel had the right to keep these illegally held territories. Thus the BBC Trust – how cruel that word "trust" now becomes – has gone along with the Bush definition of Israel's new boundaries (inside Arab land, of course).

The BBC's preposterous committee claims that Bowen's article "breached the rules [sic] on impartiality" because "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war".

Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel's claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another "sensible" view of the war. The BBC Trust – and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop – says that Bowen didn't give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook – under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement– said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa – not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim – shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen.

Haaretz gave considerable space to the BBC's findings yesterday. I'm not surprised. But why is it that Haaretz's top correspondents – Amira Hass and Gideon Levy – write so much more courageously about the human rights abuses of Israeli troops (and war crimes) than the BBC has ever dared to do? Whenever I'm asked by lecture audiences around the world if they should trust the BBC, I tell them to trust Amira and Gideon more than they should ever believe in the wretched broadcasting station. I'm afraid it's the same old story. If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever.

And this, remember, is the same institution which said that to broadcast an appeal for medicines for wounded Palestinians in Gaza might upset its "neutrality". Legless Palestinian children clearly don't count as much as the BBC's pompous executives.

How do we solve this problem? Well I can certainly advise viewers to turn to Sky TV's infinitely tougher coverage of the Middle East and – I admit I contribute to this particular station – I can recommend the courage with which Al-Jazeera English covers Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian-Israeli war.

I can well see how BBC executives will say that this article of mine today is "over the top". Jeremy Bowen may indeed think the same. But the First World War metaphor would be correct. For Bowen and his colleagues are truly lions led by BBC management donkeys.
-Robert Fisk
*****************************************

Most useful Sufi wisdom

The most useful Sufi saying I've ever come across, for me at least, is this one ascribed to Hazrat Imam Ghazali RA:

"I learnt 2 things from the Sufis.
One, that Time is like a sword, if you do not cut against it, it will cut you down.
Two, if you do not use your time for the Good, it will occupy you for Evil."
****************************

Truer words were seldom spoken.

jahan kahin Qudratullah Shahab hota he...

Grave of Hazrat Qudratullah Shahab, the great Ovesi saint. More super photos by M. Ahsan here.

THE INNER ASPECTS OF THE BATTLES OF THE PROPHET (On whom be Peace) by Hazrat Shahidullah Faridi

THE INNER ASPECTS OF THE BATTLES OF THE PROPHET
(On whom be Peace)
by
Hazrat Shah Shahidullah Faridi, may God sanctify his secret.

Translated by
Mohammad Akmal Saifie

The process of man’s “internal struggle” can be conceived through the example of the military expeditions of the Holy Prophet (On whom be peace) which took place after the ‘Hijrat’. Each encounter took place under peculiar situations to it, and no two expeditions can be classified as similar.

We find that the physical experiences of the Muslims during these wars reflected their spiritual aspirations and strength at the time. Thus these expeditions were a type of a ‘Suluk’ (spiritual journey) as in the war experiences and lessons emerging therefrom for the Muslims forces, parallels are available for the successive stages in the ‘Suluk’.

‘Hijrat’ itself is like ‘Taubah’ (Repentance). Those who participated in it turned towards Allah. Followed the Holy Prophet (On whom be peace) and in this way turned away from their former world and its attractions. Similarly when man steps into the ‘Suluk’ he take a ‘Baiat’ (vow of allegiance to stand up for Allah) and this an act of repentance concerning his activities prior to taking the ‘Baiat’ and a resolve to overpower the ‘Nafs’ (the evil force) within him in the future. Initially, the ‘Salik’ (traveller) is overawed by the ‘Nafs’ and the task of overpowering it appears a formidable one to him because he has been accustomed to being dictated to by it, i.e. his heart has been in the control of the ‘Nafs’, and at this stage he is unable to appreciate the might or potential force of the ‘Ruh’ due to inexperience.

The first expedition following the ‘Hijrat’ was the “Battle of Badr” – Muslims (spiritual force) versus the polytheists (evil force). Since this was the first encounter, some of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (On him be peace) were not only doubtful of success but were actually afraid of the enormous odds. But what actually happened was that Allah gave them special help and courage, and contrary to their expectations they won this encounter. This is precisely what happens in the ‘Suluk’. The ‘Salik’ learns that the enemy (evil force of the ‘Nafs’) is not really that powerful and recognises the reality and power of God’s help. He understands the meaning of “God’s help” and also learns that the initial ‘break-through’ against the ‘Nafs’ was made only with special aid from Allah. As a result, he suddenly finds courage, heretofore unknown to him, and now has a different view of the might of the ‘Nafs’. He is not afraid anymore!

The ‘Nafs’ is an “aggressor” by nature, and its aggression against the ‘Ruh’ increases in proportion to the increase in strength of the ‘Ruh’ (upto a certain stage). So after the first ‘set-back’, the ‘Nafs’ becomes wary of the might of the ‘Ruh’ and resolves to fight harder in the next encounter. This situation has a parallel in the experiences of ‘Uhud’ the Muslims entered this conflict with a high moral and were confident that God’s help will come again, and were not awed by the enemy’s strength this time. But, during the battle as victory appeared to be in sight some of the Muslims left their battle positions and scrambled for the Booty. They did so in direct contravention to the command of the Holy Prophet which was that under no circumstances the ‘Archers at the Pass’ were to leave their positions. This move of disobedience therefore created disaster providing an immediate upper hand to the enemy. Had it not been for God’s help, the Muslims would surely have been completely routed. God mercifully saved them: but not without the lesson that if your motives are going to be selfish (Booty), then God’s help cannot be expected. His help is for “Jehad’.

A similar situation is also experienced by the ‘Salik’, when he comes to desire the acquiring of spiritual powers for himself. He wants to acquire ‘Kashf’ (revelation of the hidden), ‘Ilqa’ (premonition), ‘Ilham (inspiration). In other words, he wants to go directly after the ‘Booty’ and tends to stray from the main objective. These are actually “selfish” motives emanating from the ‘Nafs’. There is no room for “selfish” motives in the ‘Jehad’ against the ‘Nafs’, otherwise the ‘Salik’ is doomed to failure because God’s help will not be forthcoming.

In the ensuing stages, as the ‘Ruh’ develops and gains “combative” experience and strength, the ‘Nafs’ upon realising that the ‘Ruh’ is a very formidable force and cannot be overpowered, tends to panic in frustration and goes in for a final, “all-out’ attack. A parallel of this type of situation may be viewed from experiences of the ‘Battle of the Ditch’.

The enemy attacked the Muslims with its full might and fury, and this encounter represented a ‘finality’, in a sense. The Muslims, who had not as yet achieved full strength, adopted a new strategy – they simply “held on” to their positions and were not prepared to be impressed by the enemy’s strength, or simply refused to recognise the odds. This was of course done on Allah’s direction and represented ‘Istiqamat’ (steadfastness). The enemy eventually just gave up!

‘Istiqamat’ in ‘Suluk’ is not only a powerful weapon against the ‘Nafs’, it is also the most useful one. This is a much recommended approach and the ‘Salik’ is “Shielded” by ‘Fear of God”-“Taqwa” (protecting oneself from God’s displeasure) and these qualities help to ward off attacks of the ‘Nafs’. Having ‘Istiqamat’ or adopting it, is indicative of a ‘conclusive’ stage in the ‘Suluk’, just as the “Battle of the Ditch” represented a sort of a finality, in the sense that there were no further attacks from the Meccan’s side of any speekable magnitude, on the muslims after that war. This, however, does not mean that the ‘Ruh’ is free from any further mischief from the ‘Nafs’. Because the triumph of the ‘Ruh’ is gradual, or that spiritual development takes place stage by stage, there are other types of tests to be taken. In other words, the ‘Nafs’ employ a totally different type of tactics! The overt hostile attacks having failed, it resorts to covert, deceptive methods.

A typical feature of the ‘Suluk’ is that before the goal has been reached, Allah shows a “glimpse” of the destination to the ‘Salik’, and there is a great wisdom in this. Following the “conclusive” triumph at open conflict (Battle of the Ditch), the Holy Prophet was shown a dream in which he was granted permission to perform “Umra”. The Holy Prophet made full preparations, and accompanied by his companions, proceeded to perform this pilgrimage. But this ‘Umra’ was not performed. And some of his companions raised concern and pointed to the sanction of his dream. The Holy Prophet replied that, “the sanction was granted by Allah, but it will not be performed this year”. Thus, the lesson which emerged from this incident was that of “Sabr” (Patience).

Similarly, patience and tests of it are necessary conditions of the’Suluk’. The ‘Salik’ tends to get impatient, and laments about not having been rewarded despite his undertaking the rigours of the Mujahida’. But, there is an appointed time for everything and events are completely controlled by God. it is entirely His Will. The timing of the “awards” should not be pleaded for and cannot be dictated. The sensible approach is to persevere patiently.

The ‘Nafs’ now employs a new type of tactics-covert and deceptive! This is a stage in the ‘Suluk’ where both the ‘Nafs’ and the ‘Ruh’ operate within their respective spheres and none has any power over the other. But the ‘Nafs’ being a habitual “mischief-monger” resorts to guile and deception. Experiences connected with the ‘Treaty of Hudaibiya’ bear a parallel. This was an inconclusive truce, to start with. But the enemy violated the rules, and deceptively attempted to penetrate the Muslim strength. So God ordered that the idols in the Kaa’ba should be smashed, i.e. the enemy should be completely crushed. With God’s help, this is precisely what was done at the conquest of Mecca, leaving the enemy absolutely powerless.

Deep in the heart of man, there are ‘idols’-those of “selfishness” and “egotism” – impossible to reach without God’s help. But when help comes from God and these hidden ‘idols’ are crushed, a stage of spiritual heights has surely been reached. It is at this point in the ‘Suluk’ that the ‘Nafs’ has been overpowered by the ‘Ruh’, and becomes a “Muslim”, as if it were, just like the conversion of the remaining Meccans following the breaking of the idols by the Holy Prophet instead of opposition to the ‘Ruh’, the ‘Nafs’ actually becomes cooperative.

Even after the highest stage of ‘Suluk’ has been reached, the mischief of the ‘Nafs’ does not completely cease. There is periodical interference: now through its other traits, which are comparatively minor but about which the ‘Salik’ was heretofore unaware. An example of this is in the experience of the Muslims in the ‘Battle of Hunain’. The Muslims were ‘too sure ‘ of victory on the basis of their enormous strength as compared to the enemy. But what actually happened was, that simply on account of a natural factor, lack of visibility (light), they fell into disarray and at one stage had actually fled from the battle scene. Had it not been for the help of God and the Holy Prophet who stood his ground, practically alone, facing the enemy, this battle would have been a catastrophe. The result was not only victory but collection of Booty of unprecedented proportions.

Having achieved domination over his ‘Nafs’, the ‘Salik’ tends to feel proud and may fall prey to yet another deceptive tactic of the ‘Nafs’. He tends to ascribe his success to himself. It is, therefore, dangerous to forget the fact that it is God who bestows everything and the ‘Salik’ should pass on the credit to Him; where it properly belongs.

The achievement of the ‘spiritual heights’ provides such delightful “luxuries” of worship that one is tempted to busy himself in this solitude, and to avoid any involvement in the spiritual development or correction of others. This approach and attitude is, however, not permitted. The Quranic injunction specifically stresses his interests and effect towards others, “save themselves and others from the fire”. Those who engage themselves in solitary worship at this high stage, in effect become victims of covert manpowers (deception) by the ‘Nafs’ which succeeds in ‘fooling’ a man into believing something to be proper and good, whereas in reality it is not proper for him and is against Allah’s commands.

Experience connected with the ‘Expedition of Tabuk’ bear examples of the foregoing point. In that encounter against the Christians and the Jews, the Holy Prophet had greatly stressed participation in that effort, particularly for the people of Madina. This stress is included in the Quran (Surah Taubah). Yet there were some who did not respond to this call, and put forth excuses for staying behind – such as, that it was necessary for some men to stay Medina as ‘rear-guards’ and that the heat would be too severe! Although some of their excuses appeared to be intelligent, their staying behind was really due to cowardice. Even God severely reprimanded these people and through the Quranic ordinances we find that only some were excused: while the rest were not excused.

It is incumbent upon one who has reached ‘spiritual heights’ not to ignore the right that others in the community have over him, and to keep before him the command of Allah and act accordingly.

The incident of Tabuk highlighted the point about the ‘Hypocrites’ who were outwardly with the Muslims from the beginning to the end, stayed among the Muslims, but covertly they were upto mischief against the believers. The ‘Nafs’ also operates in a similar fashion. Its hypocritical traits can be dangerous as it disguises them, i.e., what appears to be a ‘good’ act is in reality not ‘good’. Inflicting physical and mental cruelty on other i.e. persecution to obtain one’s rights or to correct them are examples of such deception of the ‘Nafs’. This is an everpresent danger from the “enemy-within” and requires continuous watch and fore-armament.

It is significant that the Holy Prophet proceeded first with the purification of souls of men, and the eradication of evils of the world followed thereafter. This indicates that the reform of others cannot be achieved unless one thoroughly reforms oneself, and that an external spiritual and moral revolution has to be proceeded by an internal one.

Excerpt: Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

Jerry Mander

Most Americans, whether on the political left, center or right, will argue that technology is neutral, that any technology is merely a benign instrument, a tool, and depending upon the hands into which it falls, it may be used one way or another. There is nothing that prevents a technology from being used well or badly; nothing intrinsic in the technology itself or the circumstances of its emergence which can predetermine its use, its control or its effects upon individual human lives or the social and political forms around us.

The argument goes that television is merely a window or a conduit through which any perception, any argument or reality may pass. It therefore has the potential to be enlightening to people who watch it and is potentially useful to democratic processes. It will be the central point of this book that these assumptions about television, as about other technologies, are totally wrong.

If you once accept the principle of an army - a collection of military technologies and people to run them - all gathered together for the purpose of fighting, overpowering, killing and winning, then it is obvious that the supervisors of armies will be the sort of people who desire to fight, overpower, kill and win, and who are also good at these assignments: generals. The fact of generals, then, is predictable by the creation of armies. The kinds of generals are also predetermined. Humanistic, loving, pacifistic generals, though they may exist from time to time, are extremely rare in armies. It is useless to advocate that we have more of them.

If you accept the existence of automobiles, you also accept the existence of roads laid upon the landscape, oil to run the cars, and huge institutions to find the oil, pump it and distribute it. In addition you accept a sped-up style of life and the movement of humans through the terrain at speeds that make it impossible to pay attention to whatever is growing there. Humans who use cars sit in fixed positions for long hours following a narrow strip of gray pavement, with eyes fixed forward, engaged in the task of driving. As long as they are driving, they are living within what we might call "roadform". Slowly they evolve into car-people. McLuhan told us that cars "extended the human feet, but he put it the wrong way. Cars replaced human feet.

If you accept nuclear power plants, you also accept a techno-scientific-industrial-military elite. Without these people in charge, you could not have nuclear power. You and I getting together with a few friends could not make use of nuclear power. We could not build such a plant, nor could we make personal use of its output, nor handle or store the radioactive waste products which remain dangerous to life for thousands of years. The wastes, in turn, determine that future societies will have to maintain a technological capacity to deal with the problem, and the military capability to protect the wastes. So the existence of the technology determines many aspects of the society.

If you accept mass production, you accept that a small number of people will supervise the daily existence of a much larger number of people. You accept that human beings will spend long hours, every day, engaged in repetitive work, while supressing any desires for experience or activity beyond this work. The workers' behaviour becomes subject to the machine. With mass production, you also accept that huge numbers of identical items will need to be efficiently distributed to huge numbers of people and that institutions such as advertising will arise to do this. One technological process cannot exist without the other, creating symbolic relationships among technologies themselves.

If you accept the existence of advertising, you accept a system designed to persuade and to dominate minds by interfering in people's thinking patterns. You also accept that the system will be used by the sorts of people who like to influence people and are good at it. No person who did not wish to dominate others would choose to use advertising, or choosing it, succeed in it. So the basic nature of advertising and all technologies created to serve it will be consistent with this purpose, will encourage this behaviour in society, and will tend to push social evolution in this direction.

In all of these instances, the basic form of the institution and the technology determines its interaction with the world, the way it will be used, the kind of people who use it, and to what ends. And so it is with television. Far from being "neutral," television itself predetermines who shall use it, how they will use it, what effects it will have on individual lives, and, if it continues to be widely used, what sorts of political forms will inevitably emerge.

It was only after a long while and many half-steps of change in viewpoint that I finally faced the fact that television is not reformable, that it must be gotten rid of totally if our society is to return to something like sane and democratic functioning. So, to argue that case, especially considering that it involves a technology accepted as readily and utterly as electric light itself, is not something that ought to be done rapidly or lightly. Nor can such a case be confined to the technology itself, as if it existed aside from a context.

The first argument is theoretical and environmental. It attempts to set the framework by which we can understand television's place in modern society. Yet, this argument is not about television itself. In fact, television will be mentioned only occasionally. It is about a process, already long underway, which has successfully redirected and confined human experience and therefore knowledge and perceived reality. We have all been moved into such a narrow and deprived channel of experience that a dangerous instrument like television can come along and seem useful, interesting, sane, and worthwhile at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control.

The second argument concerns the emergence of the controllers. That television would be used and expanded by the present powers-that-be was inevitable, and should have been predictable at the outset. The technology permits of no other controllers.

The third argument concerns the effects of television upon individual human bodies and minds, effects which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.

The fourth argument demonstrates that television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel. What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable.

What is revealed in the end is that there is ideology in the technology itself. To speak of television as "neutral" and therefore subject to change is as absurd as speaking of the reform of a technology such as guns.

From the book "Questioning Technology", edited by John Zerzan and Alice Carnes.
New Society Publishers, Philadelphia PA. ISBN: 0-86571-205-0.
**********************************
From the Dead Trees website: eco-action.org

Eric Margolis: Beware those Treacherous AfPaks

From the award-winning journalist's website
********************************************************
BEWARE THOSE TREACHEROUS AFPAKS
March 30, 2009
President Barack Obama has now taken full ownership of the Afghanistan War. Gone are Washington’s pretenses that a western `coalition’ was waging this conflict. Gone, too, is the comic book term, `war on terrorism,’ replaced by the Orwellian sobriquet, `overseas contingency operations.’
Obama’s announcement last week of deeper US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan – now officially known in Washington as `Afpak – was accompanied by a preliminary media bombardment of Pakistan for failing to be sufficiently responsive in advancing US strategic plans.

The `New York Times’ in a front-page story last week that was clearly orchestrated by the Obama administration charged that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), has been secretly aiding Taliban and its allies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In 2003, the `NY Times’ severely damage its once stellar reputation by serving as a primary conduit for fake war propaganda put out by the Bush administration over Iraq. The `Times’ has been beating the war drums for more US military operations against Pakistan.

Even so, these latest angry charges being hurled by Washington at Pakistan’s spy agency ring true. Having covered ISI for almost 25 years, and been briefed by many of its director generals, I would be very surprised if ISI was not quietly working with Taliban and other Afghan resistance movements.

Protecting Pakistan’s interests, not those of the United States, is ISI’s main job.

According to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Washington threatened war against Pakistan after 9/11 if it did not fully cooperate in the US invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s bases and ports were and remain essential for the US occupation of Afghanistan.

Pakistan was forced at gunpoint to accept US demands though most of its people supported Taliban as nationalist, anti-Communist freedom fighters and opposed the US invasion. Taliban, mostly composed of Pashtun tribesmen, had been nurtured and armed by Pakistan.

Many of Pakistan’s generals and senior ISI officers are Pashtun, who make up 15-18% of that nation’s population and form its second largest ethnic group after Punjabis. ISI routinely used Taliban and militant Kashmiri groups Lashkar-i-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Pakistan was enraged to see its traditional Afghan foes, the Communist-dominated Northern Alliance of Tajiks and Uzbeks, put into power by the Americans. The Northern Alliance was strongly backed by India, Iran, Russia, and the Central Asian post-Communist states.

Pakistan has always considered Afghanistan it's `strategic hinterland’ and natural sphere of influence. The 30-million strong Pashtun people straddle the artificial Pak-Afghan border, known as the Durand Line, drawn by Imperial Britain as part of its divide and rule strategy.

Pakistan supports the Afghan Pashtun, who have been excluded from power in US-occupied Afghanistan. But Pakistan also fears secessionist tendencies among its own Pashtun. The specter of an independent Pashtun state - `Pashtunistan’ – uniting the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan has long been one of Islamabad’s worst nightmares.

Pakistanis are outraged by US bombing attacks against their own rebellious Pashtun tribes in the frontier agencies. Most also strongly oppose Washington’s `renting’ 130,000 Pakistani troops and aircraft to attack pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen. A majority believe the increasingly unpopular and isolated government of President Asif Zardari serves the interests of the US rather than Pakistan.

Pakistan is bankrupt and now lives on American handouts.
Its last two governments have been forced to do Washington’s bidding though most Pakistanis are opposed to such policies.

The US has ignored intensifying efforts by India, Iran, and Russia to expand their influence in Afghanistan. India, in particular, is arming and supplying Afghan foes of Pakistan.

Washington sees Pakistan only as a way of advancing its own interests in Afghanistan, not as a loyal old ally. Obedience, not cooperation, is being demanded of Islamabad.

President Barack Obama announced that more US troops and civilian officials will go to Afghanistan, and more billions will be spent sustaining a war against the largely Pashtun national resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

None of this will benefit Pakistan. In fact America’s deepening involvement in `Afpak’ brings the threat of growing instability and violence, even the de facto break-up of Pakistan as the US tried to splinter fragile Pakistan just as it did Iraq.

It is ISI’s job to deal with these dangers, to keep in close touch with Pashtun on both sides of the border, and to counter-act the machinations of other foreign powers in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal belt.

Many Pakistanis also know that one day the US and its allies will quit Afghanistan, leaving a bloody mess behind them. Pakistan’s ISI will have to pick up the pieces and deal with the ensuing chaos. Pakistan’s strategic and political interests are quite different from those of Washington. But few in Washington seem to care in the least.

ISI is not playing a double game, as Washington charges, but simply assuring Pakistan’s strategic and political interests in the region. The Obama administration is making an historic mistake by treating Pakistan with imperial arrogance and ignoring the concerns and desires of its people. We seem to have learned nothing from the Iranian revolution.



copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009

The Sufi Master in Persian Sufi Literature- Prof. SH Nasr

This is an excerpt, read it all here
**************************************************
The Sufi Master as Exemplified in Persian Sufi Literature
by
Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Source: Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 4, No. 3. (Summer, 1970) © World Wisdom, Inc.
www.studiesincomparativereligion.com

THE Sufi master is the representative of the esoteric function of the Prophet of Islam and by the same token the theophany of Divine Mercy which lends itself to those willing to turn to it. The sharî’a, the Divine Law, is meant for all Muslims and, in fact from the Islamic view, for all men if its universal meaning is considered. But the tarîqa, or spiritual Path, is only for those who seek God here and now and who search after that immutable Truth which although present here and now is also the eternal source of all revelation. The tarîqa is thus a means whereby man can return to the origin of the Islamic revelation itself and become in a spiritual sense both a companion and a successor of the Prophet and the saints.

The role of the spiritual master, the shaikh, murshid, or pîr, is to make this spiritual rebirth and transformation possible. Being himself connected through the chain of initiation (silsila) to the Prophet and the function of initiation (walâya)[1] inherent in the prophetic mission itself, the Sufi master is able to deliver man from the narrow confines of the material world to the illimitable luminous space of the spiritual life. Through him, acting as the representative of the Prophet, spiritual death and rebirth take place by virtue of the baraka present in him.

Fallen man grows old, decays and dies, whereas the regenerated spiritual man is always inwardly in the prime of youth. Having drunk from the fountain of eternal life and having gained access to the elixir of immortality he lives in the perennial spring of the soul even if his body passes through the winter of life. And that is why he is able to endow the disciple with youth, whatever age he may formally be. To behold the perfect master is to regain the ecstasy and joy of the spring of life and to be separated from the master is to experience the sorrow of old age.

I aged with his affliction, but when Tabrîz
You name, all my youth comes back to me.[2]

Man may seek the fountain of life by himself. He may seek to discover the principles of spiritual regeneration through his own efforts. But this endeavor is in vain unless the master is present. Without the philosopher's stone no alchemical transformation is possible. Only the power of the shaikh can deliver man from himself—from his carnal soul—and enable him to behold the Universe as it really is and to join the sea of Universal Existence.

Without the power imperial of Shamsu'l-Haqq of Tabrîz
One could neither behold the moon nor become the sea.[3]

Of course there are those who are initiated into the way by Khidr or the "men of the invisible hierarchy" (rijâl al-ghaib) such as the Uwaisis, or, in the case of Shi‘ism, by the Hidden Imam who is the spiritual pole (Qutb) of the Universe. But all these ways, which are not for men to choose and to seek but for which they must be chosen, nevertheless concern the universal initiatic function of which the Sufi master is the embodiment on earth. Inwardly one with the invisible hierarchy and the Truth (haqq) itself, he appears outwardly among men as the sign of the supreme mercy (rahmat) of God, as the means whereby man can gain access to the spiritual world and be admitted to the company of prophets and saints. He is the door through which one must pass in order to enter "the garden of the Beloved" while at the same time he is the guide to the inner court of this garden.

To become initiated into a Sufi order and to accept the discipleship of a master is to enter into a bond that is permanent, surviving even death. For the disciple the shaikh is always mysteriously present especially during the rituals. The shaikh never dies for the disciple even if he has left the world. His spiritual guidance (irshâd) and assistance continue after death. The spiritual master, whom Rûmi calls the heavenly rider, comes and goes, but the dust of his gallop remains. His effect upon his disciples is permanent and the seed he has sown in their hearts continues to be nurtured and cared for, even after the temple of the body has fallen into dust. Under his care even from this ruin of earth, that seed can grow into a tree which stretches to heaven and extends from the Eastern to the Western horizons.[4]

Slave, be aware
The lord of all the East[5] is here;
The glittering storm-cloud of eternity
Reveals his lightning-flash to thee.
Whate'er thou sayst
Is but as inference has guessed;
He speaks upon the eye's experience,
And therein lies the difference.
The heavenly rider passed;
The dust rose in the air;
He sped; but the dust he cast
Yet hangeth there.
Straight forward thy vision be,
And gaze not left or right,
His dust is here, and he
In the Infinite.[6]

Likewise the assembly (majlis) of the Sufi master is a terrestrial image of the heavenly assembly of the saints. The disciple (faqîr) who gains the right of entry into this assembly, by virtue of having been initiated by the master, also gains for himself a place in the assembly of paradise provided he remains faithful to the master and his instructions. Once he fulfils the conditions of discipleship and reaches perfection in the assembly, his station becomes of permanent importance and gains a significance beyond the life of this world and the grave. The master leaves a permanent mark upon the disciple by virtue of which the disciple who has reached perfection again joins the assembly of his master in the other world. By the perfection gained in the majlis of the Sufis, the faqîr gains access to the royal assembly of heaven and constructs for himself an exalted abode in the after life.

And, O friend, if you reach perfection in our assembly (majlis)
Your seat will be the throne, you will gain your desire in all things.
But if you stay many years more in this earth,
You will pass from place to place, you will be as the dice in backgammon.
If Shamsi Tabrîz draws you to his side,
When you escape from captivity you will return to that orb.[7]

Not only is the influence of the Shaikh permanent but his light is everywhere. Though distinct as a spiritual personality, he is inwardly identified with the light that shines upon the land and sea and illuminates all things by the disciple who is closely attached to him.

From Tabrîz-ward shone the Sun of Truth, and I said to him:
"Thy light is at once joined with all things and apart from all".[8]
*****************************************

The Shoe of Maulana Fakhr e-Dehli

From the new Sufi Chishti Maharvi website
They have a small but beautiful Gallery of tabarukaat [objects blessed by the presence of holy people/places].




"I am the servant of the Qur’an
While I am still alive.

I am the dust on the path of Muhammad,
the Chosen One."

(Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi)

... and we are honored to be the dust beneath the feat of the saints!