Dust and Color Anne,

This is a lovely piece of writing. Vivid and poignant, and very reminescent of my own visits home, down to the Nani. Bidding farewell to the emotional vacillations of my vacation month with a final lump in my throat, and staring into the contrasting sterile predictability of my life in the US, what makes me feel the most guilty, is a selfish inner voice that says - this was a mistake - I shouldn`t have come - because the visit will leave me unsettled for another month.

Aging and its related senility and physical incapacitation, as your Nani has, are already big problems in Pakistan. In fact, South Asia alongwith China are going to have the world`s biggest aging problem in 20 years or so, without any of the infrastructure or services required to deal with it. Almost all of this care is currently provided by women - daughters and daughters-in-law. As more and more women work outside the house, and do not feel an obligation to take care of demented parents-in-law (you allude to this somewhat in the description of your Nani at your uncle`s house), and quality hired help becomes more expensive, I think nursing homes will become inevitable in many cases, especially when all offspring is male. I feel that part of the reason that people in industrialized countries prefer female children over male, is the realization that in old age, a daughter is much more of an asset to disabled parents than a son is.

Anita

Chowk Special To all Chowkwallahs and beyond:

In a soul-baring minority insecurity-sharing moment from me, please realize that all Shias, from the moment of birth are inculcated with a sense of persecution complex that is very hard to shake as one grows up with an ideology that is shaped by the weight of centuries of defeat and being `wronged` by history. It is a struggle to retain objectivity when ones defenses are constantly being called to the fore.

Thank you everyone for a truly stimulating discussion. Until we dance this dance again ...

Anita

Chowk Special I have to run, so this should be short.

Re: Kafir

``now we are entering the global phase of affiliation through telecommunications, an international economy, and global environmental concern. The morality for the next millennium will be one that views all of mankind as one, interconnected and sharing a common destiny.``

I wish the above were true. But the inherent morality in this passion for globalization is consumerism and unbridled capitalism, my friend, not our common good. Sadly, five years after the agenda formulated at the International Conference on Development - Cairo, articulated in Bruntland`s `Our Common Future` (sustainable development, inequities in resource sharing between rich and poor countries, human and environmental exploitation by corporate giants operating in poor countries, and on and on) it is patently obvious that no one in power cares two hoots about ``OUR common destiny``.

``I think we have been biologically programmed to preserve both the self and the group, and human history has been a great drama about finding the balance between the two``

I agree to an extent. However, I am of the view that we have been biologically programmed to place self above group. And then again, we get into the problem of the definition of `group`. Humans seem to have a natural tendency to form tribal associations. Now wouldn`t it be nice if some person comes along and is perceived to be divinely inspired and says ``group means all the people of the earth - the rich and the poor, and if you don`t take the group`s well-being in account, then you go to hell``. Too simplistic?

Also, at some level, as a woman the concept of collective societal good worries me. This is what women have been fed for millenia to subsume their own interests for the welfare of society. Now that there is some chance (albeit a remote one), that we may have a matriarchal world, collective societal good comes along again to confuse us. Okay, okay, I try to fight this tendency for wanting a matriarchal world:).

Re: MaTha (#87)

``History claims that after the compilation in Uthman`s time the HQ was accepted, all other copies were disposed of...``

Here`s what I am saying. and I stress that it is my personal belief.

After Uthman, Islam went through a period of civil war, in which Ali`s side lost. It is possible that the History written by the victors does not represent what actually happened. That`s all.

Re: Saima

``Morality derived from Ethics led to democracy and humanism, whereas Religious Morality led to feudalism and class divides. This is an inductive conclusion. Big leap?``

I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, Western morality is not solely derived from ethics - there are strong Christian underpinnings. For example, polygamy (male or female)is not allowed, neither is euthanasia, suicide is considered ``wrong``, embryonic research is frowned upon, and may be outlawed, even if its done for the benefit of humankind. These are all debatable ethical issues, where Western countries, especially the US have chosen to take a Christian position.

``Some writer here (RR) said that Islam was pro-women and was an improvement over the previous system. why is it then that Hazrat Khadija was a business woman in those days before Islam and then there is no tradition of women in business etc immediately after or later?``

For this you have to thank our esteemed khalifas. Life for women was looking up in the early days of Islam - participating in many public spheres of life (I can detail these later, am short of time right now). Then came the incident of the teasing of the Prophet`s wives in the bazaars and they were asked to veil themselves. Umar extended this to all women, and basicly curtailed any role for women outside the house. And then there is the unfortunate incident of the start of the first civil war under Ayesha`s command. Instead of looking at the underlying causes of this, from here on, women were to blame for any disunity among the Ummah. Ali`s views were also heavily colored by this. And that was the final nail in the coffin.

Anita

Jinnah, My Hero Re: Ferozk (#55)

``Discrimination, in any nation, is not a governmental policy, but a human failing. Government may tacitily support it, but we must always draw the distinction between the government and the people as practioners of this policy...``

Sorry to poke a hole in this argument Feroz, but the government of Pakistan practices gender apartheid against women as its official governmental policy...

Anita

Chowk Special Re: Mohammad Noorul Islam

``However, REGARDLESS of whether our genes are coded with some sort of ethic, there is an independent foundation for morality; our collective survival and happiness... This principle should lie at the center of our debate to shape our social contract.``


Noor, a morality based on our collective good is of course instinctively appealing. But the problems are a)whose collective good - the rich, the poor, men, women, Muslims, individual nations, the entire human race, all living things, who falls under ``our``, and b)doesn`t such a system predicate that individuals assign greater utility to the collective good rather than individual good, and if so, requires humans to overcome biological programming designed to ensure survival and happiness of self above others?

Isn`t a morality based on promise of reward in after-life or another life by far the best tool available to manipulate people`s behavior with? Isn`t that why religions exist?

Re: Rehan and MaTha

This debate is about whether there is a POSSIBILITY that variant versions of the Quran have EVER existed. I think any reasonable mind would conclude that such a POSSIBILITY exists, given the manner in which the Quran was collected and the extensive schisms within the Muslim community that appeared very early on in Islam`s history. This would explain any textual differences that may be found in the Yemeni Qurans, without being as big a disaster for Islam as many Muslims are thinking. In fact, it may be great to see some differences because it would force us to re-examine our heritage in the light of history, rather than continue our present illogical stance of Quran as immutable dogma.

Anita

Chowk Special Btw, Noor, Saima, Kafir, and Temporal:

An excellent parallel thread.

Anita

Chowk Special Re: MaTha (#60)

Good questions. To answer them, some more background is in order.

It seems clear that other than Mohammad’s declaration at Ghadir Khumm of ‘man kuntu mawlahu fa- Ali mawlahu’ (He of whom I am the guide, of him Ali is also the guide) a few months before his death, he left no clear-cut instructions of what the nature of the state should be after his death - neither does the Quran (at least the version that we have of it) elucidate this point further.

It is also clear that Abu Bakr and Umar had a vision of an Islamic state that involved unity under a single leader and that was militarist in nature. The evidence also suggests that Ali (rightly or wrongly) did not support the first two khalifas in their military ambitions. He in fact declined khilafat when it was offered to him on the death of Umar, when Abdur-Rahman (to whom Umar had given the casting vote among the council of 6 men who were to decide the next khalifa), because it was offered on the condition that ‘Ali should rule in accordance with the Quran, the example of the Prophet, AND the precedents established by the first two khalifas. According to the Shia viewpoint, Ali was more interested in further elucidation and esoteric exploration of Islamic teachings and tenets- an inward look if you will, rather than an outward spread of Islam.
In addition to aggressive campaigns to bring the ‘apostasized’ Bedouin tribes back under submission, full scale conquests of settled lands were launched to replace their governments with Muslim rule. A military garrison was formed in each town that was conquered, with a commander representing the khalifa from Mecca - and charged with leading the prayers, launching further military expeditions from there, and managing the jaziya and booty collected, which was distributed among the conquering armies, as well as a portion remitted to the Muslims living in Mecca and Medina (there is no evidence that Abu Bakr or Umar personally amassed any wealth from the conquests). According to Hodgson (In the first volume of the 3 volume, The Venture of Islam): ``with the distribution of booty as the most attractive physical resource of the state, it was obviously desirable to continue the conquests; and though this may not have been Umar’s intention, yet the conquests did continue and no doubt helped with their heady results to make Umar’s arrangements workable.``
Uthman, on accepting Abdur-Rahman’s (his cousin) conditions for khalifat, continued Umar’s policies, but he lacked Umar’s skills or vision, and was greatly influenced by his Ummayyid clansmen and so initiated the beginnings of the Ummayyid Khilafat. The soldier-tribesmen living in their garrison towns were to be governed by men of the Ummayyid family, to whom they had to keep giving revenues that they were collecting. The Ummayyids started traveling to the various town posts and engaging in unfair business practices with the protection of the state, and at the expense of the local Muslim communities. Complaints mounted, many towns rioted. Further military expeditions decreased and so did booty, raising the level of discontent. In the face of this widespread dissatisfaction about Ummayyid rule from Medina many delegations came to Ali requesting him to show some resistance to Uthman’s rule, most notably from the garrison town of Kufah in Iraq, sowing the seeds for the first Islamic civil war.

According to Hodgson, again, ``as a pledge of Arab unity was Uthman’s insistence on the use in all garrison towns of a single standardized collection of the Quranic verses. He caused all deviant editions to be burnt. This aroused considerable resentment among the Quran reciters, many of whom had their own versions, varying in minor details.`` Soon afterwards (656 AD), Uthman was murdered, most likely by mutineers from Egypt.

Evidence suggests that at this point, given the widespread disaffection of Muslims living in conquered lands, Ali was reluctant to accept the khilafat, but was persuaded by a strange alliance of individuals - those who were of the opinion that Ali should have been the successor in the first place, and those among the Ansaar, Iraqis (Kufans and Basrans), and others belonging to garrison towns in other conquered parts who wanted revenge against Ummayid policies in their towns.

Ali was khalifa for almost 5 years, all five of which were characterized by constant strife among the Muslim community. Shortly after assuming leadership, Ayesha, on the encouragement of Talha and Zubair launched into battle (656AD), to avenge Ali’s lack of punishment of Uthman’s killers. Meanwhile, the Ummayyid Mauwiya , the previously appointed governor of Syria, refused to relinquish his post and started his own attack in 657AD, also to avenge Uthman’s murder. A lengthy and bloody battle at Siffin followed, which was finally ended by arbitration in 658 AD (when Mauwiya’s army started to lose, they raised the Quran on their swords and called for negotiation according to God’s word, which Ali accepted, appointing a mediator from among the Kufans). However, many of the Kufans felt that justice had not been served and the Ummayids not been punished enough for their actions during Uthman’s rule. These (the Khawaraj or Seceders) became bitterly opposed to the decision to accept arbitration and let Mauwiya stay in power in Syria. They formed their own party and engaged in battle against Ali, one of them eventually murdering him in 661AD. Meanwhile, Mauwiya, also conquering Egypt started official Ummayyid khilafat from Damascus in 660 AD, comprising of Egypt and Syria (later of course including all the other middle-eastern territories). Here it is important to point out, that upon Ali’s death, Mauwiya was able to reach an agreement with Ali’s son, Hasan (some say he was bribed, the Shia say he had no choice but to accept since Mauwiya heavily bribed Hasan’s supporters, so that he was left without much of a following) that he would not have any political voice in the Muslim community, and in return would be allowed to live in Medina with a financial settlement or pension.

With this backdrop, to answer your question:
Did Ali know about an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran?

If there was an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran, Ali certainly would have known of it because he was the most highly regarded Quranic scholar of the time. So then what follows is either:
a) there was no difference. This seems unlikely since there are numerous references that say Uthman had all differing Quranic versions burnt, and one standardized version accepted during his khilafat.
b) there were minor differences which Ali chose to ignore. Also seems unlikely given Ali’s character and reputation, but perhaps he did, in the interest of not exacerbating further strife and giving more voice to the puritan Khawarij. Here, one should also consider that many of the Prophet’s companions had urged Ali to declare himself as the rightful successor to Mohammad, rather than accept Abu Bakr and Umar as khalifas, but he refused to consider it - if he had wanted, he could have challenged their authority to rule, and plunged the fledgling Islam into mortal danger - but he didn’t. He overlooked his own interests (and perhaps those of the Prophet), in the larger interest of the Islamic community. He may have used similar reasoning, if he considered the Quranic differences minor.
c) there were minor (or significant) Quranic differences which Ali pointed out during and after the final compilation of the Quran. However, since after Ali’s death, Hasan was neutralized, Hussain was killed, the Ummayids held absolute power for another 90 years and relentlessly persecuted anyone who dared to support the Shia viewpoint, it is possible that all such evidence was simply destroyed.

Then you ask: was it (the ``correct version of the HQ) ever introduced? Seems like it wasn’t a good time to introduce it then and it isn’t a good time now either!

I believe the first part of the question is answered in the background above. I do not see the logic in the second statement. What would you do, IF these Yemeni Qurans turn out to be slightly different from the Uthmanic Quran? Destroy them like Uthman did? Why can’t those who want to, live with an alternative version? And why should those who are interested in exploring alternate versions of the Quran purely for historical reasons be denied the opportunity to do so.

Then you ask: did Ali (since he was rather busy saving the Muslim Ummah from itself, and of course from the likes of Ayesha and Abu Sufiyan) leave a legacy to address the issue? Is the Shia/Sunni divide proof of this legacy? Perhaps the posheeda imam has a notorized copy of the ``correct`` version of the HQ!``

Shias and Sunnis are divided on the basis of differing views on the succession to Mohammad, and what early Islam should have concerned itself with. If anyone can be blamed it should be Allah and Mohammad for not making such important issues as the form of government under which Muslims live, clear. On the other hand, as many modern Islamic scholars have pointed out, this leaves modern Muslims with considerable freedom to decide their own political systems.

On the question of whether the posheeda Imam has the ``correct`` version of the Quran, it depends on whether one believes in the Occultation. If one does, one would tend to believe that he would have the ``correct`` version, if indeed the current one is ``incorrect`` Since Wasiq hasn’t stated whether he believes in the Occultation (a whole different discussion), I can’t really say.

Finally, you ask ``how would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?

This is somewhat unanswerable since it didn’t happen. I would like to think that it would have been closer to an esoteric Sufi interpretation of Islam, but of course this is pure speculation. On the other hand, there is no doubt about what did happen when Mauwiya interpreted the role of khalifa (which means representative or messenger of Mohammad) in conventional imperialistic terms - we inherited a situation no different, for example, from the Saudi Arabian monarchy today.

Anita

Chowk Special Re: the shia perspective:

Here are a few more dates and ironies from me.

Uthman became caliph in 644 AD. Exhibiting incredible nepotism, all governorships of conquered lands were given to the Ummayyads, while Marwan ran the show at home. The Ansaar were systematically excluded from the political process. When Uthman was murdered 656 AD, and Ali became caliph, Mauwiya (now the most powerful Ummayyad, and governor of Syria), refused to accept Ali`s caliphate and launched into battle against Ali at Siffin in 657AD (the second Islamic civil war), advancing his independent claim for caliphate centered at Damascus.

Here`s the irony. In a brief space of a few years after the Prophet`s death, Abu Sufiyan, through his family was able to achieve what he wasn`t during his life time (which he spent fighting against Mohammad, accepting Islam only after the conquest of Mecca)- Ummayyad rule all over Arabia and the Near-east, destruction of Mohammad`s family (Karbala happened in 680 AD), and a perpetual divide and infighting among the Muslim community.

So deep is the divide that when Mawdudi, not a Shia supporter by ANY stretch of the imagination, concluded in his Khilafat`u mulukiyat that Uthman was perhaps not `rightly guided` during his khilafat, he was labeled `Husain parast`!

Wasiq, do you have any references to support Ali’s anti-military stance? Did he actually say he was against this in the Nahujul Balagha. I have misplaced my copy.

Anita

Chowk Special Outstanding discussion. One has to commend Lester, Puin and associates for stirring this hornet’s nest again (it was about time). However, that doesn’t excuse Lester’s poorly substantiated and obscurely referenced writing. The article comes across as overly sensational, unscientific, and extrapolative. After all, all that has been found are some very old copies of the Quran with ``small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text``. The rest is all speculative. So Muslims need not worry yet. Of course, the downside of using science to discredit the infallibility of the Quran may have the ill-desired effect of complete abandonment of the scientific method as a means of progress among the Muslim world (shudder). Needless to say, the woman in me waits with bated breath to find out what these intriguing aberrations are.

Some in this discussion have said that all discussion about what constituted the text of the Quran ceased after Uthman’s compilation. This is simply not true - you are forgetting the Shia angle. Early Shia (7th and 8th century) actively discussed what had been omitted from the Quran by Ali’s enemies. They believed parts of the text praising Ali and pointing to his Imamate had been deliberately excised, and that the Quran had been altered so that the names of the Imams and the hypocrites (munafiqeen) had been dropped. Some examples of these early beliefs and statements are compiled by Muhammad Baqir Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar.

For instance:
a) In the verse ‘God has chosen Adam and Noah and the families of Abraham and Imran in preference to others’ (Quran 3:33, Ahmed Ali translation), the phrase ‘and the family of Muhammad’ is considered to have originally have been present.
b) Regarding the verse ‘Woe alas, ah would I had not taken so-and-so as friend!’ (Quran 25:28, Ahmed Ali translation), the Sixth Imam, Jafar as-Sadiq said that in Ali’s copy, this verse read as ``Woe alas that I had not chosen the second as a friend``.
Some of these early Shia believed that whole verses and suras from the Quran are missing.
The later Shia abandoned arguing this position for unclear reasons and accepted the standard Uthmani Quranic text (perhaps relentless Abbasid persecution was a contributing factor). However, very intriguing is the fact that some of the most rebellious and Ghullaat-influenced Shia belonging to the Zaydi sect (relatives of mine - who knows?) settled in Yemen, and formed an independent kingdom there. Here’s an alternative hypothesis: May be these wayward Qurans belonged to them!

Anita

Here Somewhere RE: ikbal khan and `k` vs `q`

I read your comment and i chuckled. What, you too are intimidated? :)

Saad has struggled with the same automatic u after q problem, so that he becomes shafquat - it never fails to annoy him. Shafkat? Hmmm...

Anita

The Vacuous World Re: Rishi (can`t keep count of replies),

Rishi, I am not against pseudonym use. I think they have a very valid role in many situations, such as those described by you. In fact, I might decide to use one myself when we move back to Pakistan. What I am against is use of pseudonym to indulge in abusive behavior, such as we have seen here.

Additionally I admit that I have thought BG’s use of pseudonym misplaced (but that’s just my opinion). I based this on some of the statements she has made. For example, in replies to Umair’s article ``Bombing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts,`` she has said:

``…even if there were a law against speaking out against the government of the country I lived in, I would not live by it. I am a free individual and no matter where I live, I have an inalienable RIGHT to speak my mind…I would do the same wherever I lived…``

Elsewhere in the same section she has said:

``Whatever you or I can do to understand what is going on, inform ourselves and those around us of the truth and then speak our minds. I think every bit helps…``

This kind of talk seems odd, coming from a pseudonym user. These words of hers are what misled me into thinking she had an activist agenda, and even inviting her to speak to a gathering of public health professionals. But she has clarified that she doesn’t have an agenda, and I am sorry that I thought otherwise.

You ask if in retrospect I could have handled the issue (of tag-teams and pseudonyms) with Random differently. Good question. The targeting by Random (of Saad and me) has actually been going on for a while (See The Daily Grind, Bombing Iraqis, Just Another Woman, current article). I have no idea why, but have ignored it so far, hoping he/she would just give up. I could have requested Umair to delete the offensive prose, but that’s against my freedom of expression stance. I asked for an e-mail exchange but that was refused. Given the inherent unequal playing field of writing under one’s real name, and defending oneself against an anonymous person exhibiting a high level of hostility, I felt the best approach was to be aggressive in return. I do not think it would be a waste if it has the effect of stopping future attacks because the hypocricy has been exposed. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Anita

Here Somewhere Ikbal Khan Sahab,

I love the way you do English and Urdu together. Brilliant!

Anita

An Interview with Naseeruddin Shah Thank you Feroz, for those excellent suggestions. Sounds like a to-die-for thesis topic for someone (where are you Shan Anwer?) But I was also referring to the importance of gathering oral histories. As Aliya says, that generation is about to pass away.

Re: RanaRansher and Truth

My perspective on the Partition really changed when I came to the US and got to meet Indians who had migrated the other way. Until then, I had only thought of it as a one-way street - from India to Pakistan. One of my very good Indian friends is originally from Karachi. Watching her parents (migrated from Karachi to Bombay)and Saad`s father (migrated from Agra to Karachi)look at each other in wonder, and exchange long-suppressed memories of what home was like as kids - a real tear-jerker it was. The Bombay parents got invited to Karachi, and vice versa - and as would be expected from our visionary governments, the visas were refused.

Anita

An Interview with Naseeruddin Shah It always surprises me when people say that a lot has been written on the Partition. I say, hardly anything has been written, given the magnitude of human migration that occurred over such a short span - as far as I know, the largest ever in history. Compare what`s been written, for example, to what`s been written on the Holocaust.

Is anyone aware of any analytic work in this area? Who crossed, how were they different from the ones who didn`t cross, how many lost family members, how many families were divided permanently, are Muslims who crossed over, better-off in economic terms than Muslims who didn`t? Does anyone know?

Anita

His Beautiful Marbled Palace Wasiq,

A masterpiece!

Grey, yes, its all grey - from our eyes, and from theirs - but not from the eyes of the Federal and State governments. Most mentally-ill remain uninsured. About half of the homeless are mentally ill, forcibly deinstitutionalized individuals. State subsidies are being cut further.

The medical establishment has been reduced to proving that it is `cost-effective` to provide shelters for the homeless, since it would decrease the number that end up coming to the Emergency Rooms for a place to spend the night. That`s the argument we are giving - a cost-saving argument, because in today`s world, nothing else cuts it.

Anita

The Last Bath Riazi,

This is very powerfully written. Very emotive. In this case I didn`t feel the need to know - fact or fiction. The feelings expressed at the loss of a loved one came through plain and simple.

So much of life, we take for granted. Separated from aging parents - every phone call in the middle of the night is a nightmare re-lived. The time when the phone rang in the middle of the night, and it was my father-in-law, and he wouldn`t talk to me - he wouldn`t say anything except that it didn`t look good for my father, that I should come right away... waiting the interminable hours to buy a ticket, get on a plane, the long flight, the polite small talk with other passengers, all the time not knowing.
I made it, just in time. I don`t know if he recognized me.

Anita