Syed Zafar Abbas, Editor
It was inevitable, wasn't it?
For the last couple of years, there have been three Eids in the UK. Depending on the school of thought and even within Shi'as, divisions have been commonplace. Up until now, there has always been one day of Ashura, but this year it is about to change. The majority of the UK has commemorated the 1st of Muharram on Monday 29th December 2008, but some Shi'as have commemorated it on Tuesday 30th December. This means there will be two Ashuras in the very same city. This is a sad state of affairs, where the 'aza of Imam Husain should not have to be subjected to, and there needs to be a discussion between the leaders of the community in order to solve this situation and make sure that the azadari is the no. 1 focus in this holy month, and nothing else.
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Mumbai bombings
Syed Zafar Abbas, Editor
Lets make it clear from the outset that terrorism is unacceptable from any perspective, Islamic or otherwise. However, one must wonder that multiple bombings going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and other lands are sidelined, yet the Mumbai bombings have dominated the news for the whole week. This sort of behaviour gives away the partisan nature of the media which will ignore anything to do with Muslims, unless they are the accused party.
This brings me onto another interesting point. It comes as no surprise that the Indians have implicitly accused Pakistan of being involved in this heinous act, and cries of Pakistan Murdabad were being amplified all over the world media. I don't know how many people saw PJ Mir's programme on ARY digital where he was speaking to Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, on the telephone line while interviewing Wajid Shamsul-Hasan, the High Commissioner of Pakistan to London, and Qazi saheb quite explicitly blamed the MQM for having been responsible for the terrorism in Mumbai, without any proof!
It is no wonder that the people of Pakistan are turning away from Islam and preferring a life of dunya when you have so called Islamic leaders acting in exactly the same way as our foes do. Never has the saying been truer - do as I say, not do as I do. This is the problem of the Muslim community worldwide, and in particular the leaders.
May Allah give tawfeeq to the Muslim community, and hasten the reappearence of our Imam (AJ)!
Lets make it clear from the outset that terrorism is unacceptable from any perspective, Islamic or otherwise. However, one must wonder that multiple bombings going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and other lands are sidelined, yet the Mumbai bombings have dominated the news for the whole week. This sort of behaviour gives away the partisan nature of the media which will ignore anything to do with Muslims, unless they are the accused party.
This brings me onto another interesting point. It comes as no surprise that the Indians have implicitly accused Pakistan of being involved in this heinous act, and cries of Pakistan Murdabad were being amplified all over the world media. I don't know how many people saw PJ Mir's programme on ARY digital where he was speaking to Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, on the telephone line while interviewing Wajid Shamsul-Hasan, the High Commissioner of Pakistan to London, and Qazi saheb quite explicitly blamed the MQM for having been responsible for the terrorism in Mumbai, without any proof!
It is no wonder that the people of Pakistan are turning away from Islam and preferring a life of dunya when you have so called Islamic leaders acting in exactly the same way as our foes do. Never has the saying been truer - do as I say, not do as I do. This is the problem of the Muslim community worldwide, and in particular the leaders.
May Allah give tawfeeq to the Muslim community, and hasten the reappearence of our Imam (AJ)!
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Experiencing God
Syed Zafar Abbas, Editor
The Cambridge Dictionary defines experience as “(the process of getting) knowledge or skill which is obtained from doing, seeing or feeling things”. All of our experience in life comes from our five senses and as such this definition follows. However, the experience of God is very much dissimilar to our every day experience, especially as God (at least the one understood in classical theism) cannot be experienced through any of our senses but one. That sense, of course, is the sense of feeling. What makes this even more complex is that what one person feels cannot even be explained, at times, to another; let alone felt by someone else.
If we look through the history of Islam, we find many examples of Prophet Muhammad and his holy family explained not only the existence of God but the experience of God as well. One of the most famous Islamic leaders and the son in law of Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib was once asked as to how he believed in a God he could not see. He replied saying that he did indeed see his creator, but not by the limited eyes on his face but the illuminating eyes of his heart. In this way, he explained that the experience of God is not a physical, limited one; it is a transcendent existence which requires an experience befitting that.
The Islamic theology (Ilm-ul-Kalaam) dictates that a God which can be understood by the human mind cannot be the God that has power over all things. It does not befit the creator to be limited by the understanding of his creation. This does not however mean that there can be no experience of God, for in Hadith Qudsi (the conversation of Allah with Prophet Muhammad on his journey to the heavens – Mi’raj), the creator himself calls out, “I was a hidden treasure and wished to be recognised”. Perhaps as an explanation for this apparently mystical statement, Ali ibn Abi Talib exhorts people coming towards God by saying “He who has recognised his soul, has recognised the one who sustains him [and the billions of others, regardless of their beliefs].” By recognising one’s soul, by perfecting the meaning of being a good human being and acting with compassion towards others solely for the pleasure of God is the way that one comes closer to the recognition and experience of God.
Returning to the discussion of how God is experienced, once a man was arguing that anything that exists must be seen, and seeing as God exists, it must be possible to see him. At that moment, a man by the name of Bahlool, who was a companion of Imam Ja’far as Sadiq (702-765), the sixth successor to Prophet Muhammad, but used to act as if he was insane, threw a brick at the man. The man started screaming in pain, to which Bahlool asked him to show the pain. The man cried out to Bahlool calling him a madman who did not even know that pain could not be seen. Bahlool retorted that it was he who was claiming that anything that exists must be seen. Through knowledge and understanding, as well as being of sharp mind, Bahlool was able to explain in very simple terms what appears to be a complex theological issue.
Now when one comes to a very personal experience of God, one relies on the various ups and downs throughout life, and once the belief that whatever God does is for a reason and that may well have some long term benefit for us, is strong, then regardless of what happens in life, one remains contented with his situation. Similarly, just a cursory look at the world around us, and one can only marvel at the creation and sustaining of God who, quite literally, makes the world go around. The creator who made sure that every single thing needed by human beings – air, food, water – everything, was already provided by God before even the creation of the first human being, and that he continually provides and sustains both believers and disbelievers, those who thank him and those who reject his existence, yet he provides to them all, and that to me, is the biggest experience of the mercy of God.
You may well be wondering that the discussion so far has been very much a philosophical one, with no discussion at all about the ritual aspects of religion, such as prayer and fasting, through which most people would claim to experience God. I had intentionally left them out because the experience of God comes from an increase in knowledge and understanding, which is reflected in the ritual worship, but more importantly, reflected, in the day to day life with one’s behaviour towards fellow human beings.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines experience as “(the process of getting) knowledge or skill which is obtained from doing, seeing or feeling things”. All of our experience in life comes from our five senses and as such this definition follows. However, the experience of God is very much dissimilar to our every day experience, especially as God (at least the one understood in classical theism) cannot be experienced through any of our senses but one. That sense, of course, is the sense of feeling. What makes this even more complex is that what one person feels cannot even be explained, at times, to another; let alone felt by someone else.
If we look through the history of Islam, we find many examples of Prophet Muhammad and his holy family explained not only the existence of God but the experience of God as well. One of the most famous Islamic leaders and the son in law of Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib was once asked as to how he believed in a God he could not see. He replied saying that he did indeed see his creator, but not by the limited eyes on his face but the illuminating eyes of his heart. In this way, he explained that the experience of God is not a physical, limited one; it is a transcendent existence which requires an experience befitting that.
The Islamic theology (Ilm-ul-Kalaam) dictates that a God which can be understood by the human mind cannot be the God that has power over all things. It does not befit the creator to be limited by the understanding of his creation. This does not however mean that there can be no experience of God, for in Hadith Qudsi (the conversation of Allah with Prophet Muhammad on his journey to the heavens – Mi’raj), the creator himself calls out, “I was a hidden treasure and wished to be recognised”. Perhaps as an explanation for this apparently mystical statement, Ali ibn Abi Talib exhorts people coming towards God by saying “He who has recognised his soul, has recognised the one who sustains him [and the billions of others, regardless of their beliefs].” By recognising one’s soul, by perfecting the meaning of being a good human being and acting with compassion towards others solely for the pleasure of God is the way that one comes closer to the recognition and experience of God.
Returning to the discussion of how God is experienced, once a man was arguing that anything that exists must be seen, and seeing as God exists, it must be possible to see him. At that moment, a man by the name of Bahlool, who was a companion of Imam Ja’far as Sadiq (702-765), the sixth successor to Prophet Muhammad, but used to act as if he was insane, threw a brick at the man. The man started screaming in pain, to which Bahlool asked him to show the pain. The man cried out to Bahlool calling him a madman who did not even know that pain could not be seen. Bahlool retorted that it was he who was claiming that anything that exists must be seen. Through knowledge and understanding, as well as being of sharp mind, Bahlool was able to explain in very simple terms what appears to be a complex theological issue.
Now when one comes to a very personal experience of God, one relies on the various ups and downs throughout life, and once the belief that whatever God does is for a reason and that may well have some long term benefit for us, is strong, then regardless of what happens in life, one remains contented with his situation. Similarly, just a cursory look at the world around us, and one can only marvel at the creation and sustaining of God who, quite literally, makes the world go around. The creator who made sure that every single thing needed by human beings – air, food, water – everything, was already provided by God before even the creation of the first human being, and that he continually provides and sustains both believers and disbelievers, those who thank him and those who reject his existence, yet he provides to them all, and that to me, is the biggest experience of the mercy of God.
You may well be wondering that the discussion so far has been very much a philosophical one, with no discussion at all about the ritual aspects of religion, such as prayer and fasting, through which most people would claim to experience God. I had intentionally left them out because the experience of God comes from an increase in knowledge and understanding, which is reflected in the ritual worship, but more importantly, reflected, in the day to day life with one’s behaviour towards fellow human beings.
Book Review: God is not Great (Christopher Hitchens)
Syed Zafar Abbas, Editor
It has been a while since I read a book that was supposed to challenge my beliefs and attempt to refute the idea that God existed. From an early age, I have always enjoyed getting involved in debates and discussions, especially those surrounding religion, as I have immensely increased my knowledge through this medium. When I was asked to do a review of this book, the thought excited me. However, I was to be left bitterly disappointed.
Before beginning this book, I felt my beliefs as a Muslim were strong enough to be challenged. But challenge them is precisely what Christopher Hitchens does not do. Instead he lists all the problems, atrocities, and evil actions carried out by people who have professed religious beliefs, regardless of whether they used religion as a vehicle for their actions or not. The language Hitchens uses is very lucid. However the book has very little -- and even then quite inaccurate -- theological discussion.
It is also quite ironic that while Hitchens dismisses religious texts for containing discrepancies and inaccuracies, he himself is apparently not too bothered about inaccuracies in own text. In particular, he takes secular ideologues and labels them as religious fanatics. This undermines his basic argument that it is religion which causes problems. Obviously Hitchens as a proponent of a particular stance when it comes to religion is an ideologue of some sort. If he himself as an atheist can be taken as a potentially dangerous ideologue, the book loses its credibility.
Examples of Hitchens making basic mistakes in a quest to prove his point are rife. For someone of Hitchens' political and historical astuteness, the statement that Rajiv Gandhi was India's President when in fact he was the Prime Minister is a howler of the highest degree (and the fact that he tries to portray his murderers, the avowedly secular Tamil Tigers, as religious, smacks of desperation). Similarly, where he erroneously attributes the "chakra" on the Indian flag to M.K. Gandhi when it is in fact to do with Asok, is something any student of South Asian history should know.
Hitchens' criticisms of the Bible and Qur'an bring nothing new to the table. He dismisses anyone who doesn't toe his line -- Karen Armstrong in particular is treated very harshly. His familiar comments about the "plagiarism" of the Qur'an are tiresome and his attempts to portray Saddam Hussein Tikriti as a man of religion, and the Ba'athist regime as "Islamic" (based on the "Anfal" campaign) laughable.
What is most amusing about Hitchens is his attempt to have his own cake and eat it too. He argues, with good reason, that religious people have used religion in order to conduct acts of violence and immorality. However, when the turn comes to criticise atheist mass murders such as Hitler and Stalin, he chooses to call them "religious" as well. This can only work if the meaning is stretch so far as to render it meaningless, and as a consequence, bring the argument Hitchens' has put forward down like a pack of cards.
Hitchens claims that it is stupidity and ignorance which drives communities and states back towards the belief in religion. The problem with his hypothesis is that he has, perhaps deliberately, confused the issue by using "God" and "religion" interchangeably. This is a habit that many atheists suffer from, where when being cornered about the existence of God, will suddenly jump to a particular historical incident where religious people acted inhumanely. Not only is this poor form, it also reveals the weakness of the atheist position which relies on an amalgamation of confusion under the pretext of facts and reason in order to drive the masses away from the recognition of their true creator.
Despite all this, Hitchens makes a sound case, though perhaps not the one he intended: Humanity can easily be overpowered by its desires instead of reason. The book is littered with examples of men in history, from the high priests of the Catholic Church to those who occupied the highest echelons of Muslim society, who due to their inherent desires of greed, power and control used religion as an agent and duped the masses. What Hitchens has wrong is the solution. The way forward is definitely through reason and it is through which we will recognise the true God and reject all false deities. That is a stance that many of the world's religions have taken as well.
There is one final point that needs to be made, however. Some of the blame for such populist literature lies with us. Being a close friend of Salman Rushdie and an admirer of the fictitious apostate Ibn Warraq, the conclusions Hitchens comes to are not surprising. But as in the case of Rushdie, Hitchens' materials have been derived from our sometimes negative history and faulty hadith literature that has been compiled by some Muslims. Confronting that takes strong knowledge of the hadith literature, the books criticizing it, as well as western thought, particularly the role of religious literary criticism. We need to be very vocal about treating negative historical examples as something we can learn from and never repeat again, rather than something we admire. Until we confront the skeletons in our own closets, it will be far too easy for authors such as Hitchens to spew rubbish. We will have provided them with the resources to do so, and for people the world over to label Muslims as terrorists, because, unwittingly, we will have adorned ourselves with that label.
It has been a while since I read a book that was supposed to challenge my beliefs and attempt to refute the idea that God existed. From an early age, I have always enjoyed getting involved in debates and discussions, especially those surrounding religion, as I have immensely increased my knowledge through this medium. When I was asked to do a review of this book, the thought excited me. However, I was to be left bitterly disappointed.
Before beginning this book, I felt my beliefs as a Muslim were strong enough to be challenged. But challenge them is precisely what Christopher Hitchens does not do. Instead he lists all the problems, atrocities, and evil actions carried out by people who have professed religious beliefs, regardless of whether they used religion as a vehicle for their actions or not. The language Hitchens uses is very lucid. However the book has very little -- and even then quite inaccurate -- theological discussion.
It is also quite ironic that while Hitchens dismisses religious texts for containing discrepancies and inaccuracies, he himself is apparently not too bothered about inaccuracies in own text. In particular, he takes secular ideologues and labels them as religious fanatics. This undermines his basic argument that it is religion which causes problems. Obviously Hitchens as a proponent of a particular stance when it comes to religion is an ideologue of some sort. If he himself as an atheist can be taken as a potentially dangerous ideologue, the book loses its credibility.
Examples of Hitchens making basic mistakes in a quest to prove his point are rife. For someone of Hitchens' political and historical astuteness, the statement that Rajiv Gandhi was India's President when in fact he was the Prime Minister is a howler of the highest degree (and the fact that he tries to portray his murderers, the avowedly secular Tamil Tigers, as religious, smacks of desperation). Similarly, where he erroneously attributes the "chakra" on the Indian flag to M.K. Gandhi when it is in fact to do with Asok, is something any student of South Asian history should know.
Hitchens' criticisms of the Bible and Qur'an bring nothing new to the table. He dismisses anyone who doesn't toe his line -- Karen Armstrong in particular is treated very harshly. His familiar comments about the "plagiarism" of the Qur'an are tiresome and his attempts to portray Saddam Hussein Tikriti as a man of religion, and the Ba'athist regime as "Islamic" (based on the "Anfal" campaign) laughable.
What is most amusing about Hitchens is his attempt to have his own cake and eat it too. He argues, with good reason, that religious people have used religion in order to conduct acts of violence and immorality. However, when the turn comes to criticise atheist mass murders such as Hitler and Stalin, he chooses to call them "religious" as well. This can only work if the meaning is stretch so far as to render it meaningless, and as a consequence, bring the argument Hitchens' has put forward down like a pack of cards.
Hitchens claims that it is stupidity and ignorance which drives communities and states back towards the belief in religion. The problem with his hypothesis is that he has, perhaps deliberately, confused the issue by using "God" and "religion" interchangeably. This is a habit that many atheists suffer from, where when being cornered about the existence of God, will suddenly jump to a particular historical incident where religious people acted inhumanely. Not only is this poor form, it also reveals the weakness of the atheist position which relies on an amalgamation of confusion under the pretext of facts and reason in order to drive the masses away from the recognition of their true creator.
Despite all this, Hitchens makes a sound case, though perhaps not the one he intended: Humanity can easily be overpowered by its desires instead of reason. The book is littered with examples of men in history, from the high priests of the Catholic Church to those who occupied the highest echelons of Muslim society, who due to their inherent desires of greed, power and control used religion as an agent and duped the masses. What Hitchens has wrong is the solution. The way forward is definitely through reason and it is through which we will recognise the true God and reject all false deities. That is a stance that many of the world's religions have taken as well.
There is one final point that needs to be made, however. Some of the blame for such populist literature lies with us. Being a close friend of Salman Rushdie and an admirer of the fictitious apostate Ibn Warraq, the conclusions Hitchens comes to are not surprising. But as in the case of Rushdie, Hitchens' materials have been derived from our sometimes negative history and faulty hadith literature that has been compiled by some Muslims. Confronting that takes strong knowledge of the hadith literature, the books criticizing it, as well as western thought, particularly the role of religious literary criticism. We need to be very vocal about treating negative historical examples as something we can learn from and never repeat again, rather than something we admire. Until we confront the skeletons in our own closets, it will be far too easy for authors such as Hitchens to spew rubbish. We will have provided them with the resources to do so, and for people the world over to label Muslims as terrorists, because, unwittingly, we will have adorned ourselves with that label.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Welcome!
The Al-Mohsena Magazine was first launched as a paper magazine in 2000. For the last eight years, it has been a regular publication encompassing religious, political, historical, social and cultural viewpoints.
In launching this blog, it is hoped to publish articles of interest that have appeared in print previously as well as fresh articles more regularly. It is also intended to publish articles relevant to the dates coinciding with dates of Islamic significance - the births and martyrdoms of the Imams (AS).
For the chance to be published on this blog, please send your contributions to almohsena@gmail.com. Please limit your contributions to between 500-1,000 words.
Thanks, and keep revisiting for updates!
In launching this blog, it is hoped to publish articles of interest that have appeared in print previously as well as fresh articles more regularly. It is also intended to publish articles relevant to the dates coinciding with dates of Islamic significance - the births and martyrdoms of the Imams (AS).
For the chance to be published on this blog, please send your contributions to almohsena@gmail.com. Please limit your contributions to between 500-1,000 words.
Thanks, and keep revisiting for updates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)