This Beloved Arab Colony

tahmed if u could understand the difference between `ibaadat and taa`zeem you and your ilk wouldnt accuse muslims of being men-worshippers...

ibaadat is ONLY for Allah...taa`zeem can be for others too...

........ i am a syed too ......... please send me five dollars and i will pray for you ............

subhan allah!

naqshbandi #97 OK educate me. If you please. What do you mean by taa`zeem?

hamidm, eat your heart out (with some heeng tossed in)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20PART.html

Carmakers Around World Are Turning to India for Parts

BANGALORE, India, June 19 — The scramble by the recession-wounded global automotive industry to find a source for low-cost, high-quality components has been a big boon to India`s auto parts makers.

Among the rash of announcements just this month was one by the Delphi Corporation, the world`s largest automotive parts maker, saying that it would have $140 million worth of auto parts — forged engine parts, intricate plastic moldings and other products — made by Indian concerns, and that such orders were expected to exceed $250 million a year by 2007. The Ford Motor Company said that it expected to get more than $100 million worth of components from Indian parts makers in the next two years. Volvo said that it planned to increase its manufacturing in India to 100 million euros ($117 million) worth of parts in one year instead of three.

The demand has come even from China, a rival to India in low-cost manufacturing. And the orders are flowing throughout India`s auto parts industry, to subsidiaries of Ford, General Motors, Toyota Motor and other major carmakers; to global auto parts leaders like Delphi and Visteon; and to homegrown auto parts makers, including Bhart Forge and Hi-Tech Gears.

The flurry is spurring the industry to set ambitious targets.

Exports of auto parts are projected to reach $25 billion in 20 years, according to the Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India. Already the exports, nearly two-thirds of which go to the United States and Europe, have risen to an estimated $800 million for the year ended March 31 from $578 million a year earlier — a 38 percent spurt.

While the current figure is less than a tenth of the amount India`s software exports bring in, investors in India`s stock markets are bidding up the prices of auto parts concerns in the belief that the industry holds as much promise.

The parts makers` success thus far has come in large part from two factors that have already helped make India`s software and support services industry successful: low labor costs and one of the world`s largest technologically adept work forces. Additionally, locally produced raw materials like rubber and steel are inexpensive.

``Big carmakers are under huge pressure to reduce costs,`` said Hans-Michael Huber, chief executive of DaimlerChrysler India. And purchasing specialists from the unit`s parent company, DaimlerChrysler A.G., are combing India for top-quality low-cost suppliers, he said.

The Toyota Motor Corporation is setting up its own auto parts unit on the outskirts of Bangalore with a $197 million investment to supply transmission systems to Toyota worldwide beginning in mid-2004. Toyota is also converting a textile machinery plant in another Bangalore suburb to produce auto parts.

Much of the outsourced business is going to a handful of the more than 400 local parts makers. For example, India`s leading auto components company by revenue, Bharat Forge, says its headquarters in Pune, southeast of Bombay, is being visited two or three times a week by delegations of product and supply experts from global carmakers.

Still, though India`s auto parts exports are growing robustly, they account for just a minuscule portion — less than 0.1 percent — of the $1 trillion world auto parts industry. They are small even compared with those of other low-cost manufacturing centers like Mexico and Brazil.

But India`s capabilities in a variety of manufacturing processes give it a competitive edge. ``The level of manufacturing industry here rivals that in most of the developed countries,`` said Kiyomichi Ito, managing director of Toyota`s new Bangalore-based unit, Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts.

One sign of the new aggressiveness in the industry, as well as the many takers worldwide for its products, came in late May when the Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India led a delegation of 33 domestic parts makers to the United States to meet with major manufacturers. Sundaram Clayton, Hi-Tech Gears, Shriram Pistons and Rings and Rico Auto Industries were among those represented.

``On earlier visits, we got the polite brush-off,`` said Arvind Kapur, managing director of Rico Auto. ``But this time we had more than a dozen buyers surrounding us everywhere we went. From Ford and General Motors in Detroit to Cummins in Columbus to Caterpillar in Peoria, we sensed a desperation to source from emerging markets.``

Rico Auto, based in Gurgaon, outside Delhi, sold $120 million worth of aluminum and ferrous engine and braking parts to G.M., Ford and other foreign customers last year.

When India opened its doors to foreign carmakers in the mid-1990`s, nearly all the global car companies entered the market through joint ventures with local companies. They set up vigorous quality processes and brought in global quality certifications. ``The local industry got tuned in to international needs, quality and logistics,`` Mr. Huber of DaimlerChrysler said.

re:#44 by malik99
Instead of suggesting Urdu is not an Indian language, why don`t you guys reinvent another language. Ask your Mushy the Idiot for help. He may do it for Pak like Ataturk did for Turkey. Urdu not an Indian language!
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/Urdu.html (by Asghar Ali Engineer)
Excerpts:
1. ``Urdu is one of the major languages of India. It finds its place among the languages included in the VIIIth Schedule of the [Indian] Constitution. This north Indian language has made significant contribution to promotion of secularism and secular values in India before and after partition. Its base has been Khadi Boli which was spoken by the people in the North. In fact both Hindi and Urdu have a common base - i.e. Khadi Boli. Its grammar and syntax is common. So much so that many people argue that it is not two but one language with two different dialects. One draws its technical vocabulary (say for philosophy, psychology, science, religion etc.) from Sanskrit and the other from Persian and Arabic.``

2. `` Earlier Urdu was often referred to as Hindavi i.e. a language belonging to India as against Persian and Arabic. Even the great Urdu poets refers to it as such. But though grammar and syntax is common, both the languages have different historical identities. The syntax and grammar may be same but both have their own ethos and cultural values. Also, though both have common origin in Khadi Boli both draw their sustenance from different traditions which is what gives a language a specific identity. Urdu literature, specially its poetry, has drawn profusely, at least to begin with, from Persian sources.``

3. ``Urdu was never the language of Muslims alone, nor of all Muslims in India. In the South, except in a few pockets in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, few Muslims know Urdu. They speak Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu or Kannada. The Qur`an has also been translated in these languages and their Friday and other sermons are also given in their regional languages. In Western India too, Muslims speak Gujrati or Marathi except those who have migrated from U.P. or Bihar and settled there. Similarly the Muslims of the Konkan region speak Marathi as their mother tongue. In the same way millions of Hindus and Sikhs from North spoke Urdu until recently. The largest circulated papers in Punjab were in Urdu. Even the pro-BJP paper in Punjab - Pratap is published in that language. It is only lately that Urdu is being given up in favour of Hindi. Some of the greatest writers and poets have been non-Muslims. Munshi Premchand was a celebrated Urdu writer. His masterpiece Gaudan was written in Urdu. It was only in the later phase of his life that he also wrote in Hindi. His celebrated short story Kafan is also in Urdu besides several other novels. ``
Anyone who has watched Bollywood movies for years would remember names like Kaifi Azmi, Sahir, Majrooh etc. Need i recount that these were writers of Urdu poetry who found wide acceptance in India.

How many people in Chowk know for eg that Urdu almost became a national language of India in 1947!
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15102002/1510200247.htm
Excerpt:
1. ``....This is despite the fact that Urdu was defeated in the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1947 as the country`s official language by only a single vote which was, ironically, cast by a Muslim member (Begum Aizaz Rasool) who later lamented her irrational act which led to the murder of her own language.``
2. ``Urdu came on the scene some 280 years ago as a common language for troops of different ethnic origins — Ethiopians, Arabs, Turks, Iranians, other racial and linguistic groups in the Mughal army, besides Indians of different ethnicities. Because of its birth in the barracks, the language was called ``Urdu`` (Turkish for army).

Classified as ``belonging to the Indic branch of the Indo-European languages,`` the word ``Urdu`` shares its root with the English ``horde,`` with similar connotations. It also shares a wide common ground with Hindi, the popular north Indian language, the distinction being its large repertoire of Arabic and Persian loan words. Urdu is written in Perso-Arabic script, which reinforces the common perception that it is a ``Muslim`` language.

The fact, however, is that it is not a Muslim language, but the fruit of long interaction between Muslims and Hindus as well as other Indian religious groups. It is also spoken in Afghanistan, and by expatriate communities all over Europe and North America, besides Middle East and South Africa. A substantial proportion of best Urdu poets and writers have always been Hindus.``

Urdu in India is a victim of politics. It is left to Indian muslims to revive their own tradition. How many Indian muslims (especially the ones from North) in Chowk can read or write Urdu? I bet none. Even Ismat Chaughtai once conceded that her own daughter could not read or write Urdu and she was a popular Urdu writer from India!

And finally, Syed Naqvi remembers Ali Safdar Jafri and his work and pays tribute to the writers from Progressive Writers Association which produced great writers like Majaz, Majrooh etc:
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000804/ied04061.html

As Josh Malhabadi said once, Urdu may have some future in India but it has none in Pakistan. He may still be proved right, who knows.
Sridhar

It is quite ridiculous to think that Syeds, or anyone else for that matter, has any special status, over anyone else, just due to their ancestory. Islam has no concept of Syeds and it has no concept of kings, and it certainly abhors the concept of syed kings, like those in Jordan and Morroco. These ideas completely contradict what Islam stands for. Islam, infact, came in to replace such ideas.

Two of the greatest features of Islam are:

1) Its egalitarian nature. Every human being is equal in Islam. It declares it outrightly, no questions asked. There are different responsiblities between individuals, men and women etc., but, in the eyes of God, everyone is equal - Syed or not.

2) Islam does away with the religious beauracracy that existed between man (or woman) and God, in many other religions. Man communicates directly with God, through prayer, in Islam. There is, in fact, no concept of a priest in Islam. The only concept of a priest in Islam is someone who teaches someone else the Quran etc. This could be one`s father, mother etc. Since a priest has no existence in Islam, hence he has no authority nor importance. In essence, every Muslim is an Islamic priest. A religious scholar in Islam is supposed to be like a researcher. He is not supposed to automatically be a leader of any sort, just because he/she is researching religion. None out of the Prophet and the first four caliphs praticed religion as a profession. They were soldiers, salesman, businessmen, beaurecrats etc.

These two concepts are revolutionary in Islam. Even if one is an athiest, and does not considers Muhammad a prophet, with no religous significance, he/she must appreciate Islam`s vision in these areas, and how far ahead these ideas were of their time. Even now, the most advanced societies in the world are still trying to implement these ideas, 1400 years later. The civil rights movement in the USA occured in the mid 20th century. In Islam, it occured in the early 7th century.

There are certain religions that originated for the lower groups of the society, i.e. for the common man. These include Buddhism, Islam (and some more). Let`s assume that all these were man-made religions, i.e. Guatama Buddha, Muhammad, and others thought they were meditating and speaking to a higher entity, but actually they were just coming up with their own ideas. They still must have been very sensitive individuals, who rebelled against the unfair social norms. Buddha spoke out for the common man against the caste-system. This is despite the fact that Bhudda himself was not a lower cast individual and could have benefited from the caste system. Muhammad` spoke out for the common man against the elitist social norms of his society. This is despite the fact that Muhammad was, himself, from an upper-class family, and could have benefitted from the social norms. Within one day he turned around the status of women, slaves etc. in his society, on its head. People compare these changes to what is happening today in successful societies, and try to point out the shortcomings of some of these changes. What they should do is compare these changes (and their direction) to what existed before these changes occured.

Buddha completely disenfranchised the powerful priest, by forcing him to have almost no wordly possessions, thereby forcing him to concentrate on just his religious tasks, i.e if someone wants to be a religous person, they cannot use their status as a priest to gain worldly power or influence. Muhammad completely got rid of the priest, all together, stating that all Muslims are equal (Syed and non-Syed) and you pray straight to God.

For those of us, who are not athiests, and happen to like religion in our lives (unlike certain religion-haters on this site), we believe Muhammad got all his ideas from God. Either way, they were extremely progressive ideas, even for nowdays. This means as Muslims, we follow the Quran. It is quite an abstract book (luckily) and can be interpreted in many ways. Hence it seems to keep all Muslims satisfied.

However, there is now a network of non-Quranic Islamic religion, which has been used by individuals to completely distort Islam. This includes basing the religion on Hadith books, Pir-sayings (which are extrapolated from Hadith books apparently) etc. This has infact given individuals like Bukhari etc. the same status as the Prophet. People are not following what the Prophet did, they are following what Mr. Bukhari said the Prophet did. Regardless of how well-intentioned Mr. Bukhari may have been, there is no way anyone can realistically put together what the Prophet did, generations after the Prophet had died. Moreover, the Hadiths are based on someone else describing what the Prophet did. This includes the Prophet`s wife, friends, associates. All of this is word of mouth. The Prophet himself did not write it anywhere.

Infact, one can make a good argument, that the Hadith books, regardless of how well-intentioned they maybe, have done more damage to Islam than good. They have re-empowered the Islamic priest, who isn`t supposed to exist in the religion to begin with. Had the Quran been left as the only guide, it is abstract, sensible and progressive enough to have been interpreted for any time. However, the professional Islamic priests, have narrowed the domain in which it can be interpreted, by introducing their own injunctions, deduced from sayings of other Islamic priests, who have deduced them from Hadith, which are creations of human beings, who lived hundred(s) of years after the Prophet.


Unfortunately, human nature and social nature, has always flowed in the opposite direction to what egalitarian religions like Islam purpose. Due to this, the concepts of equality and, ``no priests`` could not be implemented in Islamic societies for too long. By the fifth or sixth Caliph, the Islamic society was back to the international norm of kings (caliphs after the first few, were equivalent to heridatory kings) and priests (Pirs, Syeds etc.). After this anyone wanting to claim a special status had to do so through a (realistic or fake) relationship with a king or a religious ancestor, and not necessarily through their own achievements. The revolutionary essence of Islam was taken out and the pre-Islamic social norms of Arabs (and the world at that time, in general) came back in.

So if today I change my name to Syed Romair, do I automatically become a better person? If I find artifacts declaring me an actual direct descendent of the Prophet, does that make me a better human being, to the point I can kick people in the head and get away with? Only if I follow the parallel Islam created by professional Islamic priests (who have no place in real Islam). Not if I follow a Quranic Islam.

Anyone preaching such un-egalatarian ideas is infact dirtying the religion. They will never appeal to any sensible person. It is, however, in the interest of religious beaurecracies to maintain such ideas in vogue, so they can receive a certain status in society.

Urstruly #85:
I was very surprised with this post given your advanced background in science and technology. You know very well that population growth patterns over history were much more comlex due to various factors than simple series exapnsion as you suggested. The beauty of mathematics is that forward calculations could be double checked with reverse calculations easily. This is much easier than reverse engineering because of the use of same equation with negative signs. The population of the world has not grown at the same pace, very slowly until the settling of hunter gatherers and then always remaining proportional with resources. Afterall all humnity weight comes from earth and whenever resources started falling behind, population growth slowed down until scientific revolution added value and amount to resources and population exploded.

The aboriginal Australian population never achieved one million mark despite 35-70 thousand years hisotry. The population of the past has been estimated using various techniques and plot of population vs. time are available in many books.

Let us do reverse calculation on the world population acccording to your serial expansion technique basically tripling the population every generation or every 20 years. The world population in year 2000 stood at roughly 6 billion souls. Using reverse series xontraction, basically you have to divide by three every 20 years. So in 1980, it was 2 billion, in 1960 = 666 millions, in 1940 = 222 millions, in 1920 = 67.3 millions and in 1900 = 23.4 millions. I don`t think any person on chowk or elsewhere would buy this calculation because only migration to USA acceeded 20 million before 1900. At this rate, we would reach a single Adam/ Eve couple in 5-6 thousand years and that is what a Church of England priest came up with ( October 24. 4004 BCE as the begining of life on Earth and add 7 more days for the creation of earth).

Much better techniques for such estimates is termed as comparative studies and sampling. The way to do that is take three four or more groups and match them against each other and then use standard deviations to come with a ball park figure. Jews are supposed to start with 12 sons of Issac. The descendants of one of them are called Levi. Given the total jewish population of 17 million worldwide and rejecting any conversion from Khazars to become Ashkenazi jews, the Levi are 1/12 th of 17 million or 1.4 million souls in 3000 years.
Given the 600+ children of Pharoah Ramses, Ramses should have around 100 million descendants worldwide. Assigning so many souls to one individual also means no descendants from anybody else in Egypt. That can not be true.

The series expansion only works for three generation and after that series from other sources starts overlapping. In reality, whether marriage to first cousin is allowed or not, everybody in the past with limited means of travel and mostly remaining localized for generations, everybody married their nth cousin, All the marriages now are also between nth cousins except n is a larger number now, sometimes very large.

At the time of Muhammad, Mecca population is estimated to be 125,000 and Medina around 50,000. Out of 175,000 total, the male population should be 1/2, equal to 87,000 souls. If one of them ends up producing more than 3 million Syeds despite earlier odds against this family during Umayyid period, the descendants of remaining 86,999 should make up around 25 billion souls. What happened?

No two person on earth ever had exactly same DNA at base pairs level. So not only Muhammad forbade using lineage, it has no scientific meaning. Statistically much better meaning comes from sharing atoms. Each human being in the owrld have 20,000 carbon atoms which once belonged to Jesus and more than a million carbon atoms as part of organic material in every human being, which once belonged to Muhammad. Everybody in this way is a desendant of all the past humanity including Muhammad, Jesus, Pharoahs etc.

There is nothing in being a Syed. The Arabs may come in all shape and sizes because Arab speaking world is now made up of former babylonian, accadian, sumerian, hittites, maobites, kannanites, aramites, chaldeans, pheonecians, nobians, berbers, tuaregs, philistines and more. They can not be genetically Arab or much less Muhammad`s descendants. Muhammad`s real descendants must have some characteristics which recur at intervals. For example, Ali is believed to be short in height, so short Syeds should occur more frequently, like King of Jordan than Farooqis because Omar was believed to be al tall man. Science, statistics and rational disciplines are no joke that people can be fooled into believing contrary to scientific understanding myths. Genes are ruthlesslt selfish in preserving them over generations.

Lastly honorable-Syed has been repeating services of Syeds to Indian Muslims or Indians. Garbage! Again go to the places with highest concentration of Syed and they are no better off. The place in Panjab with highest concentration of Syeds historically is a dusty little town in Bahawalpur known as Uch GailaniaN. Many of the great Syed Sufis were from this place and learned their knowledge there. There is nothing worth noting there as services to people. Other place is Multan famous for many Suharwardiya silsila Sufis. Third is Shorkot where Sultan Bahu was based. Without Army garrison in Multan, and Airforce base in Shorkot, no progress in human resources, race relation, just society or anyhting could be traced back to Syeds. By the way in Lahore, Heera Mandi has highest concentration of Syeds and they do provide good services and food like nehari, paye to Muslims.

As far the Awans go, reference to them as far back as Alexander historians or Panini`s history should be taken as jokes or forgeries if they insist on claiming Syed lineage. Adding Awans, AraiNs and Abbasis in Panjab alone would make Syed population much more than 3 millions.

Another thing to remember is that lineage business even in Europe is rather only few centuries old. People never cared and did not have any record. Nobody cared in India either until foreign lineage folks following some conservative Brahmins started making waves in air.

@83 pardaisi
thank god i am not in india?we have to manage men only,what ever form they may be./?//

re:#79 by malik99
Good idea! We Indians cannot wait to see Pakis evolve their own culture. Which Indian today would want to be mistaken for a Pakistani!
Sridhar

Naqshbandi#91
``No human is unidimensional dost sahib... ``
You are right. It`s just that, not being blessed (burdened?) by faith, I sometimes have a hard time reconciling some posts of yours with others.

#74PAKFIN
I AGREE WITH YOU.SYYED ARE LIVING IN FOOL PARDISE.ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL.
SYYED THEY WASTE YOUTH OF SO MANY GIRLS IN SEARCH OF SYYED FAMILY.HORRIABLE IDEAS.

rsaxena

.......... what do you expect, atkearney is helping most of these folks with strategic sourcing ............ i hope the horrible hindoos can collect their bills from ford, gm, visteon and delphi before they all end up in bankruptcy court!............ jokes aside, toyota is doing it the right way by setting up their own parts operations - that is how thay have managed to maintain their quality levels ............ it doesn`t matter if it is georgetown kentucky, cambridge ontario, or bangalore india, toyota maintains full control ........

.......... but it must have really hurt to learn that shanghai auto is using india as a ``cheap`` source for auto parts !......come on, admit it!............. just imagine, indian maquiladoras on the border with china!..........

............... but you are right - the hindoo civilization might be eons behind the chinese, but it is far ahead of urstruly`s islamic civilization whose biggest export is ``cheap`` jihadis and cheaper syeds ...............

tahmed: for you in answer to your question;

``...worship [ibaadat] is not simply humility and submission. Rather, worship is to display humility and respect for an entity whilst believing it to be absolute and self existent``

If humility is displayed for someone, if respect is shown for someone whilst considering him not absolute and self-existent - but rather as creation and non-absolute - then this humility is reverence [taazeem] and not worship.

To clarify this further, a number of examples are presented:

In prayer, we stand with our arms folded in decorum. Whilst recognising Allah as absolute and self-existent our standing with folded arms is regarded as worship.
However, when we stand with arms folded in respect before our father, teacher or master, recognising them as creation and dependant, this action is considered not worship but respect.

4. After performing the ruku in prayer, we stand with open arms in decorum, regarding Allah as absolute and self existent such as stance in prayer is deemed as worship. However, for example, during the national anthem, people also stand with arms at their side, but this action is not seen as worship but is considered respect.

5. The Angels prostrate before Allah considering Him absolute and self-existent and such a prostration is rightly recognised as worship. However, these same angels prostrated before Hazrat Adam, but not whilst considering him as a deity but as a creation and the beloved of Allah. Instead of him being absolute and self-existent, they recognised him as a dependent. Thus this prostration of theirs was a sign of respect and not worship.

Thus worship is not simply humility and submission or the utmost level of humility but it is the respecting and submitting to an entity considered is absolute and self-existent.``
--Shaykh Allama Saeed Ahmad Assad. ``What is shirk?`` (full article at www.islaam.has.it)



definitions:[reverence/respect = taazeem]; [worship = ibaadat]

hope u r clear now tahmed

Romair #108 ``Anyone preaching such un-egalatarian ideas is infact dirtying the religion. They will never appeal to any sensible person. It is, however, in the interest of religious beaurecracies to maintain such ideas in vogue, so they can receive a certain status in society. ``

Good point. I dont agree with you on certain things, but here you make a good point. What we see happening in pakistan is the struggle of the good-for-nothing men, unfit to earn an honest living by doing anything more complicated than polishing shoes, trying to gain control of society by creating a priestly class. It is sad that what used to be a beloved institution for all pakistanis, the military, is directly responsible for converting the mullahs from being the butt of jokes into serious threats to pakistan.

naqshbandi #101 I appreciate your taking the time to explain what you mean. Seriously. But then, ``respect`` is a very broad term. There are different kinds of respect, for example:
Respect for teachers: No question.

Respect for thinkers, scientists, workers: Again, no question.

Respect for joe schmoe: I assume a well educated, middle class person surely deserves respect as well. If mister or miss schmoe is a man or woman of sound principles and strong character, that makes it all the more easy to respect him or her.

Respect for allah ditta chaprasi: Surely there is no individual who is too poor or too illiterate, or too powerless to be beneath respect. Allah Ditta chaprasi is also Allah Ditta the father, the husband, the son. Allah Ditta may be uneducated, but his brain is designed no differently than that of the brain of nobel prize winners.

Respect for all life: Surely even for the ``lowly`` mouse or dog or the chimp or even a virus are all marvellous creations of God, possessing incredible complexity in their make up. Surely, it is living things that make our planet worth living.

Respect for creation: One need not be a scientist to be in awe of the incredible vastness of the universe, the incredible strangeness of quarks and bosons and other denizens of the subatomic world. And this is just in our dimensions, where scientists are beginning to posit the first few moments after the creation of this universe as having as many as 9 dimensions.

Where exactly does your concept of ``respect`` fit within this ``respect framework``?

hamidm2 #99 and i am a dead syed. i speak from beyond the grave. a dead syed being superior to a living one, i provide better quality prayers and therefore charge double...10 dollars per prayer...And dont listen to that fake Honorable Syed...his prayers are not worth anything...