Musharraf's escape route

By Rob Crilly
Soruce: The Telegraph

One man in Pakistan would have watched last Saturday's election results come rolling with more alarm than anyone else. Pervez Musharraf was the general who cut short Nawaz Sharif's second term in office by seizing control of the country and arresting the prime minister.

How the tables have turned. Now Mr Musharraf is under house arrest, confined to two rooms of his smart villa just outside Islamabad, and his old foe Mr Sharif is preparing to move back into Prime Minister's House for a third term. Things could not have turned out much worse for the former military ruler.

But quietly, behind the scenes, it looks as if the stage is being set for Mr Musharraf to make a rapid departure. Informed commentators whisper that his old pals in the military are reaching out to the courts – where the 69-year-old faces a slew of cases – preparing the ground so he can leave before Mr Sharif is sworn in.

That would be handy for Mr Sharif. He has enough problems with a powerful military establishment without also being handed responsibility for dealing with their former chief of staff.
On Friday night, one piece in the jigsaw was slotted into place. A lawyer, who had initiated one of the cases against Mr Musharraf – the one with the most chance of success, alleging that he had arrested and imprisoned lawyers as he desperately tried to hold on to office in 2007 – announced he had withdrawn his complaint.

Talking to Dawn on Friday, Advocate Ghumman said he had withdrawn the complaint in the larger national interest. “I think that the trial of Gen Musharraf in such a state of affairs is not in the national interest and, therefore, I have decided to withdraw my complaint,” he said.

It will be up to the courts to decide whether to halt proceedings. But isn't it curious? Not only have the courts toned down their anti-Musharraf rhetoric in recent weeks but now one of the cases is on shaky foundations.
This has always been the issue. Ever since Mr Musharraf made his ill-conceived return, the question has been how to get him out of the country while allowing everyone involved to save face. The courts won't want to back down, given the way he treated the lawyers. Nor will Mr Sharif. Bringing both into conflict with an army that won't give up its man. Hardly the route to a stable Pakistan.
Musharraf's escape has become something of an Islamabad parlour game, constructing ever more complex ruses to get Mr Musharraf to Dubai or London. Some suggestions:

1. He is taken ill and must go to Dubai for specialist treatment – never to return
2. His 95-year-old mother is taken ill and Mr Musharraf is given special compassionate grounds to travel to her bedside in Dubai – never to return
3. He receives a presidential pardon from President Asif Ali Zardari, who in exchange is given a nod and a wink that corruption cases against him be shelved, all lubricated with Saudi cash for Nawaz Sharif's government

Whatever eventually happens you can be sure of two things. The solution will be very Pakistani. And Mr Musharraf will be gone before anyone realises quite what is happening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most likely this is a likely outcome (what this article has described). And again, my question to everybody who thinks "elections are the way to change and betterment" ---> What change?

If this is one of the first things to be happening in this country after the "historic turnout" ... What change are you talking about?

My posts have become increasingly pessimistic (or so it seems). I'm only trying to point out that the flaw is in the very system - the system we hold sacred with no basis! That's the only purpose behind these posts.

The solution is simple (if not easy to implement). Bring back Islam on the political level in the country. It has been done before (in the Age of Ignorance in Makkah, nobody could imagine that an Islamic state could be set up in neighboring Medina which would spread far and wide within a few years).

Pakistan is still predominantly Muslim - and has awareness etc. :)

New Atheists, Old Tricks

Finally, an athiest with a brain. Interesting read!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Davide Mastracci  (Journalist, Student)

- Source: Huffington Post

Following the Boston bombings, many Muslims felt obliged (though it's a shame that they felt this way) to explain that they do not support terrorism and the actions of some others who claim to share their faith. The pressure for Muslims to apologize for, or distance themselves from, other Muslims, came from the Western media and public, racist law enforcement agencies, as well as New Atheists. In response, I'd like to say that as an atheist, I do not support the actions of New Atheists, and do not consider them worthy to represent the banner of atheism.

In the simplest and correct definition of the term, atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deity, or the possibility of a deity. I am an atheist, and this just means that I do not believe in god. It means almost literally nothing else at this point in my life. New Atheists, who make up an ideological movement owing its existence to such figures as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, begin at the same point as me, but take their lack of belief in a far different direction.

I do not consider myself to be superior to theists because we differ on the issue of god. New Atheists often implicitly or explicitly do. In fact, New Atheists frequently uphold a hierarchy of faith, which enforces how they regard others. To a New Atheist, the best stranger is the stranger who is also an atheist while a stranger who keeps their belief in deities to themselves is the ideal sort of theist. Yet a stranger who allows their belief in a deity to dictate components of their life, in accordance with previously existing communities and institutions (i.e., a stranger involved with religion) is something the New Atheist mocks and condemns.

Dawkins claims journalist Mehdi Hasan cannot be taken seriously because he is Muslim

The second difference between myself and New Atheists comes in the way we regard such things as science and rational thought. New Atheists and I both claim to appreciate these things, though we show it in varying ways. For instance, I tend not to believe things I can't prove (like talking snakes, objective morality or heaven) while New Atheists take pride in attacking theists for their supposed lack of logic, because, well, science! For proof of this point, spend five minutes on any given day browsing the Atheist sub-section on Reddit.

Beyond the way we regard analytical skills, New Atheists and myself apply our analytical skills in different ways as well. I try to properly analyze everything, while the analytical prowess of New Atheism is selective. New Atheists love to poke holes in theistic beliefs by using science to show that these beliefs are false. New Atheists get giddy from the idea that what religion once had to create fables to explain, science can now provide empirical answers for. Yet when it comes to the behaviour of religious peoples, New Atheists logical skills go out the window.

This behaviour is especially evident in regards to Islam, as New Atheism has a nasty history of Islamophobia, which Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, as well as Murtaza Hussain for Al Jazeera, have pointed out. There is little defense major New Atheists can give to charges of Islamophobia, and in fact, the defenses they have given further outline their inability to calmly analyze events involving religion.

In a reply to Hussain's critiques of New Atheism, Samuel Harris, a leader in New Atheism, claims that he is not Islamophobic. He says that instead he spends disproportionate amounts of time viciously attacking Islam and Muslims because Islam is a more dangerous religion than the rest of the major ones. Harris backs this claim up by pointing to the Middle East, notorious figures like Osama bin Laden and numerous terrorist groups, and supports (just as Hitchens did) torture and racial profiling to combat this perceived menace. In fact, Harris has even claimed that "Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."

Yet, belief in Allah is not the cause of the problems which plague the Middle East. Hundreds of years of imperialism, numerous American invasions, continued Israeli aggression, corruption, proxy wars and Western support for brutal dictators have all played a major role in shaping the Middle East. You can't attribute the current standing of the Middle East to Islam.

An example can be found in Lebanon with regards to Islamic fundamentalists Hezbollah. Years of conflict with Israel have left many in the country angry, desperate and poor. Hezbollah has, in the eyes of its supporters, managed to provide the community with much needed amenities, while offering a military response to Israeli aggression. If Muslim Lebanese civilians are attracted to Hezbollah, it is not because Islam is a violent religion, but because they perceive Hezbollah as a liberating force against the aggression which has destroyed their lives. It would be absurd to claim that minorities in the United States are disproportionately charged of crime because of their religious views, race or ethnicity. Relevant explanations include racial profiling, poverty, and unjust laws. The same holds true for claiming Muslims support alleged terrorist groups because of Islam.

And this is where my major difference with New Atheists come into play. I am an atheist because I tend to not believe in things I have no evidence for. Yet New Atheists believe scores of myths, with no evidence, about Muslims and Islam. While they enjoy poking fun at people who believe in flying horses, the sort of beliefs they carry, which justify imperialism, racial profiling, and torture as a means of combating theism, are far more dangerous. These beliefs are also disingenuous. To defend racism or imperialism with atheism is a cop-out; these views cannot be attributed as stemming from atheism. As an atheist, I apologize to Muslims for the vile my so called 'peers' spew. They do not represent me.
 

2013 Elections - if only!

Assalamualaikum

Two news articles are all it's going to take.

Take a look:

-------------
Nawaz Sharif claims victory in Pakistan election

The frontrunner to become Pakistan’s next prime minister tonight promised to stand together with the West in taking on the forces of terrorism, hours after voting finished in the country’s historic general election.

During a close-fought campaign Nawaz Sharif had promised to end drone strikes and review the country’s relationship with America.

As he publicly claimed victory in the poll, the two-time prime minister sought to reassure Western governments and said he would not pull back on the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 

“I have experience of working with US counterparts and will be very happy to further work with them,” he told The Sunday Telegraph. 

“What is most important is that we must never allow our soil to be used by anyone to create problems with any country in this world.”

--------------------  There is more, but not relevant. Now, the next article -----------------------------------

Obama hails Pakistan for elections, pledges equal partnership


(Reuters) - President Barack Obama congratulated Pakistan on Sunday for the successful completion of its parliamentary elections and said the United States would work with the country's new government as an equal partner.

"The United States stands with all Pakistanis in welcoming this historic peaceful and transparent transfer of civilian power, which is a significant milestone in Pakistan's democratic progress," Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

 "By conducting competitive campaigns, freely exercising your democratic rights, and persevering despite intimidation by violent extremists, you have affirmed a commitment to democratic rule that will be critical to achieving peace and prosperity for all Pakistanis for years to come," he said.

Pakistan's Nawaz Sharif made a triumphant comeback in the country's election and looks set to form a stable government capable of implementing reforms needed to rescue the fragile economy.

The polls were seen as a democratic landmark, marking the first time one elected government was to replace another in a country vulnerable to military takeovers.

Washington is eager to maintain a stable partnership with Pakistan, particularly as it continues counterterrorism operations on the Afghan border, but the relationship has been complicated by U.S. drone strikes blamed for killing civilians.


Obama did not note Sharif by name in his statement.

Sharif, a former prime minister, is almost certain to take the post for a third time.

"My administration looks forward to continuing our cooperation with the Pakistani government that emerges from this election as equal partners in supporting a more stable, secure, and prosperous future for the people of Pakistan," Obama said.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who recently hosted talks between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's army chief meant to reduce tensions between the two neighbors, also called Pakistan's elections historic.

"The Pakistani people stood up resiliently to threats by violent extremists," Kerry said. "We'll be working with the new government to advance shared interests including a peaceful, more prosperous and stable future for Pakistan and the region."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about that for a change?

This should be an eye-opener for all those who think that the current democratic process and voting etc can bring about a real change in Pakistan, and for Muslims in general. It never can.

If it were to bring about a change, they wouldn't be sitting so quietly, applauding your bravery (against the so-called threats to elections and blah), and congratulating you when another one of their puppets is installed in power. They would be after you and the process would never even last.

If only, we could THINK.

Analysis: More than Bad Rulers and Corrupt Societies

Amazing insight. Truly, why do we always blame the leaders. Look around us. How easily we have forgotten the concept of Ummah and embraced the concept of "nation state".  How people in my age-group have grown up thinking and believing that the splitting up of the nations was tantamount to "independence".

What independence? When our madrassah system was abolished, Arabic was abandoned, English was incorporated, anybody who didn't know English was shunned, the constitution was based on British Law (with a few token objective resolution statements of course - which were there only to appease the masses, not to be actually followed)... it's a thought to ponder upon.

What independence?

---------------------------------------------------
By Khalid Baig
Posted: 18 Safar 1424, 20 April 2003
Source: Albalaagh

When British journalist Robert Fisk said that in the face of disaster Arabs act like mice, he was being polite. He could have said that the Muslims act like mice. The question is why?

It is easy and customary to blame the current Muslim rulers for this sorry situation. No doubt the Iraq invasion would not have been possible without their acquiescence and support. If they refused to open their lands, waterways, and airspace to the invasion, it could not have taken place. Neither would the slaughters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosova, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine have been possible if the Muslim rulers had their act together. But was it only because the Muslim rulers happened to be immoral, coward, and unscrupulous characters? Is the 1.2 billion strong Ummah suffering only because there are fifty-four corrupt persons who are ruling it?

These rulers do not carry out all their plans personally. They have armies of compliant soldiers, bureaucrats, and other staffers at every level of government that do the dirty work. Further the societies at large produce, nurture, and sustain the corrupt machinery of the corrupt governments. As we continue our investigation, we find that our problem is corruption; not only of the rulers but also of the ruled. Today we have strayed from the Shariah in our personal lives; we lie, cheat, steal at a higher rate than ever before; we exploit and oppress in our small spheres. In short, our problems are caused by our moral corruption.

But there is something more. And it is getting scant attention in the Muslim discourse.
Islam teaches us the correctness of belief is even more important than correctness of deeds. There is an implied message here: The corruption of ideas is far more devastating than the corruption of actions. This may be happening here. We complain about the particular tribal leaders that happen to be there today but forget about the tribalism that sits at the root of all this. This tribalism of the nation-states has been enshrined into the constitutions, legal structures, bureaucracies, and the entire apparatus of government in every Muslim country. Its language and thinking, though anathema to Islam, has gained widespread acceptance. While we condemn its outcome, we do not sufficiently examine or challenge the system itself.

We constantly talk about the Muslim brotherhood and the need for Muslim unity. We assert that Muslims are one Ummah. Simultaneously --- and without much thought --- we embrace the symbols, ideas, and dictates of its exact opposite. We have lived under our nation-states, celebrated our national days, and sang our national anthems all our lives. As a result the realization that the gap between the idea of the nation-state and that of one Ummah is wider than can be patched with good leaders of individual nation-states does not occur easily. We do not realize that we may be trying to simultaneously ride two different boats going in opposite directions.

So let us consider some real life situations. In Pakistan, the provinces of Sind and Punjab share the Indus River. Available water is less than their combined needs and Punjab is situated upstream while Sind is downstream. Quite naturally, there is constant bickering over the distribution of water. The conflict is resolved by the presence of a central government and by the realization that both provinces belong to the same country. Now imagine that the two provinces had been transformed into two separate countries. We can be certain that the small issue that no body in the world knows about or cares about today would become a big international conflict. And it may matter little whether they were called Islamic Republic of Punjab and the Islamic Republic of Sind! The logic of a sovereign country is very different and once you embrace that there are consequences that good intentions and good people alone cannot overcome.
To understand that let us move from the Indus basin to the Furat-Dijla (Euphrates-Tigris) basin. What is presented as a hypothetical situation in the former has been turned into an unfortunate reality in the latter. Both Dijla and Furat originate in Turkey, pass through Syria, and end up in Iraq where they join to form the Shat-al Arab that then discharges into the Persian Gulf. Mesopotamia means the land between the two rivers, the two rivers having been the source of civilization since the ancient times. Add the artificial international borders between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, and the same life giving water turns into an explosive that could rock the area. In 1974 there was a near war between Syria and Iraq as Syria began to fill the reservoir that has become Lake Asad, decreasing the flow of the river to Iraq to as little as 25 percent of the normal rate. Armies were moved and threats were exchanged, though finally diplomatic activity by the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia defused the situation. In 1990 tensions ran high as Turkey stopped all flow in Furat for one complete month as it started to fill the Ataturk Dam.

Today Turkey's Southeast Anatolia Project, (GAP in Turkey) is promising a much more serious conflict in the days to come. The multi-billion dollar GAP includes more than 20 dams and 17 electric power plants, which will reduce water supply to Syria by 50% and to Iraq by 90% when it is completed in another twenty years. Even more bizarre is the plan Turkey has for part of the water that it denies to Syria and Iraq seriously endangering their agriculture and economies; it will sell it to Israel through the so-called Peace Pipeline that will run through the Mediterranean. The agreement with Israel was signed in 2001. "We have declared that we can sell water to whichever country needs water, regardless of its language or flag," said Cumhur Ersumer, Turkey's energy minister at that time. "It looks like Israel will be the first country to buy Turkey's water." That is the logic of the nation-state as articulated by Suleyman Demirel: "Neither Syria or Iraq can lay claim to Turkey's rivers any more than Ankara could claim their oil. This is a matter of sovereignty."

We can be sure that accountants in Turkey can show that Turkey will benefit economically by doing what it plans to do. And even a so-called Islamist party in Turkey will be driven by those calculations pledging, as it does, allegiance to "Turkish national interests." A comparable situation would be Punjab denying water to Sind and then selling it to India. No matter how corrupt leaders in Pakistan become (if they have not already reached the limit) it is just impossible to imagine that outcome. And yet the same situation is not only possible, it is there in the other case. Such are the wonders of the corrupt ideology of nation-state!

Conflicts of interest between any two entities are normal and natural. What is crucial is the mechanism and structure for resolving them. Islamic laws of inheritance highlight this fact. Conflicts could develop even among close relatives over distribution of inheritance. Since Islam values very smooth relations and does not like even the slightest bickering there, the Shariah has provided the detailed rules for this distribution. Neither the people involved, nor the government can override this distribution. Thus a solid mechanism has been provided for resolution of these conflicts.
In case of two provinces of the same country, the mechanism for the resolution of their conflicts remains in the form of the central government as well as firm realization on the part of everyone that they are riding the same boat. However when they turn into independent countries, both of these are lost.

How the definition of the self-interest can change with a change in the frame of reference can be seen through another example. When the US gave the Pakistani ruler the choice of either joining the invader or joining the target he did not hesitate for a minute to choose the first option. It can be criticized as much as one wants, but the fact remains that under the frame of reference under which Pakistan and all Muslim countries operate today, that was an option. But can we imagine the US demanding, or Pakistan conceding the support for attacking Baluchistan? This would clearly be seen as preposterous by everyone. As far as the Shariah is concerned, the two situations are exactly alike. But in the system of nation-states they are not.

That the opposition to what the Pakistani president did was manageable is also a reflection of the fact that Muslims the world over have generally and unwittingly bought into the philosophy of this nationalism.

The imposition of embargo on Afghanistan and Iraq is another example of the clash between Islam and the nation-state. Islam teaches that it is not a believer who eats while his neighbor goes to bed hungry. The system of the UN on the other hand, ordered its member-states not to supply any food or medicine to those dying of hunger and disease in Iraq. Again, the fact that Muslim countries have complied with the latter without any consternation or serious opposition is a reminder of our subconscious acceptance of the nationalist ideology.

We can see why world Muslims acted like mice in the face of disaster. The Qur'an warned us not to engage in disputes and infighting or we would become weak and powerless. But we have not only done the exact opposite, we have given a permanent structure and legal cover to the arrangement for that infighting in the current political organization of the Muslim domain.

This exposition of the ideology of nation-state invariably faces a mental block; namely that all this is impossible. This argument runs like this. We had a Khilafah centuries ago. Since then we have had a checkered history of nominal Khalifah, Sultans, and Nawabs running their own kingdoms and fiefdoms. Today we have fifty-four states and there is no way we can change that in our life times. Yes and no. While we had more then one centers of political power for centuries, the Muslim world was much more integrated then than we realize. It was one social, cultural, religious and economic domain. Its language, system of education, currency, and laws were the same. There were no restrictions on travel, or movement of capital or goods. A Muslim could take up residence and start a business or get a job anywhere. Ibn Batuta traveled from Tunisia to Hijaz, East Africa, India, Malaya, and China, covering 75000 miles without traveling the same road twice. During the twenty-five year journey he took up residence where he wanted to; got even government assignments as Qadi and even as ambassador in China for the Sultan in India. If that was possible then, it should be easier now because of the huge advances in the communication and transportation technologies alone.

No one is suggesting that we can dismantle the fifty-four Muslim governments overnight and replace them with a Khilafah. But we can gradually breakdown the barriers between the Muslim states in travel, trade, and all exchanges at personal levels. With free flow of people, goods, capital, and ideas throughout the Muslim domain, a quite revolution can begin. We could realize that this domain is much more self-sufficient and strong then we have ever realized. That its various parts complement each other's needs and strengthen each other. That it is the artificial borders between Muslim lands drawn by colonial powers that have terribly weakened it!

While we recognize that the barriers to that vision are real and very serious, we must also realize that the most serious barriers are mental and psychological. We must break through the mental straitjacket and realize that another world is possible. Only then we will begin to see how to get there. It may take a generation or many generations. But we will never get there if we do not know that is where we want to go. Today sometimes Muslims say out of frustration that Muslim governments should form their own United Nations. The suggestion does capture our deep desire for unity as well as our deep running confusion about it. For it has one s too many. The Islamic discourse should be about a United Nation of theirs and not United Nations.

Big Business, "Muslim Rap"

Really insightful article which examines the role music always played in society, how it changed when Islam emerged as a religion, and how it re-emerged and where it is today.

For all those who think music is "not that big a problem" in Islam, this article is a must-read.

Let me know if you want a summary of this article in the next post :). Just in case this seems too lengthy. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Khalid Baig
Posted: 16 Safar 1424, 27 March 2005 on Albalagh

When the pagan Makkan army was marching to Badr in 2 A.H., it included not only fighting men, weapons, camels, and horses, but also the means of inciting the fighters: singing-girls and musical instruments. At every rest stop along the way these cheerleaders plied their craft, spitting venom against the Muslims and promising their favors in the most enticing ways to those who would destroy them.

The army had been summoned to protect their trade caravan. When they learnt that the caravan had escaped and some of them wanted to turn back, Abu Jahl insisted on continuing: "No, I will not return to Makkah, until we have refreshed ourselves at Badr, and spent three days in feasting, drinking wine, and listening to the singing and playing of the singing-girls."

In the end, the unequal war in Badr did not turn out to be the picnic he had imagined. Abu Jahl was slain, as were many other prominent leaders of Makkah. The decisive victory at Badr by the ragtag Muslim army remains a constant source of inspiration and education. It changed the course of history, for if Muslims had been defeated, the magnificent Islamic civilization would not have seen the light of day and the jahilyah society would have continued uninterrupted.

At Badr Muslims drastically lacked the weapons of war. But it was the absence of a particular weapon of war that symbolizes the moral edge that gave them the victory. Unlike their adversaries the Muslim army did not include bands of singing-girls and musical instruments!

There is no doubt that such bands could and did stir up emotions. At Uhud, the chant of the singing girls was: "Move forward and we will embrace you. Turn back and we will abandon you." In countless pagan wars before and since, the promise has been the same. It works for the lowly beasts seeking the sensual pleasures of this world, fanning the fires of their basest emotions and bringing out the animal from within them. No wonder battlefields have historically showcased the worst of human behavior and character.

Islam came to rid the humanity of such decay. It produced soldiers who fought to establish justice and morality and sought nothing but the pleasure of Allah. Their weapons were piety, sincerity, fear of Allah, an unshakable commitment to right the wrong, and an unwavering willingness to sacrifice even their lives for it. Quite naturally it removed the filth of singing girls and musical instruments from its side of the war zone.

There were also other uses of music that Islam abolished in its revolutionary remaking of society.

While in other religions music and singing have been an integral part of worship, Islam's acts of worship do not require or permit music. What about the argument that "sacred music" can bring one to a state of ecstasy and union with God? Well, salat brings one closer to Allah. (There are historical accounts of earlier Muslims some of whom reached such a state of absorption that they could not feel even physical pain of surgery during salat.) It is very significant that this closeness is achieved without any "sacred" music.

Music has also been a means of indoctrination and glorification. Trumpets were blown to announce the arrival of His Majesty and to make people bow to his pomp and glory. If this had been a legitimate use, then the person most deserving of this honor would have been no one other than the Prophet . But to a world used to the courts of monarchs with musicians always ready to glorify them, he introduced a drastically different court. No pomp, no musicians, no music.

Historically music has also been associated with magic and superstitions. When faced with disasters or epidemics, pagan people resorted to dance and music to get rid of the evil spirits. The legend of the Pied Piper, popular in the West for centuries, attests to the belief in the magical powers of music. In Arabia singing girls called dajina (from dajana meaning cloudiness) sang to conjure rain when clouds gathered. Islam instead taught its followers to turn to Allah in salatul istasqa to pray for rain.

And of course music has also been used as a distraction and mindless entertainment. This is what Nadr ibn Harith did to keep people from paying attention to the Qur'an. He bought a singing girl and used her to "win the hearts and minds" of anyone who appeared to be leaning to Islam. He was condemned in Surah Luqman (31:6).

Islam did permit some singing and use of a simple instrument like duf (a small one-sided drum) for weddings or Eid celebrations. It permitted rajaz singing for jihad. These were exceptions to the general rule. Thus if we draw a graph of music activity in the Muslim world against time, we will find it to be at its lowest during the time of the Prophet and the Khulafa Rashidoon. Its subsequent rise during the Umayyad and Abbasid Khilafah was a result of external influences: Sassanid in Baghdad and the Byzantine in Damascus. The graph went down after the fall of Baghdad and remained low for centuries. Its latest rise came under the influence of the imperial West and began with the conquest of Egypt by Napoleon where Khadieve Ismail (ruled 1863-1876), dedicated to Europeanizing Egypt, built the first opera house in Cairo. Throughout the Muslim world the colonial rulers used gramophone and then radio to spread music far and wide. Then came the television and a plethora of other gadgets, which have made it impossible to find a music-free space anywhere. Today music playing on cell phones even invades the sanctity of the most sacred of all places --- the house of Allah. What is more, many Muslims are convinced they are serving Allah as they try to spread Islam through music. I was struck the other day by stumbling on the following entry on BBC's website: "Muslim rap is big business with annual sales in excess of $1.8bn in America alone." [6 May 2004]. 

To gain an insight into the colonial project, we can turn to Henry G. Farmer (1882-1965), the author of many books on Arabian music and the dean of the music-in-Islam-crusade. Here is one bit of "wisdom" from him: Islamic censure of listening to music was manufactured by the theologians of the Abbasid era who were jealous of the inordinate attention paid to music and musicians!

Those who are not convinced by this "scholarly" explanation need to do something to end the delusion and stop the profane noise.

Adorable multiplied by a gazillion skillion!!

THIS is the kind of kids I wanna raise :D:D:D:D. Alhamdulillah. Just LOOK at her. This is a child not yet 4 if I'm not wrong. Now this is what I call tarbiyah!

May Allah Reward her parents abundantly and make her "qaim" (steadfast) on the deen. Ameen.

 

I really do try not to whine much!

And the remedy is to keep oneself totally busy. But at times like these, when the lab is nearly empty, people are packing up and going, having achieved something in their day, you just have to sit back, and reflect on all the hours wasted, and how your own day went.

And so I will. [talk about evidence establishment for whining].

Anyway, I was the under-dog today. I had a group meeting where people were talking about...me! These were all senior students who wanted to help me out. Kind looks and helpful suggestions were flying all around. The group meeting was actually about something totally different, but somehow, the topic came up to me and how my research is just not getting started. And what I could/could not do about it. And what are the next steps I should take. And how I shouldn't give up. And should go to senior students for help. And just... START things on my own.

I suppose I should be really grateful, and I suppose I am. But it just doesn't sit well with me that our educational system and lack of concrete thought when choosing an undergrad program - could be so... pity-inducing.

You should have seen the kindly looks I got. My heart feels like a Google server is on top of it.

All in all, some take-away lessons from this experience are:

1. You should never believe fellow students/family when they tell you "You're a good student MashAllah".
2. You should never make an undergrad program choice based on how cool "Satellite Communications" seems to be.
3. If you're going in a core CS PhD program in a world-class university, do spend a year bringing your background up to the mark if you don't have a CS background. It will save you eons of embarrassment.

The one thing this program (if I ever finish it) has taught me: Humility. Utter, humility.

Which is a really good thing, in my opinion :). But it doesn't help your self-esteem one single bit.

Life, in short, is not great at the moment.

May Allah Help and Guide us all, Ameen. 

Second thoughts ...

I just read a blog by a Muslimah who is not a Muslimah anymore. She wore a niqaab once, in her life, worked in the Muslim community for about ten years, and gradually, got convinced that Islam is not the solution, in fact, religion is not the solution.

That's a pretty huge decision to make about life.

Not surprisingly, her "coming out of the religious closet" upset me. How can a person be so oblivious to the blinding flash of truth right in front of their eyes? You only have to look around yourself, to appreciate the marvelous design all around you. Evolutionary biology may explain the natural variation in living organisms, but really, they don't explain the source of those variations.

Anyway, this is one long-standing debate between athiests and believers. We have a debate on "Does God Exist" on campus coming up in April's first week. I hope to go. But as always, I will come outside feeling unsettled in my heart. Alhamdulillah I have not experienced any second thoughts on THAT issue (this just came up because I just read that sad blog post), but I have experienced feeling unsettled because of the blatant rejection of something very obvious.

My second thoughts are (oh-what-a-surprise) on my life choices. The path I have chosen to take. I came to America. I started doing a PhD.

What I could have done, instead:

1. Taken online courses in Islamic sciences and become a scholar
2. Done editing jobs for a publishing house which publishes Islamic translated books from Arabic to English.
3. Learnt Arabic

Instead, I am:
1. Continually involved in doing something I am not very good at. Reason: I don't have CS background. I did my MS in it, but how did I do that, I have no idea.
2. Trying to catch up on my lack of proper background by doing CS61A : "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" - something, every undergrad does when they start out their CS undergrad. [and I have a list of other subjects lined up like Algorithms, which I have to take].
3. Unless I improve my background, I am unable to go forward in research. Why, you may ask: Because any paper I read, just stays in my brain. The tools to implement that paper is not with me. I  am not a C++ programmer, and the field I am in, requires usage of a fast programming language like C++ to get things done.
4. MATLAB is just not working out for me. As I mentioned, MATLAB can work with maybe a few images, but when you talk about a large collection of videos, unfortunately, there is only one choice. C++.

So this is the current situation. I am nearly a year into my program, and the only progress I have made is to find out a huge list of things I don't know, and need to catch up on.

I guess it didn't help today when somebody I trust pointed out: "You should really have gone into something you are good at - like journalism".

If this comment is coming from somebody I trust, I trust that it's well-meant and not meant as a snide remark.

That's what worries me.

What if I am completely in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, aiming for the wrong aim.

Image source

The least we could do...

Is to learn from them...


Israel fires into Syria after Golan attack on troops

(Reuters) - Israel said it fired into Syria on Sunday and destroyed a machinegun position in the Golan Heights from where shots had been fired at Israeli soldiers in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front.

It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible for what a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said had been a deliberate attack on Israeli patrols in the occupied territory.

 

Israeli forces "destroyed a Syrian machine gun nest that fired twice in the last 24 hours on Israeli patrols operating to safeguard the border," the spokesman, Ofir Gendelman, said on his Twitter page.
Shells have fallen several times inside Israeli-controlled territory during Syria's civil war. Some of the incidents have drawn Israeli return fire.

Syria's southern provinces bordering Jordan and Israel have become an increasingly significant battleground as the capital Damascus - in Syria's south - comes into play and President Bashar al-Assad's forces fight hard to prevent rebel advances.

The Israeli military said one of its vehicles was hit late on Saturday by shooting from across the Israeli-Syrian ceasefire line on the Golan Heights, but no one was hurt.
Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Lerner, said, "Our understanding is that it wasn't stray fire."

After a second incident on Sunday, Israeli soldiers "responded with accurate fire toward the Syrian post from which they were fired on", the military said.

Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said in a statement that Israel viewed shooting from Syria "with severity" and would not allow "the Syrian army or any other element to violate Israeli sovereignty by firing at our territory".

 ------------------ Source: Reuters ---------
The above statement which I have set in bold and italicized, shows how they treat a single fire towards their territory. If only, the Muslim countries could show this passion for their nations and lands, where regular drone strikes kill their civilians.

If only the Muslim armies could learn from this army, which - not only warned verbally - but struck back at the Syrian place where the fire of shells came from.

I am not condoning the Israeli attacks (mind), I am merely appreciating the way they view their sovereignty of their land... and how meekly we submit to the missile attacks that rain down on our nations, be it Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia (who knows which muslim country is next).

On a side note: One of the things I missed hearing from Imran Khan on 23rd March (at his jalsa) was a promise to end the drone strikes in this country. Please correct me if I missed it. I surely hope it was a mistake on my part, and not an omission on his.

So long folks.

I'm in charge of gas :D:D:D:D

Awesome cheer-me-up on a parhai-filled Saturday. *lote pote with laughter*

Good that I was drifting through my inbox's history. Found this :D:D:D