The Bombing

It`s strange how a hindu fascist like Om (kliaan Namasawah) can criticise Muslims and Pakistanis as a nation lacking Foreskin and talk about bombing Kaaba but If I mention Hindu peoples penises being the colour and size of a pine nut or `chalgoza` it gets wiped off the message. (Talibanization or the Turkish model-Omar Mirza). Someone let me know.

fozia #92

Nice to hear from another Southern Ontarian.
Most of the questions you have raised have been answered before, particularly in #76. Others I will attempt to answer here.

--”I`ve been curious about your work for quite some time.”
----Most of it is still buried in the innards of a PC, but some are slowly surfacing on my home page here. (http://www.chowk.com/people/Tools/cc_printhome.cgi?temporal)

--”... there is no mention of what happened to Israel.”
----Given the constraints I felt that was not central to the theme.

--”Because Islam is a monotheistic religion, idols and other objects of worship are forbidden.”
----Yet we find the original intent and spirit is amiss. Don’t we find that Ka’aba has almost become another idol?
We can say a lot about Ka’aba as a focal point. But that focal point should lead us somewhere.That house -- that square block should be in our hearts.

Destruction of Ka’aba is illusionary in the sense that it should be destroyed to be resurrected again with the original intent. Allah should be in our hearts. That is where the focus should be.

Hope I make sense.

regards

temporal

Finally we get to see your writings on Chowk!

I`ve been curious about your work for quite some time.

What a read, definately felt like I was experiencing a ``trip``. :)Words to describe it would be intense and acopolyptic (sp?). Symbolism was great.

The timing of the robe falling and the Ka`aba being bombed was in my opinion at first glance a way to initially ``tease`` the reader. Then I saw a message, that despite the primal instincts of a young man at his peak, religious beliefs combined with emotion have the capability of overpowering his immediate sexual desires.

One thing I noticed in the aftermath of the bombing was that there is no mention of what happened to Israel. Especially since the bomber was an Israeli. Millions of Muslims and westerners dying in the rest of the world aside. I would imagine a serious onslaught on Israel would have been instigated by various Muslims groups or armies- be it state sponsored or not.

As a muslim, of course I hope that the Ka`aba is never blown up. However, I can`t honestly say that it could never happen.

Does anyone recall that when the Muslim calendar turned to 1400, a handful of gunman took control of the Ka`aba and declared the coming of the Mahdi? That was 1979 I believe.

The Ka`aba had to be stormed before the culprits were taken care of. So never say never folks, this may not be as far from reality as you may think.

I don`t know if I agree with the concept of a ``new age`` Islam a.k.a Simple Islam emerging throughout the world as you put it. :) As another offshoot it could certainly emerge, alongside the various other streams of Islam that exist in the modern world already. It would just add to the chaos that is known as human existence.

As a side note, I found it amusing to see the transformation of a non-practicing Muslim to a Mullah revered by thousands of other Muslims around the world.

A final comment I`d like to make is on the the Ka`aba itself and the meaning it holds for a muslim such as myself. Other Muslims may disagree with me. Warning to those not interested in any discussion on the history, philosophical and spiritual meaning of the Ka`aba that you may find this boring, feel free to leave.

Because Islam is a monotheistic religon, idols and other objects of worship are forbidden. However since Allah himself is an abstract entity that cannot be seen by a human. However a very practical question emerges that how would a muslim direct his/her prayer to an abstract entity? Thus the concept of the a single Ka`aba or ``House of God``, was introduced by Allah to enable a muslims to have a single unified focus when engaged in worship.

The original concept of the Ka`aba according to Islam was not started during Prophet Muhammed`s time, rather it was during Prophet Abraham and Ismail`s time. The House of God symbolizing monotheistic worship was created by them in Mecca over the very spot that the current Ka`aba is. Many years later the original Ka`aba was destroyed and only one stone remains from it. The current ``black box`` as we know the Ka`aba was then rebuilt, yet several generations later by Prophet Muhammed`s time, it too was surrounded by idols worshipped regularly by the resident`s of Mecca.

So even though technically the Ka`aba was standing fine with it`s 4 walls intact, spiritually it had been destroyed yet again due the influx of the idol worship encircling it. After Prophet Muhammed`s eventual conquest of Mecca from the idol worshippers, their idols were removed and haven`t been seen in that area since. (Alhamdollilah)

So my question from my ramblings above are that would it really make sense to create world war III over a hypothetical bombing of the Ka`aba, in light of the fact that in history, the Ka`aba had already been destroyed and rebuilt twice before (once physically destoryed and once spiritually) ? Would it not from a Muslim`s perspective make more sense to quietly rebuild the 4 walls and resume the worship of the almighty Allah as our religon teaches us to? Instead of engaging in the murder of millions of people around the world?

Regards,

Fozia Zaidi

Herald Magazine in it`s current issue has published complete minute by minute transcripts of the conversation between the Karachi control tower and PK 805. I cannot reproduce all of it here .. for that you will need to get hold of the magazine .. however some interesting facts :

19:26 Brigadier Abdul Jabbar to Aqeel (General Manage Air Traffic Services )Brigadier Jabbar : Hello, see , listen to me. Just spoke to you. I am Brigadier Jabbar speaking. Our men have reached everywhere now. We will blow you up. You have to get that plane to land. Send it a direct message. Do whatever. It must not be diverted anywhere else. And our men are standing on your head. They will not let you go. I am telling you that you tell him to contact at direct low [frequency] and facilitate landing. You understand or not ?

Aqeel : We`re telling him.

19:32 PK-805 (Musharraf) : Iftikhar, what is the problem ?

Control (Gen Iftikhar): I am sure you would not know. About two hours back your retirement was announced and you were to be replaced by Zia. The army has taken over and they were trying to divert your plane so it does not land here. We have taken over the airport and you are coming in now.

PK-805 (Musharraf) Iftikhar thank you. Tell Mehmood and Aziz nobody will leave the country.

In my extensive career I was fired a few times. I never thought I should steal the guns paid for by my employer and hold the whole company to ransom to preserve my job. I always accepted my firing as my own shortcoming in inter-personal relationships or whatever, and tried to improve next time around.

Above conversation shows the mindset of our high and mighty army. It also shows the truth in the Tayyara case. A brigadier paid for by taxpayers of this country wanted to blow up the Civil Aviation Authority if his boss`s plane was diverted for treason on his part.

I reiterate ! Pakistan`s military is Pakistan`s # 1 enemy. Noone else. In SameerJB`s words, no XYZ. It`s these userpers.

Rgds

t,

Great style. Thought provoking. I`m also glad you are interacting with the readers.

But i would not have imagined the story the way u did. In my mind, they would have simple rebuilt the kaaba and the rest of it. I don`t think Simple Islam would have become so popular so easily. The fundamentalists would`ve become even more paranoid that the entire world is trying to destroy islam and more moderates would`ve converted to fundamentalists.

As for Simple Islam, more and more people are turning to the basics of Islam, the spritual aspects of islam, sufism, etc, especially in the west. And their numbers will continue to grow for the next couple of decades.

But all in all, the article was a nice read.

regards

Sadaf

Reply #: 72 SameerJB

[In my personal opinion, there is no XYZ out there. It is with in us.]

I couldn`t agree more.

Rgds.

Quite an analysis ....Mr. GHalib!. Must say, you head the list of Abdullahs of this world, who want to manufacture their own home cooked version of Islam that would lead to salvation. Trust me Sir, this religion has survived for 1400 years and inshaALLAH will survive until the end of this world. And yes, the signs of the last days are that the holy Ka`aba would be desecrated, but ISLAM means total following , you take it or leave it. So your contraption about SIMPLE ISLAM IS only a figment of yourimagination (inspired again but the modern times maybe)..there is only ISLAM , and it doesnt need adjectives to describe it. may the ALmighty makes us all united in faith ..in ISLAM , not in SIMPLE ISLAM!

Ref: PM #79 and #79

It was like you took the words out of my mouth. You have penned it with a beautiful writing voice.

I did not always agree with you in the past, but I am beginning to see a lot of clarity in your thoughts.

SAMEER JB: You stand tall here at Chowk.

Chowk is a great teacher.

FARANGI_KUSH

...

ummm... Never mind!

...

temp:

Gosh, I`m embarrasssed at my verbal ignorance!

Thanks for pointing out the error viz `article`.

By `hangama`, I was in now way implying pettiness

which is why I also used the word `kashmakash`.

Perhaps I should`ve stuck to English and used

`heated debate`.

My remark about the theme being lost on readers

was based on the temper of a majority of replies

which seemed to mistake the trees for the forest.

I don`t question the intelligence of the general

chowk readership. On the contrary, it`s my #1

source of inadequacy :-)

regards,

PM

P.S. GA is the place to be in spring. The

vegetation is unbelievable.



Could someone suggest a remedy for this

double-spaced format, short of running a Windows

emulator on this Mac?

===== ===

temporal:

Please read this in the spirit of complete honesty & sincerity on may part.

After having read some of your responses about the basics of your faith,I winced and thought whether I should comment on them without sounding critical.

I am therefore not being critical when I say that your answers are too `pop` kinds,maybe suited to the a few.It would heve been unfair to me & to you also if I did not bring this to your attention.

You have the mental & the mettle.In my humblest opinion you need some `mantle`(Ubba ,Qubba ones).

You see mullahs are people too.They are human beings like you and me.But,they are an integral part of our society and shall always remain so because they fulfill a need.If & when total atheism prevails in this world(which shall happen according to one of the pillars of our faith) even then there will be organised `non-religion`(if you will) but organised will it be.

You do not kill all lawyers(shakes.wrongly quoted--but that is another story).One does not disapprove Law as such or looks for another legal system.Finds another legal opinion.Same thing with other professions & they all stay in business!

Please find someone who can explain things that make sense to you & stick to it..but it must be by someone who has acquired some status & reputation in the field...it could be mullah or someone by another title.

Sometimes we are not aware of our bigotry.Some of us who were raised in english-medium school system are pathetically ignorant & most of such are ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant about it.

Iqbal`s correspondence in urdu might help.

(Please ignore if offended & forgive me)

wassalaam.

Since I posted the fatwas against S. Azmi, here is the news-item about the responses :

Fatwa earns Shabana loads of support

Syed Amin Jafri in Hyderabad

Civil rights activists, left parties and prominent religious personalities in the city have decried the religious edict issued by five Islamic seminaries against actress Shabana Azmi and other Muslim film stars.

The institutions were reacting mainly to Azmi`s tonsuring her head for the controversial film Water, and want her to ``renew the faith.``

People`s Union for Civil Liberties president K G Kannabiran said, ``Any fundamentalist posture by minority or majority community is totally undemocratic.``

``I don`t think any community leadership has the right to compel any member to conform to their views,`` Kannabiran told rediff.com.

``What is the great difference between the [Sangh Parivar`s] protest against Water, the attack on [social reformist] Asghar Ali Engineer [by fundamentalist elements] and the fatwa against the stars?`` he asked.

Kannabiran said the fundamentalist groups of all communities have the same outlook. ``I am not able to understand how these groups arrogantly claim the right to issue edicts. They don`t have any legitimate authority to give these commands. How can anyone arrogate to himself the authority to issue fatwa?`` he wondered.

Urdu writer Jeelani Bano found the controversy utterly unpalatable. ``Why is it that they have picked on poor Shabana Azmi?`` she asked. ``Why don`t they bother about Dilip Kumar, Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan and other actors? This only shows their [the Muslim religious leaders`] bias against women and their penchant for projecting non-issues.``

Associated with the progressive writers` movement in Hyderabad for over three-and-a-half decades, Bano has penned two novels and 18 books, all in Urdu. ``Not only Azmi but also many other Muslim actresses like Nergis, Waheeda Rahman and Meena Kumari performed many un-Islamic acts on the screen such as romancing, dancing and drinking. Where were these ulemas [religious leaders] all these years? Why they have suddenly woken up to a tonsured Shabana?

``Dilip Kumar, Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan and other Muslim actors also perform un-Islamic acts on the screen,`` she continued. ``They dance, drink, prance, romance and display large battus on their foreheads. Why don`t these ulemas go after them instead of picking on only Shabana Azmi?`` Bano wanted to know.

Communist Party of India-Marxist state council secretary B V Raghuvulu termed the fatwa as ``unfortunate.`` Cultural activity and religion should not be mixed, he felt.

``As a professional actress, she did something. But this cannot be construed as an act against her faith or an anti-religious act, `` he said.

The fatwa came in for flak from an unexpected quarter too: a section of Muslim religious leaders and prominent personalities found the whole controversy unnecessary.

``These fatwas are unnecessary. The matters covered are not community issues at all. We don`t attach any importance to these fatwas,`` said All India Muslim Personal Law Board secretary Maulana M A Raheem Qureishi. He is also the president of the All India Majlis-e-Tameer-e-Millat, a socio-cultural organisation of Muslims in Hyderabad.

The maulana told rediff.com that ``some persons, to gain publicity, have raked up this non-issue. They want to popularise their newly-launched weekly by sensationalising the issue. We also feel that they [the religious seminaries] should not issue fatwas on such trivial issues which concern no one.``

Responding to this criticism, Syed Fazil Hussain Parvez, the city-based journalist who sought the fatwa, said:

``There has been a raging controversy in all Urdu newspapers and in Muslim circles in the city on whether Shabana Azmi`s act of tonsuring her head was correct and whether she continued to be a Muslim after perpetrating such an act.

``I only acted as the mediator between the Muslim masses and the religious institutions to get the Islamic view on this controversy. I have no vested interest, nor do I have any view of my own on this issue,`` he said.

Now that the fatwas have been issued, what next? Parvez had no idea.

``I really don`t know,`` he said. ``It is for Shabana Azmi and other Muslim stars to act or react. It is up to them to atone for their sins. Acting itself is against Islamic tenets. Committing polytheistic acts only compounds the sin. Why don`t you seek their response?``

PM #78

I am piqued. Specially after recommending you for the Chowk chapter of the Society for the Prevention of Word Abuse. (FJ you should be there too.)

You say, “I`m sure you knew that the theme of your ARTICLE was bound to be lost on many readers..” I decided to ignore countless others who have also called this an article, but coming from you......

Let us go the dictionary way:

article n 1: nonfictional prose forming an independent part of a publication
2:A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty.
3:A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.


As I have said in #28 this is fiction.

Okay, so we continue with your quote, “I`m sure you knew that the theme of your ARTICLE was bound to be lost on many readers..”

No. Most Chowk readers are far more intelligent than you are giving them credit for.

Besides this is not a passing image that will be lost forever. This is the printed word. One can always refer back, again re-read part or the whole.

You also say, “.. I can see what must’ve been one motive --among others, I’m sure ;-) -- behind the shocking beginning… that is, to incite and provoke the ‘hungama’ you seem to like so much.....”

‘Incite’ is the wrong choice of word again. As is ‘provoke’. Invitation, rather jarring, jolting invitation to think would be more proper descriptive phrase. As for the hungama bit, if you are insinuating meaningless trifle hungama then I have little time for it.

“Maybe you do feel that change necessitates a shock of that those proportions? Would like to know your considered response.” ---------Feel I have already answered this above.

Arun feels others are invalidating my beliefs. Nothing of the sort. Tried to answer as best. Perhaps will return to his query again after some time and try answering it afresh. Labels are meaningless if one is not a decent being. Glad you enjoyed the story. How’s Ga?

regards

temporal

PM:#79

Welcome back!

I never noticed that you were armed or unarmed before!As far as I am concerned I,as a muslim,am always prepared.

may be little by little you might come around.

``Rah pay un ko laga lai tho hain baaton mein

Aur khul jaen gey do chaar mulaquaton mein``

translation:I have managed to sweet-talk her into seeing it my way.In a tryst or two more,she might open-up herself to me.

wassalaam.

SameerJB #72

Ideas in the long run are more potent, powerful and lasting.

Your efforts to wonder aloud how to weaken Pakistan militarily and economically are interesting in the sense that once you can identify the main thrusts you can make efforts to rectify it. But getting into the psyche and mind of the detractors is more than that. At this critical juncture in Pakistan’s short history she is confronted with seemingly insurmountable problems.

By no stretch of imagination can Pakistan be construed as the main thrust of this story.

regards

temporal



.

Farangi_Kush:

Relax now, I’m unarmed. See??

I’ve come to see a little (won’t lie!) sense in

your arguments, and am even indebted to you for

some eye-and-mind-openers (though I still don’t

care at all for your seemingly black-and-white

worldview. (Just had to set that out straight.

Ahem!)

You correctly point out that there is nothing in

Religion (Islam or Christianity) itself that

justifies the conquest and plunder by their

adherents through history. I think this is rather

convenient, though to be content with that

‘vindication’. For while the motives (implicit or

otherwise) of the conquerors might have been plain

old-fashioned greed, in almost all instances

religious superiority provided the ‘moral’

justification for the conquests. Be it the early

expansionism of the Muslims, the Conquistadors’

plunder of the New World, the British, Dutch or

French colonization of the ‘depraved infidels and

heathens’, the Nazi extermination of the Jews and

other ‘undesirables’, or the Commie invasions, a

common thread running through them all was a

certain self-righteousness born of Religion.

Throw in ibn-Qasim, Karzadic(sp?), and –hell, why

not? – Reagan (remember ‘evil empire’?) for good

measure. What do they all have in common??

Secularism? Hardly!

Oh, and by the way, including the Soviets wasn’t a

faux pas. From where I stand, they appear to have

followed their religion every bit as devoutly as

their theistic counterparts— a devotion

characterized by moral superiority, lack of

introspection, and an excess of conviction and

pride. Oh, did I mention intolerance of those

different? And massive insecurity?

Of course, your refrain is that religion is not to

blame for the sins of its abusers. I almost agree

with you. Almost. Yes, the spirit in which the

religion was born was usually benign and tolerant,

inspired by a sense of justice and fair-play (give

or take a few executions and homophobic and

misogynistic laws, of course). Yes, yes, I agree,

the pillars of Islam are a firm foundation for

justice and peace. Christ preached only love.

And Communism was born of a vision of equality

and brotherhood. All very fine and noble indeed.

But in the end, a tree is only to be judged by the

fruit it bears. And the truth is, the fruit of

religion has been more often than not rotten, far

from its ideals.

If you’re still going ``but.. but…``, you have to

ask yourself what an impartial observer, say a

Martian, was to deduce from an observation of

affairs. I would say there is a strong case for

correlation between organized religion and

violence. It’s all very well to say that Man has

forsaken his Religion, but one could more easily

deduce religion has failed Man.

My experience as a teacher has taught me that,

almost always, if my method isn’t producing

desired results, there’s something wrong in what I

am doing; not the children’s ability. I tend to

view religion and people in somewhat the same way.

I think religion is fine as a general guide to

right living. Born of the collective wisdom of

generations, and often inspired by truly mystical

experiences of the people we call prophets, it

save us the trouble of having to reinvent the

wheels of the car that lead us to enlightened

living, to spirituality. I think what ruins it,

destroys is potential, are ideas like

‘infallible’, ‘complete’, ‘exclusive’, ‘perfect’

etc. And dogma.

I think if we look at the historically more

‘open’, less dogmatic religious traditions, we see

that they have been, historically, characterized

by peace, tolerance, and – importantly –

non-expansionism. Take Hinduism (without

mistaking reactionary belligerence or post-modern

nationalism for it). Or take Buddhism—the

non-dogmatic Hinayana brand and its off shoots –

Zen and Taoism. Or take the gentle, suggestive,

Confucism: little or no dogma, little collective

violence, or expansionist tendencies.

I guess I got carried away on my pet topic, but

doesn’t this tie in with the underlying message of

temporals message. To (badly) paraphrase Khalil

Gibran, ``until the last minaret falls, until the

last steeple crumbles, will religion not truly win

the hearts of men.``

(I’d be indebted to