Jinnah, My Hero Well written Godot! One wonders how Jinnah would have been regarded by history had he been born in England or America? What if one of the three key players, Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi had been missing, would history have been the same? What conspiracies would have unfolded earlier had people realized that his days were numbered?

Chowk Special Anita has brought up a very interesting point, which I did not want to bring up because it inevitably collides head on with deep-rooted religious convictions of the majority of Muslims. But here it goes, nevertheless.

Let us suppose for a minute that no-one had ever discovered any ``non-standard`` copies of the Quran. Just by reading about the procedure that was followed in the time of Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran would have convinced any reasonably intelligent person that the process could not be perfect. Consider the following:

1) By the time the Quran was compiled, the Prophet had already been dead for about 30 years. Most of his closest companions had also passed on. The compilation of the Quran, its chronology and the definition of the context of different injunctions and verses were left to the interpretation of the committee of people chosen to be the compilers, none of whom I might add can be called great Quranic scholars. According to tradtions, people brought Quranic verses in for compilation in various formats, written on tree barks or hides, or memorized etc. The possibility for (a) omission (b) addition (c) loss of proper ordering of verses (d) definition of the context of different verses is therefore quite present.

2) In a move that continues to astound history, Caliphs Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman systematically and consistently secluded the family of the Prophet from this process. The family members of the Prophet were his closest companions who had seen the rise of Islam from its very inception. They were the ideal keepers of the Quran and the Hadith. After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Ali asked that he be left alone so that he could compile the Quran. That wish was vehemently denied. (It resulted in a bunch of people storming the house of Ali). People who are aware of the compilation of the Hadith will also recall that although the Prophet considered his household (Ahl-ul-Bait) to be sacred and closest to him, the number of Hadith associated to Hadrat Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are minute compared to the ones attributed to people of much lesser stature in Islamic history.

3) The question arises why should this have been done? The compilation of the Quran served an immensely important political purpose. Although people on pulpits from across the Muslim world never cease to paint a picture of the companions of the Prophet being sinless and untainted beings, nothing could be further from fact. They were people who had grown up in a highly politically active atmosphere, and frankly the vast majority of them were out for themselves. Doesn`t sound too different from what we are today!

The compilation of the Quran fell into the same fate. Immediately after the death of the Prophet a slogan was invented (whose inventor remains anonymous but loyally followed to this day): ``Prophethood and Caliphate can never go to the same family``. This slogan encapsulated the traditional tribal jealousies that the Prophet had tried to eradicate but was unsuccessful. It also betrayed the fact that people never understood the meaning of Prophethood and Caliphate, and kept on equating Caliphate with Temporal Kingship (with all its benefits).

A historical parallel to this example is found again in the Banu Umayya, who were the cousins by lineage of the Banu Hashim family, and had been deported from their ancestral lands by a multi-tribal judgement. After the fall of Makkah, Abu-Sufyan who was from the Banu Umayya family became a ``Muslim`` because it was politically expedient for him to do so. His son Muawiya was installed by Caliph Omar in Syria, where he enjoyed a virtually autonomous rule as a governer for about twenty years. Why Muawiya should have been given such a politically important post by Caliph Omar given that his father was an arch-enemy of Islam is not so surprising if one considers the enormous political benefits the Caliph stood to reap from the presence of Muawiya, if there was a strong pro-Hashim movement in the Hejaz. This is exactly what happened during the Caliphate of Ali when Muawiya wrongly, unlawfully and unjustifiably revolted against the Caliph of Islam and brought in the dark ages of Imperialism into Islamic history, whose legacy hounds us to this day. (When Maudoodi came to the same conclusion, his book ``Khilafat-o-Malukiat`` was immediately silenced by his own companions.) The case of Imam Hussein and Yazid was the next logical link of this scenario. Being the good son of Muawiya, Yazid did what his father taught him well.

This discussion adds a new political dimension to Islam and the Quran. One distinctly comes off with the feeling that the Family of the Prophet was decidedly ill-treated by essentially everyone after the Prophet`s death. (Muawiya for example started a tradition where Caliph Ali was verbally abused in every khutba delivered by every mosque imam. This tradition went on for almost forty years before it was abrogated by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz. Almost all of the Shi`a Imams, for example, died unnatural deaths. In Kerbala, for example, one saw the ludicrous and ironic situation that the soldiers of Yazid`s army would praise the Prophet and his family in their prayers, and then rise up to kill the same family of the Prophet.) The traditional point of view on all of this is to present a harmonious picture that makes everyone pure and pristine. Such a point of view can only be supported in a fairy tale, and not in the real world. In the past (and sadly even in the present) to say something like this was suicidal -all opposition was brutally crushed. The reason, again that religion was deeply interconnected with the politics. The State derived its legitimacy and power from religion, and therefore, religious dogma served the exact purpose that propoganda served in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. (Think about Saudi Arabia for a second in the modern days.)

I think we are lucky that we are born in an era where ideas can be accepted or rejected based upon their scientific merit. That the traditional histories of Islam will be re-written is inevitable, and perhaps the increasing rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world is partly also due to the anticipation of this change.

Chowk Special I mailed the following reply to the author of this article:

It appears to me that the discovery of the Yemeni scripts can be potentially very important in elucidating this critical part of Islamic history. The most enduring legacy of this discovery will most probably be the debate and thought it will generate.

Like everything else in a scientific endeavour, however, the evidence and its interpretation will invariably change over time.

Although I found the article itself to be very interesting and thought-provoking, I clearly came off with a sense that the presentation of the evidence and its interpretation was improper by scientific standards.

The article suffers from two fatal flaws:

First, it elevates hypotheses to the rank of facts. Preserved copies of the Quran, and their differences from the present day versions, can have a multitude of explanations. However, in the article, the evidence itself is never discussed in any meaningful detail. Neither is any other hypothesis presented. For example, there are no comments from any Islamic scholar who does not agree with these interpretations. From a scientific point of view this is entirely unacceptable.

Second, very importantly, we have to consider the whole issue in light of the nature of the evidence at hand. The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls. The author of the article, it appears, does not appreciate the importance of this issue. In addition, if the original researchers are making strong claims based upon their evidence then they too are falling into this trap. Again in analogy with the evolutionary debate, a clearer picture of what is going on will appear only after a long period of scrutiny and verification of the evidence at hand, and by corroborating it with other clues within the Islamic tradition.

That increasingly diverse interpretations of the history of the Quran will appear is inevitable. Like any other scientific endeavour, however, one also must have the prudence and intelligence not to dwell on any one hypothesis but to seek an honest and scientific approach to the issue where all hypotheses are taken into account appropriately, and the evidence available is treated with due caution.

The article unfortunately leaves one with the impression that the author and the researchers have already made up their minds on what the outcome should be, independently of the evidence at hand.

I must also comment on your inappropriate choice of timing for this article. Clearly this publication is not a scholarly venue for scientific and arcane discussions, however, one would have expected a better sense of timing from a popular publication like yours. Sensationalism has the potential benefits of improving the number of hits to your site, however in the long run it leaves a sense of distaste about the motivations of the publication. I hope that we have evolved past the days of Orientalist discourse where Islam was viewed through the myopic and biased lens of Western academia.

Chowk Special Interesting article. Following the nature of scientific endeavours, we can be sure that there will be much more to see in terms of both the evidence and conclusions as time goes by. It seems to me that the more enduring legacy of these Yemeni scripts will be the debate they give rise to.

I do wish to point out three interesting points for people to mull over, I am sure that many people are already aware of them.

1) There is almost a complete consensus amongst Biblical scholars that the concept of Trinity was a later invention. Jesus never talks about it directly in the New Testament. Yet, there are a billion or so people who swear by the Trinity. This shows the weight one can attach to ``popularity`` as a means of identifying the ``objective truth`` of a concept.

2) There is also a great deal of evidence that supports the conclusion that the concept of virgin birth of Mary is again a later invention. This is interesting given that Islam (and the Quran) openly espouse the concept of virgin birth.

3) In all religious issues, there is always more than what is obvious. The aims of religions and science diverge on some issues. Whereas science strives for an ``objective truth`` that can be backed by hard evidence, religion recognizes other ``truths`` that cannot be readily substantiated. Much of the mythology of a religion serves a different reason than gaining an objective understanding of the universe. It tries to provide a foundation for a unifying ideology, that can be referenced in the everyday lives of the believers. Sort of saying that: ``I believe in so-and-so because it makes me a better person or more able to handle the everyday life``. In terms of their effects on the world and the lives of people, these ``imaginary truths`` are more influential and long-lasting than the ``objective truths``.

His Beautiful Marbled Palace Re: temporal

Thanks for travelling along. I imagine an eye, sitting far away, and seeing footprints being etched on pristine snow. I imagine it follwing the paths taken by invisible travellers, some paths more circuitous than others, some paths leading nowhere and some paths coming abruptly to an end. How many paths end in the comfort and company of others, and how many end in isolation?

Re: afrasiyab

Thanks for the kind words and the encouragement. I loved your current article on Chowk.

Re: SR

Thank you for the wonderful compliments, I try to stay on the learning curve. I was not here to witness the welfare budget cuts of the eighties, whose effects are still visible. However, the disparity of wealth and standard of living that I see here is truly amazing.

Re: Anita

Thanks for the kind words. Isn`t it ironic that doctors, whose very reason for existence (in a manner of speaking) is to provide a cushion of comfort to people are basing their decisions on entirely economical reasons?

Re: bg

Thanks for liking the story and for the kind words.

Re: Saad

Thanks a lot for your generous compliments. I try and sometimes it works. Science ka dhanda uss din choron ga jabb koi lambi chori kahani likhon ga, kaheen yeh na ho keh ``chala hans ki chaal aur apni chaal bhi bhool gaya``.

Re: Ras

Thanks for liking the story and for your encouragement.

Re: Rishi

Thanks for the kind words.

The Last Bath Beautiful and very moving. Wonderful and memorable.

My condolences for your loss and may Allah grant peace to your father, you and your family.

Honoring the Greats Here are some additional suggestions:

Mathematics and Physics: Qaiser Shafi, Riazuddin, H. M. Mahmoud

Chemistry: Salimuzzaman Siddiqi

Economics: Mahbub-ul-Haq

Architecture: Sear`s Tower chief architect Fazlur Rehman Khan

Social services: Hakim Saeed

Religious thought: Maudoodi

Justa Simple Sad Poem Welcome to Chowk!

I found your work to be moving and terribly honest. You have painted a beautiful picture of sadness and when it digs its claws deep into us.

I would like to share with you a few verses by Zauq:

Ishq mai hum ko is ka ranj nahi
Qarar-o-Shakaib raha na raha
Dard-dil to hamara rafeeq raha
Koi aur bala say raha na raha!

-regards
Wasiq

Evolution 101 Mr. Owais,

After reading your repeated idiotic submissions, it is obvious that you believe that stupidity is a virtue. Indeed you have quite a talent for making a fool of yourself. Myself and other observers of this humorous exchange have been having quite a laugh. (I would quietly suggest that you have a possible career ahead of you as a film star.)

I know how insecure you get if someone suggests that your lengthy ramblings are quite devoid of substance. However, you can be happy at least in the fact that you did not evolve from an ape. My dear sir you have steadfastly remained one.

Yours truly

Evolution 101 Dear Mr. Owais,

We have no personal difference but on this matter, I had no choice but to reply the way I did. You are an intelligent and a thoughtful person, and I respect your motivation for knowledge and understanding. However, I do not buy even an ounce of your arguments, because they fail to convince me even in the most obvious manner.

The reason I posted that reply was because there are enough ``faithful`` in the world who are parroting your arguments without any understanding. There are millions of book-thumping zealots across the world who share your point of view. What is worse, they are ready to KILL, if someone disagrees with them.

Sadly, your arguments are cloaked in pseudo-scientific babble, you know the terms but you do not understand them. It would be a pity if someone who was trying to learn the basics of evolution were to come across your arguments. This babble creates an aura of substantiability, but in reality it has no scientific basis. It is pure sophistry and outright deception.

It is a shame that we are ready to forgo many older myths but are reluctant to let go of this myth. We no longer believe that the earth is flat, and that the clouds are driven by spirits, so why should we continue to mindlessly repeat the absurd myth of spontaneous creation? It is time this myth was finally laid to rest.

I will not mince words. There is NO controversy within the scientific community about the existence of the process of evolution. In addition, there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE for creationist arguments.

If you know even one tenth of what you claim to know, you would not deny this. And then you would immediately stop advocating your absurd position.

I repeat, Mr. Owais, the arguments you presented were:

1) FRAUDULENT.

2) UNSUBSTANTIATED.

3) NAIVE.

Please don`t insist on something which you cannot substantiate. You will only make a fool of yourself. Worse still, please do not twist things to fit some absurdity. It quickly ceases being humorous.

For your own sake at least try to present an argument that is consistent. If you are that illuminated, try to present an alternative scientific theory.

From what I have read of your arguments so far, it seems that sadly your sources are some brain-washing books on creationist propoganda. You appear to have no formal training as a biologist, and neither have you any experience in field work. Therefore all of your arguments are without any basis, because you have no understanding of the issues involved. That makes it very difficult to have any meaningful exchange.

All that you keep on repeating (louder every time) is your BELIEF, no matter how absurd it is, and how easily it succumbs to a logical and empirical analysis. (I have already pointed this out to you in multiple ways, but you don`t seem to catch on).

So please, let it go!

Your`s truly,
Wasiq Bokhari

p.s If you feel that we should continue this ``argument`` outside of Chowk, please do not hesitate to send me mail: wasiq@chowk.com

Mathematics with Minimum Raw Material, Part 2 Fozia(14):

The proof is due to R.L.Brooks and I find it to be very nice.

(First, in a square dissection obviously the smallest square cannot be on the edge otherwise one would require at least one other square of equal or smaller side).

Let us suppose that a cube dissection does exist. Then the cubes that stand on the bottom face induce a square dissection of that face. The smallest of the cubes itself will have its top and bottom faces (the bottom face induces the square dissection) surrounded by walls belonging to the cubes around it. The top face itself must therefore have other cubes that stand on top of it and whose bottom faces induce a square dissection of the top face of this smallest cube. Take the smallest of those cubes, the process continues indefinitely!

Did you get a chance to see the algorithm for the nth digit of pi?

The Environmental Impact of a Nuclear Explosion Interesting article. All of what you say is all too well known and oft-repeated, and therefore people tend to get accustomed to it.

The article however did not address its declared purpose (which is what I wanted to learn) in enough detail i.e the effect on the environment. What I am interested in is not just what happens at the instant of detonation, but after a month, a year and longer. I have list of questions which I hoped the article would answer:

How does the environment react to a nuclear explosion over a long time period, what course does it follow to revert to a state of ecological and climactic equilibrium?

How do the mechanisms of wind dispersal aggravate the situation?

How much resiliency does nature have before a permanent change?

How do the local ecosystems get disrupted and how does that effect the larger ecosystems?

Is there a possibility of a long term climactic change?

What about underground water?

In addition:

What are the predominant isotopes produced and their lifetimes?

How would they impact mutation/deformation rates in a population over long time periods?

What other diseases can be caused that are not overtly cancerous?

Are there people who survive this enhanced rate of background radiation? What are the effects on them?

Earth has seen far bigger disasters before Homo Sapiens discovered nuclear reactions. Collisions with extraterrestrial bodies release energies in thousands of megatons or more, and despite severe effects, nature bounces back. I am not advocating nuclear weapons by saying this but I would like to understand what are the environmental effects of a nuclear explosion of different magnitudes.

regards

Mathematics with Minimum Raw Material, Part 2 Goga(11);

I think you did not understand the proof. There is no restriction on a relationship between the area and the hypot. Let me state it again, hopefully more clearly this time:

Let us say that a right angled triangle ACB is divided into two right angled triangles ABD and BCD (let AC, AB and BC be the hypot of the three triangles respectively).

The ratio of areas of ABD and ACB is square(AB/AC) since they are similar triangles. Similarly the ratio of the areas of BCD and ACB is square(BC/AC). Since the sum of the two ratios must be one, the pythagoras theorem follows.

regards

Shafqat(10):

Yes, Al-Khwarzami should be included, but I really do not have a good feeling about the relative merit of mathematicians once one starts going back in time. My choices were rather obvious, for both Omar Khayyam and Ibn-Haytham are associated with important problems that they solved.

Leibniz is an interesting case. Though a co-inventor of calculus and a brilliant man, his contributions to mathematics are not as extensive say as that of Newton.

Russell, I am not sure either as a mathematician. His motivation behind Principia Mathematica was to execute the Hilbert program, which was frustrated by Godel`s incompleteness theorems. Most of his own contribution was to logic, and there he is overshadowed by greater figures. Russell is again a polymath like Leibniz with wide ranging interests and contributions.

I think Hilbert however should be added to the list of great mathematicians. And so should Dirichlet.

Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts Hay Qazi-e Taqdeer ka fatwa yeh azal say
Hay Jurm-e Zaeefi ki saza marg-e-mufajaat

-Iqbal

(The verdict of Nature from the the beginning is: The punishment for weakness is eternal death.)

Mathematics with Minimum Raw Material, Part 2 Fozia(5):

Interesting application of the Pythagoras Theorem. Do you know of a simple proof of the following:

1. It is possible to dissect a square into a finite number of squares, all unequal.

2. It is impossible to dissect a cube into a finite number of such cubes.

I once read an explanation of a simple proof (2) but have not yet come across one for (1).

Khan(4):

I should have stated everything clearly but I was trying to be minimal. Indeed the proof proceeds by comparing the areas of the similar triangles that are formed and comparing the squares of the lengths of equivalent sides. I should have said that explicitly to make things clearer. Thanks.

Do you like the proof?

Goga(7):

Umair has clarified the proof, and as you would see it would hold for all proportions, not just for two equal sides.

Khan(3),Fozia(5),Goga(6):

Will have to agree with Goga that we`ve got to wait before we know who the Prince of Mathematicians is: (Euler and Gauss approach it the closest in my view)

In terms of great (dead) mathematicians, my pick would be Eodvos, Ramanujan, Poincare, Riemann, von Neumann, Gauss, Euler, Jacobi, Cauchy, Abel, Fermat, Khayyam, Archimedes, Euclid, Ibn-Haytham, Newton, Bernoulli, Godel, Lie. I would rank Ramanujan, Riemann, Gauss, Euler and Euclid above others. (I know of few Greek/Indian mathematicians ... but I do not know how to rank them, Hipparchus, Pythagoras, Ptolemy?)

For living mathematicians, Mandelbrot, Witten, Atiyah, Donaldson, Margulis ...

By the way do you know of the astonishing Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe Pi Algorithm which allows one to calculate ANY digit of pi (in hexadecimel) without calculating any prior digit?!!!

(See www.mathsoft.com/asolve/plouffe/plouffe.html)

Also, I think you will enjoy the parent site:

http://www.mathsoft.com/asolve/

(List of some unsolved math problems)

Evolution 101 Since I think this matter is very important, I think I should not mince words. There is NO controversy within the scientific community about the existence of the process of evolution. In addition, there is NOT A SHRED of evidence for creationist arguments.

Mr. Owais, your arguments are:

1) FRAUDULENT (they intentionally distort and make selective references).

2) UNSUBSTANTIATED (you would like force your view down everyone`s throat).

3) NAIVE (I do not think that you understand the scientific method or any scientific discipline for that matter).

I think your brand of reasoning is an INSULT for any thinking mind. You are a literal believer and therefore you are blind to all arguments.

Yours truly
Wasiq Bokhari