Conspiracy Theories: From the Mind to the Media to be precise, it was the cartridge which had to be torn open, not the bullet nor the grenade.

Muslim Reformers - A Peek Into the Past #29: Manto, the problem is that I dont really want to target every possible factor behind this issue. That way, we just go about needlessly exciting electrons on the internet. The objective was to see if one has examples from history which broke the back of the obscurantists, and as Sir Syed has proved, it can be done. Not enough, but it has been done.

#30 by strongman_dick. Well, as we have seen above, Sir Syed did go and beard the mullah`s in their own den (pun intended).

#31 by sadna. Thank you for the note. One wonders if a further application of the rationalist ideas such as that of Sir Syed and expansion of minority educational institutions (as I am under no illusion that the public education system will get improved anywhere in a hurry) will help push the Indian Muslim literacy rate upwards. And, btw, I am not a reformer, I am a part time hack :)

Muslim Reformers - A Peek Into the Past First of all, thank you all for your kind comments, Second, apologies for the omissions or mistakes and third, apologies for the delay in writing, I didn’t expect this to be published as it happens!.

I have to admit that there is a huge amount of material out there on this remarkable man, and it was a struggle to hit the highlights. I will not comment on the TNT responses, that wasn’t my objective.

Iron_mask, yes, I am a bong indeed. But if you see, my point was this, looking at the current crop of muslim reformers (see my blog for the previous series or if you wish, I can drop the urls in here), the question was asked, have muslim reformers really made a difference? And looking at Sir Syed, yes, he has. Strangely enough, I have received many responses separately saying that the problem was not that but that we didn’t have more Sir Syed`s. So the technique works, it’s the quantity which is the issue.

#24 by kakolukiyum. I agree, despite some recent news stories about challenges that women students face in AMU. We need more of those types of institutions.

#25 by Naqshbandi. Thank you for the link. In return, I am giving this link which will definitely make you chuckle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_reformers

Remembering a great Pakistani: Sir Zafrullah Khan #5 by Kulharee

Just one small point, the palestinians and the other Arab states devolved the duty to argue the Palestine partition plan to Zafrullah Khan at the GA. While his opening address was and is considered to be one of the most brilliant expositions in that institution, I am afraid he wasnt even present at the debate.

While it is debatable how much his presence would have mattered, but the fact that the palestinian table was empty and the Zionist table was full while the debate was going on lead some countries to abstain. For example, Benny Morris in the Righteous Victims tends to paint Zafrullah Khan as one of the reasons why the partition plan was voted in. The sad thing is, 50 odd years back, if that plan had been accepted, the chances are high that the palestinians would have been in a much better state than they are right now despite Ben Gurion`s perfidious plans post partition.

Incidentally, India who voted against Partition (along with the muslim and arab nations).

Cannibalising Your Own all, thank you for your kind comments, much appreciated!

cheers

BD

Cannibalising Your Own #11 Adamkhan

I accept your point with due apologies. While saying that, I should have been more precise by mentioning that it is not the pathans but almost like a certain subset within the NWFP who are in the category you mention. Yes, the frontier gandhi is one of my favorite people, but at the same time, the misogynistic and anti-education pattern can be observed in vast swathes in that poor NWFP territory.

Again apologies for painting with too broad a brush.

Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf ouch, a bit mean there! and far right masters? sort of doesnt match up with her run-in`s with the right wingers such as iron rita in holland, but lets not get all balanced out :)

Education isn\'t the Magic Bullet for Terrorists Tahir Sahib

thank you for your compliments.

My simple answer would be, social or political or economic injustice will always be present. The question is, how you resolve it? Terrorism is one way, political discourse is another. The idea is that given a representative democracy and suitably responsive governments (I know, both tall orders), one would hope to avoid terrorism. For example, take the current reservations issue which can be termed as an ethnic/racial problem (emerging from social or religious injustice) in India. We had demonstrations, protests, some heads were banged together, but upper caste people had a choice, they could band together to form a terrorist group, go about killing lower caste people or government employees or what have you. Or else, they could setup a political party or support an existing one to see if they can achieve their ends. The idea is to try to go for the latter rather than the former.

This is a very simplistic answer and will need bigger minds than me to answer properly, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from

Cheers

bd

Riba and the Pakistani Economy I have been tracking this islamic finance business for the past 16 odd years ever since Malaysia started on the sukuk bandwagon. Financial Institutions love this, its a one way bet, nobody loses. Across the arab world, you get what is called as non-interest bearing deposits. One way bet, you cant lose, you take in the money from people who dont want interest and loan it out. Which is the reason why you have strange liquidity sinks and peaks in the middle east markets.

ALL justifications given by the sharia boards are pure unadulterated BS. And I mean ALL, no exceptions. So if an instrument is publicised as sharia compliant, immediately know that they dont know what the heck they are talking about, each and every financial transaction is either interest bearing or has elements of explicit risk involved. It is all a way to make money out of the faithful. Then again, its the same with the ``socially responsible investment``, you are paying for your consience in that case, and in case of these islamic instruments, you are paying for your faith. Best of luck.

The State as Hostage #1 by rf786

I am afraid you may have got the wrong end of the stick. State terrorism is a misnomer, but for that, you will have to wait for my next essay :). But this essay is for what a country can do if a citizen gets taken hostage. Not sure of the connection.

#2 by sheelajaywant

It is not easy for a state to go outside its boundaries and take ``revenge``, generally doesn’t work.

#3 by bjkumar

There is much in what you say, the value of a citizen is rather low in our countries but despite the israeli penchant for striking back in revenge, it has not stopped counter revenge attacks, I am afraid. What did work was the policy of targetted assasination, but not to that much extent either.

Why Aren’t Muslim Women Converting to Christianity? An interesting discussion, here`s a reaction by a muslima on another freshly reverted muslima. Strange behaviour indeed.

http://hotcoals.org/?p=84


Hot Coals
Ahead of you are days which will require endurance, in which showing endurance will be like holding hot coals - Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings upon him)
« Meeting the Master
Afghan Convert Controversy: A Counter-Perspective on Apostasy in Islam »
April 1st, 2006
Faith And Its ExpressionTo shake or not to shake? Is that even a question?
Yasmin Amin

Yvonne Ridley’s article: “Sheikh Tantawi’s Handshake” is making the rounds of the internet. An intriguing and interesting viewpoint indeed! What would Ms. Ridley, a fresh convert to Islam and celebrated Muslima, converted by the Taliban whilst in captivity, have to say after she went to see Sheikh Tantawi? Sadly the article is not about some profound message about religion or religious discourse, nor is it about a pending or former insightful fatwa. It was all about just a simple handshake. You might wonder about me wondering about it, but the Muslim world apparently is wondering about it and why shouldn’t I? After all, this is so earth-shakingly important in the annals of Islamic adab. The bottom line of the article is that Ms. Ridley went to meet Sheikh Tantawi and he wanted to shake her hand and she got totally affronted about it. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard all about it? If not, here’s my take on it.

First of all it was Ms. Ridley who refused to shake Sheikh Tantawi’s outstretched hand, offered in greeting and not the usual other way around, when a Muslim woman would jump over her patriarchal traditionalist teachings and extend a shy hand to a man in greeting, only to have the humiliation of it being refused, which amounts to a bucket of cold icy water dumped on her, frequently veiled, head.

Just why would any Muslim, or Muslima for that matter, shake in fright when faced with a situation of shaking a woman’s or a man’s hand? A handshake can lead to other things it is said. One shakes a hand and before one knows it, one can end up together shaking a bed it is implied. I looked it up and found various rulings saying that: “it is prohibited to shake hands with a woman if there is fear of provoking sexual desire or enjoyment on the part of either one of them or if there is fear of temptation.” These rulings are apparently based on the general rule that blocking the means to evil is obligatory, especially if its signs are clear. But were the signs really that clear in this particular situation? These rulings are also based on a questionable Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “…The hands fornicate. Their fornication is the touch…”

Even so, if this is indeed the reason, I was taken aback. So in other words, Ms. Ridley accused Sheikh Tantawi of impure thoughts? Notwithstanding that he pointed out to her his age and standing as a scholar and a teacher, she actually thought that a handshake between them might provoke desire and temptation. I further wonder who and what she was so worried about? Her own or the venerable old Sheik’s desire? In either case, it is a bit strange. If the former, that is rather interesting, because it just makes me question the purity of Ms. Ridley’s thoughts in this case. That of course leads me right to ‘niyyat’. Isn’t religion and Islam mainly all about niyyat?

The first Hadith recorded in Bukhari’s Collection Volume 1, Book 1, Number 1 reads: “Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended…”

This was the first Hadith recorded by Bukhari in his book. It was used as an introduction to all Hadiths to come afterwards. This particular Hadith indicates, that all deeds are judged and rewarded according to their intention. ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi is reported to have said that: “Were I to compose a book comprised of various chapters, I would place the Hadith of ‘Umar regarding deeds and intentions in each chapter. This is one of the firm Hadiths, which serves as an axis of Islam.” Al-Shafi’i said that it comprises a third of all religious knowledge. Ahmad bin Hanbal said that the principles axes of Islam, in terms of Hadith, are three: the Hadith narrated by ‘Umar that “deeds are judged only by intention,” the Hadith narrated by ‘Aisha, “Whoever introduces into our affairs that which does not belong, it is rejected,” and the Hadith narrated by al-Nu’man bin Bashir, “The licit is clear and the illicit is clear.” And all these Hadiths relate to our situation here, but I digress. So let us go back to niyyat. If I understand it correctly you get a reward for a thought of a good deed, even before it is done. So just the thought, coming from an arising niyyat, is enough to grant you a bonus point, and shake the balance of your judgement day deed sheet. But in this case the niyyat of a believer (Sheikh Tantawi) is assumed by another believer (Ms. Ridley) to be bad. My next question would have to be: what happened to Sura [64.4] He knows what is in the heavens and the earth, and He knows what you hide and what you manifest; and Allah is Cognizant of what is in the hearts.

So if Allah knows what is in the heart, Ms. Ridley seems to share that knowledge for some unknown and inexplicable reason. Just what is it that Ms. Ridley sees that I cannot? Or is it perhaps that she thinks that her irresistible form, covered in a modest veil is enough to shake the good old sheikh by merely shaking her hand? Or is it perhaps that she is afraid of shaking his hand, so that her own faith is not shaken? Does Ms. Ridley not believe that Allah created man and woman equal? And that for Sheikh Tantawi to allow her some of his valuable time was raising her to his scholarly level rather than assuming a desirable and tempting form under her modest veil?

If Sheikh Tantawi is secure enough to be in a meeting with Ms. Ridley, in the safe presence of an interpreter, discussing some religious issue or other or even granting her an interview about some of his thoughts, why shouldn’t she be secure enough in taking a greeting as it was meant, rather than how it was perceived after being interpreted by her? Is it interpretation rather than niyyat that is the problem?.

Many scholars have interpreted women mixing with men as the root of all evil. So a handshake, in their view, would most certainly lead to evil. I seem to recall that men and women mix in the haram in Mecca for pilgrimage. They do not shake hands there, granted, but they pray side by side in very close proximity. They eliminate worldly thoughts while performing their rituals and are in audience with Allah. So it is not interpretation but their niyyat which matters.

I also recall the prophet visiting Um Haran bint Milhan, wife of Ubada bin As-Samit, on his own. She would offer him meals and sit with him and he enjoyed her hospitality as per Hadith 47, narrated by Anas bin Malik in Bukhari’s collection. So he mixed with her and there were no shakes there. Nobody would allege an evil niyyat to the prophet. But then again that is what Ms. Ridley seems to have alleged to Sheikh Tantawi’s, despite the presence of a third party, namely the translator. And that is what everyone else alleges, who refuses an outstretched hand.

Why does a hand cause so much fear? Is Islam all about evil and its prevention, rather than good and its implementation? A gesture of goodwill goes a long way, even if it is just a kind word, as per Sura [2.263]: Kind speech and forgiveness is better than charity followed by injury; and Allah is Self-sufficient, Forbearing. And Ms. Ridley knows that too, for she writes in her own words: “it is permissible to go for the least line of resistance, rather than embarrass others.”

Yet Ms. Ridley ends her article with “If I ever meet Sheikh Tantawi again I will not be extending my hand, unless it’s clutching a frying pan.” Is this what peace and Islam has been reduced to by Ms. Ridley, to drive your point across threatening someone with a frying pan? And that too on the revered head of a renowned and respected Sheikh of Al Azhar? What happened to ‘adab’? What happened to setting a good example? What happened to good behaviour and decency? What happened to Islam as a way of life? And then one wonders about terrorism and murder? Isn’t a hand clutching a threatening frying pan in defence against a simple handshake alleging that it is almost leading to ‘zina’ very akin to a hand clutching a gun in defence against an alleged insult of the faith like Theo van Gogh had to feel? Why do we not keep things in proportion? Why do we have to interpret all sorts of things into simple gestures that aren’t really there except in the imagination? Why are women reduced (and in this case even by a woman) to sexual objects, without brains and uses other than evoking sexual desires, leading to temptation and ultimately shaking a bed rather than a hand?

Ms. Ridley wrote in her article that she consulted “all sorts of Islamic authorities and they unanimously told her that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar was wrong”. Be that as it may, I suppose those “all sorts of Islamic authorities” had a live conduit into Sheikh Tantawi’s brain and could see and ascertain his evil niyyat. They also found out that he, despite his age and the decades of scholarly years on his shoulders studying theology, would be transported into delight by merely shaking Ms. Ridley’s hand, which would undo his ablutions and lead to other very evil things. But then only Allah knows what’s in Sheikh Tantawi’s head and heart.

But I still have to wonder about those “all sorts of Islamic authorities”. Who are they? Sheikh Tantawi is an authority of his own. Many other Islamic authorities care deeply about his thoughts and try to emulate his behaviour and adopt his thinking. But now those unnamed “all sorts” question his niyyat? Perhaps we should then turn to those “all sorts”, unidentified as they are, for guidance? Why weren’t they identified, if their opinion outweighs that of an Azharite, and not just any Azharite mind you, but THE Azharite?

Could it be because they are maybe some obscure mullah or other? And what are their arguments against the simple innocent handshake as a greeting? Ms. Ridley doesn’t tell us that either, because she was too busy stringing angry words in a three page article about the handshake itself. So what could their reasoning be? Sexual enticement leading to zina? A western custom that should be shunned by the pious Muslims, so they don’t fall into the trap of imitating a bida’? Impure thoughts and wicked imagination leading to unrestrained immoral deeds? Perhaps even the propagation of germs causing disease? Or is there something in the Hadiths or Suras which they are relying on and which Sheikh Tantawi missed?

I am sorry, but I fail to understand all these reasons, because for me it stops at niyyat. If niyyat is good enough for a reward by Allah to a deed still undone, it should be good enough. Or do they know something more than Allah revealed in his book or the Prophet uttered in his Hadiths? If that is the case, I would really like for Ms. Ridley to identify them, so we can all benefit from their profound wisdom.

In conclusion, Ms. Ridley who converted in August 2003, and after verifying her own opinion with those obscure unidentified “all sorts of Islamic authorities” thinks she knows more than Sheikh Tantawi the Sheikh of Al Azhar. In her closing paragraph she wrote that Sheikh Tantawi asked: “Who is teaching her? She can shake my hand, why she is like my daughter. This is the problem with Muslims in Europe today, they listen to extreme voices.” So Ms. Ridley thinks she knows more than the good Sheikh, while Sheikh Tantawi thinks that European Muslims are extremists. If it was a question of who is more grounded in Islam, I will most certainly take Sheikh Tantawi’s word, because if I use my own mind, which Allah has given me, I will most certainly arrive at the logical conclusion that most ‘normal’ men and women can’t really get that excited from a handshake.

Ms. Ridley’s shaking article can be found here:

http://www.muslimsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1251&Itemid=238

Yasmin Amin is a bibliophile living in Cairo, with interests relating to religious studies and Middle Eastern history.

The Placebo Effect of Economic Boycotts Ranjit #1

The point which I am trying to make is that as a means of policy, economic boycotts are utterly useless, and I gave some examples. Let me give you some policy implications of your examples. Say USA cuts off ALL aid to Israel and Pakistan and economically boycotts them to force Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders and allow resettlement of refugees, and to force Pakistan to give up its nuclear weapon. Both countries will go into a tail-spin, but the objective will not be achieved. That`s the point that I am making. Gandhi`s economic boycot hurt the Brits but that was not the reason why the brits decided to let India go. See the point? economic boycotts hurt people who least deserve or be able to handle it, and they dont fulfill the policy objective. Only thing it does is to make some drawing room intelligensia happy. Period.

Oil and Water do Mix bjkumar #5

While I agree with you that this may be snake oil/water?? but water is no longer self regulating, I am afraid. That was when water was not transportable without machinery. Think of Libya, they are piping in water from long long miles away, hence populations can increase without immediate water availability.

I am afraid I also have to disagree on the need for oil, energy usage is so crucial to current human civilisation that lack of it will cause severe dislocation, yes, people will learn but it its like comparing death by shooting versus death by poisoning, it will take longer, some may survive but boy oh boy, the journey will be painful.

#6 by SaimaShah

I am afraid its a question of resources. In the absense of limited resources and increasing demand, pricing is the only way forward. One cannot violate the fundamental laws of economics, I am afraid.

Oil and Water do Mix #1 tahmed, thank you.
#2 ahmedmadani: what people forget is that the north african littoral extraction project is based upon extracting FOSSIL water, this water is not replenishable by ordinary means such as rainfall or rivers. Once its gone, its gone.

My Hero! Your Hero! Our Hero! Whose Hero? Thank you all for your compliments, much appreciated. I understand the comments made about making it a bit more concise or some idiosyncrasies. Call it a hangover from being a professor, have to keep on banging on :).

I realise that once we go back into history, at that time, there was no Pakistan and Afghanistan, it was one geography. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this article, I did pick up on that small point and well, made an essay out of it. But pulling and pushing between 2 countries is quite unique to make it funny or sad (depending upon how you look at it).

Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav, yes, I could have mentioned the latter as well, but oh! Well, India has far too many scoundrels to count.

cheers

bd

My Hero! Your Hero! Our Hero! Whose Hero? Sorry, just read it and found couple of inadvertent errors had crept in my submission.

First: Karl Marx was not born in London but DIED in london.

Second, there are 2 Paul Epsteins (thanks to Sekhar for pointing it out). This is the corrected para. My sincere apologies, folks.

A worse state was in reserve for one Paul Epstein, a brilliant physicist with too many national identities and no nest to call his own. Born in Russia, studied in Germany. He couldn’t take up a job in post war Poland (the Russian district where he was born went into Poland) as he had a German education. He could not teach or work in Germany, as he was considered Polish by virtue of his birth. Russia refused to consider him and anyway, it was too dangerous for him to work there. He could not get a job in Switzerland, and since French, Belgian and English scientists had no contact with Germany, they couldn’t sponsor him. Another German mathematician and scientist, curiously by the same name, had an even worse fate. He got fired from his German university as he was a Jew and finally, the tragedy was that the Gestapo was after him, and not wanting to throw himself to their tender mercies, committed suicide. Here’s an unsung hero, I guess.