Happy New Year

Happy New Year.

I hope for you the very best,
That you might raise yourself above the waves, and tides of tomorrow.
That you might ride future's crest.

That you might think well of all you meet.
That you might greet them with a smile,
And sugar their lives with sweets.

For in the service of others
We pan our gold.
Make who we are.
Want to be.
And then become.
Before we grow too old.

So in this day of cheer.
Spare a moment of thought
For those whose life is dear,
But for whom the world sells cheap.

I hope for you the very best.
That you might of blessings and goodness,
Forever reap.

Shafeesthoughts


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Justice as the job of State

Simonides said in regards to Justice that "the repayment of debt is just".

But it cannot be just if that repayment causes you greater harm.

Justice is, or should be, the balancing of rights and obligations. And whilst you might be obliged to repay a debt, you also have a right to be kept from harm.

The business model of credit companies playing odds on their customers being less scrupulous and more spendthrift, where they thrive on others' misfortune, cannot ever be called just.

It is obvious then that a person behaves "justly" when they are ABLE to repay a debt and then does so.

But it is "juster" still if the debt never need be taken in the first instance. For then the problem of being "when able" becomes a non-problem.

From this we can glean that irrespective of our definition of it, justice can take many forms and have many levels.

And that it is rather easier for us to say that injustice is "the withholding of payment of debt whilst you have the means". That therefore justice is and should be the norm whilst injustice is something to be hated and reviled.

This leads us a more proper definition of justice as pervading where injustice dissipates. And then that the doing of justice, in order to earn the appellation of "being just", is the removal of injustice. It is not a singular thing in itself but becomes when a person fights against wrong. And this is why Harun ar-Rashid (rh) was called both just and the fifth rightly guided.

When we consider that whilst we might call an individual "just", as in a just King or Ruler, it can never be that a sole individual can have the power to remove injustice. That is even the case when we concentrate on one solitary injustice and ignore wholesale injustices.

This because every act to remove an injustice can quite easily be thwarted by further injustice.
It is not enough to follow one act of justice with myriad acts of injustice.

And so Harun ar-Rashid (as) was called just because he restored Jizya to its rightful place and nobody could dispute with that. That act could not be followed by further injustice because his job was to restore what was in the first place, and was recognised as being such by all.

Whereas the Allies when they deposed Sadam freed the political prisoners, only later to incarcerate a greater people within their jails without recourse to Law. Irrespective of their first act, no one could claim that they were just.

And furthermore, even to forgive a debt may not be called "just" if it leads not to the debtor's improvement but yet still deepens his irresponsibility and dependency. Rather he should be the recipient of an ongoing charity that may be small but keeps him whole.

And therefore we might agree with Plato that justice, or the removal of injustice, is the responsibility of people as a whole and not of individuals.

That it is a job of state.
But should not be the job of law.
See: Justice and Law


(ADDED LATER on 29//12/13.)
What is further clear is that Simonides classification of justice as a means debt repayment is clearly a one sided treatment in favour of the haves. It does nothing to tell us about the justice due to the have-nots.

Is Justice not for them who have not? And if Justice provides a balance between rights and obligations, then what right is due to the have nots, by way of being?

These are examined in the prior post. (See link above).

But what is clear from the treatment above is that injustice is a greater and more powerful relation than justice.
That does not affect my belief that justice is, and should be seen as, the norm.

And that society and the state should be charged with the fight against injustice.

That justice is not for the creditor but for the people as a whole.

And the creditor who would seek to use justice as a means of pursuing debt should be known as unjust. Since justice is not a word to be bandied about for individual selfish ends. Rather justice is like the mother who on suffering the fate of seeing her son or daughter wronged, pursues it so that no one would suffer as she did. Or the son who craves to see his father released from an unjust incarceration. These are real examples. And politics should be in the job of helping them realise those ends, and not thwarting them as is so often the case.

At last, the collection of debt might be a right which when exercised could lead to injustice. Therefore the exercise of a right does not necessarily lead to justice, and can in fact be unjust.

A sobering thought in our society full of rights, and full too of obligations made law by our politicians. Whose job it should not.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A Blueprint for Russell Brand.

A Blueprint for Russell Brand.

The Legislative and The Executive.

If Politics is, as discussed in the previous post, about the exertion of influence. *1
And in its best form it is about enabling men to come together as a collective for the betterment of all, as a whole.

Then what is Law?
Law is about protection.
Protection both from the consequence of disobedience to GOD, and from the oppression that men visit one on the other.

It is little known that the first to separate the legislative from the executive were the Muslims. Such an occurrence happened after the Messenger of God (saw) had left us both with the Quran and with his example as a means of making our way in this World. For prior to that in his very person both were combined. And after him (saw) the Quran and his interpretation and explanation of those injunctions contained in his sayings codified our Law.

It was this fact that the Law had been set that allowed for the Muslim successors to concur on such a separation. For Muslim Law was not the purview of a minority of Muslim men, but belonged to all in the exemplary Recitation (Quran). And so the law, in general, was known and accessible.

Today our politicians concern themselves with the manufacture of Law to the detriment of their duty toward inspiring people to act for the collective betterment. They seek to influence our behaviour not through appealing to our better natures but through hitting us harder in the pocket by stipulating varying degrees of taxation and sanction . Theirs is a monetary appreciation of the world, that owes much to economists and bankers, but completely ignores their true calling. And ignores the true calling of what politics is really meant to be about:

The creation of something out of nothing.

The power to overcome against insurmountable odds.

The selfless sacrifice without hope of reward or recognition.

And it is these things that truly inspirational leaders prove to us time and again, in the annals of history, not by talk, which is cheap, but with great deeds.

And the greatest of these inspired us to follow their example of selfless giving and then also ennobled others through their realisation of becoming selfless givers too.
A passing of the baton that extends to this day, through five hundred thousands of our suns.

Today our Law courts spend much on the mediation between the laws that our political classes make and the people that they are charged to protect. Should the people need protection from our politicians? It appears that our judges believe that that may well be necessary and that many laws passed by statute need to be challenged in court in order to be ratified into law.

Our politicians continually claim that their lawmaking is in the interests of protecting the people, but that is not their job.

It is, however, and should be the job of the judicial classes. This does not mean an end to the adversarial nature of the British judicial system. Only a charging of judges with the keeping of safety of the people. That judges should be the ones to enact law by the ratification of it through the law courts and not politicians who are ill fitted to that role. For they should be the ones that bring prosecution for the public benefit and enunciate the law.

So then what for Politicians?
I believe that Politics is in the job of Justice.

But that the Law and Justice are often confused. For you can have one without the other.

Law is exerted when justice by other means has failed. *2
And that you can have justice even before the exertion of the law, this is often called ethics.
Politics should be in the job of providing for such Justice before recourse to Law.

It should be in the job of inspiring people to their better selves, of making provision for the less well of and for the future and of protecting the people wholesale.

But justice is by definition "the giving of each man his due".

And in this case is each man's due in relation to what he has earned or what is his right by way of being?

By way of being his right is to opportunity towards betterment. In this instance the state and the polity needs to provide for equal access towards opportunity. And provide every encouragement towards betterment.

This is the necessity of education. Education should better people and provide opportunity towards further betterment. If it does not make them better citizens and provide them with life and other skills then it is a failed education.

The right due to man because of what he has earned is that it is not diminished by any ulterior agency and not without good reason. By itself the earning of wealth does not diminish the wealth of others. However when that wealth exerts influence it can and does diminish the wealth of others and in those cases the state should guard against such occurrence where the economics of the marketplace is skewed towards the wealthy. This right therefore defines the right to justice. Such was the address of Abu Bakr as-Sadiq (ra) the first successor of our beloved Prophet (saw).

By extension a just state should be allowed to levy tax for those reasons of
-security, since security is essential for opportunity.
-education.
-law since justice is administered through it.
-the maintenance of a balanced marketplace and the encouragement of small business.
-and government to administer between their competing needs.

The provision of healthcare, a cornerstone of the modem state, falls beyond this pail.

Social care becomes a right through the saying of GOD in a Hadith Qudsi, "I was hungry, thirsty and destitute...". And this is a duty upon those that have towards those that have not. Whilst the redistribution here is there not to create a flat society but solely to alleviate suffering.

And so social care becomes a state responsibility by way of God's grace.

However in stark contrast the provision of healthcare cannot be found to be fundamental to the purpose of state. And therefore at best can solely be a common and not compulsory sadaqa. Common since it is a collective undertaking to provide for those who have not whilst also providing a service for those that contribute towards it. In essence the provision of Healthcare should be treated as a sadaqa by all those that undertake it, hoping to realise the Quranic injunction that any that saves a life it were as if they saved humanity as a whole.

And so I believe that a National Health Service is not a right to be enacted through the State but rather that it should be a voluntary and collective undertaking towards which all people should be given every encouragement. For those that contribute towards it, should see it as a voluntary and ongoing charity on par with those things that God loves most.

Notes:
*1- Politics as Influence.
Blog: "to sum a life".

*2- Law and Justice.
" Where the Justice of a Liberalism will always be too late.


*3- Abu Bakr as-Sadiq (as) and the defence of democracy.
Progressive Politics









- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

To sum a life

If I sum my life what measure could I glean?

Would I be like the man who measures his worth through the achievements of his son?
So that when a son does not fulfil his expectations he is destroyed and glum beyond measure. Isn't that just foolishness.

However isn't it true that to live you life through the lives of others is not a shameful thing to do. For after all isn't that what Politics is, in essence, all about? To some politics might be a dirty word, but in essence it is to exert influence further than your immediate reach. To enable men as a body to come together to achieve greater things than they could alone. Is that not the essence of what it means to be a real man?

Isn't that what Plato meant when he said that man is not truly a man until he lives in a Polis? To which man did Plato refer, the collective or the singular man? For each man is two such men, one public and the other private.

Whilst singly the best a man can achieve is bare survival, a public man living through the lives of others can accomplish much through such influence.

However isn't it true that no matter whichever man he is, all men will one fateful day face their final destiny singly and alone. And that therefore they can never face the summation of their lives through the lives of others, just as they cannot be accompanied through death. These are facts that all men should confront before their actualisation within themselves.

However I believe that there is a way in which such a man can face that eventuality through the lives of others. And that is when the influence such a man has exerted has not been for selfish ends. The best of which is when you enable others to realise their own unselfish and true nature. A passing of the baton that your successor might also act with the same interest and intent. And then the summation of your life might become an integration over a continuum.

How great our religion which taught us these essences in referring to Sadaqa al Jareeah; the continuous and ongoing Charities. That my self and my sum can be gleaned from those unselfish acts.

We started on this tract of thought by contemplating a man who seeks to live on, and achieve, through his children.
The difference between the two is that the latter influences those others through choice and not through compulsion.

And we neglected the first's brother who measures his life through the number of cattle that he possesses? Trinkets that he toys with. He will surely die. And his measure will be dire.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

I flailed and I flailed

I Flailed and I Flailed

I came upon myself
Unnerved and unnerving
My very emotions ate into themselves
But they did not dissipate
Nor dissolve
Except to reappear
A life unto their own.

A feast of anguish
That could not fill any hunger
Except there was no hunger there to fill
Save a pit, a bottomless pit
Through which I fell.

And all around me felt anguish at my anguish
The spread of a disease
The fear of the unknown.

I came upon myself
Happy and contented

My emotions beamed from me
As a lighthouse without shade
Without night
Without need of warning
Nor precarious dangerous surroundings
And all about me were glad.

I came upon myself
Sad and forlorn

My emotions lay me by the wayside
And life passed me by.
Until I realised the bootstrap
That I make my own way
Create my own life
Make my own happiness

I came upon myself
Cheerful and neglectful

I said to myself that whatever life throws my way
I will take on the chin
And then look away.
And I will dance and sing
And be merry even as the sun goes down.

I came upon myself
Lost, so lost.

And I wondered at my wrong
Where had I gone from that happy contented youth?
And I blamed and I blamed
And I flailed and I flailed

Until an angel whispered words of Peace
Responding to my remembrance words
From a glorious Quran.

And I found myself
Happy and contented.

And I found myself
Happy and contented.

Shafeesthoughts


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Looking Glass

The Looking Glass.

What meaning cAnst you place in one verse?
Hold it tight
Squeeze with might

Imagine that your poem is a bottle out to sea.
What echo would you wish to bleed
Into that vessel bound.

For horiZons that you cannot see.
Or with a fiery tongue,
You might place therein the curse of Djinn.

But imagine that your verVe could inspire,
People to deliver.
On hope, and hope, and hope.

How much the better.


That the magic that you weave,
With words of silk and satin'd lace,
Merely clothe a box with nowt within.

Tied with a bow,
To make so special.
That they themselves might find within.

So great a present,
Would that be.
If realised
If actualised

But better yet still
A thing that could inspire at will
Whose words would sweep you with mystery

Profound
Yet of no nonsense speak
One that could make yourself
anew.

Anew
Renew
That ancient bond of trust you took

Stay true, my friend.
Stay true.

For if you would just polish it.
That then you could be the looking glass.

Shafi..
-------------------------------

And the Messenger of God was known to those who knew him, as the walking Qur'an-
The Recitation.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Leaves me to adventure in faraway lands.

Leaves me to adventure in faraway lands.

Gulls call,
Soar and sweep.
Yonder hand that feeds them
With scraps of meat.

Ever is the way with all.
That nourishment comes where
Least looked for.
Waste not, want not says the Master.

All except for men.
Who goad and bitter death.
Who look not for return.
Prince and proudly they would stand.

Until the leveller passes them by,
That then their limbs might fall and die.
And then for them be no return.
And yet the sea, yet rages on.

For industry will not let lie.
Death be gone.
Let me finish this song.

Unfurl my sails.
Depart these shores,
Leave me to adventure in
Faraway lands.

--------------
Wrote after reading "in cabin'd ship at sea".

Notes-
In the Qur'an GOD declares that HE provides nourishment to all creatures from places that we cannot see or fathom.

Including man.
Excepting man.
For where man goes,
And those that rely on him,
Want and hunger will follow.

Except at the end of days.
See. Surah Kouirat.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Grey Skies

Grey Skies

Sunday morning football,
Bitter cold.
Pale skies.

A national institution to rival the devoutful,
Both bearing with patience
The scorn of these climes.

Frozen hands and numb limbs.
Every bit just as much screaming for salvation

As the rest of them.
Except not for consolation,
But for a hot running bath,

And an oven roast.
Not for us a clear conscience
Sought in chapels and spires.

But the mud
And the rough and the tumble
Of men being made boys,

Who have no foibles
For whom competition is King
And morality is in the win.

A game to be played
On the field with a ball.

But later still,
with the lives of men,
In war torn countries and in the boardroom.

Where morality is a bye word,
A lie word.

Not anchored to an absolute tradition,
But left to blow by blow.

Nor less culpable,
Than those that of heaven, sing.

Just a newer way,
To the same gaol.

Soon the north wind will begin to bite...

End.

---------------------------------------

Addendum.

Soon the north wind will begin to bite.

Bite and Chaff.

Safe is he with firm shield,
Blessed be he who holds the pass.

And guided be he,
That knows that might,

Might not be right.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Can miracles sometimes be bad?

A loved one hangs long,
to dear life.

And you are torn between.
Until.

The memories pain,
And you sanctify them
Eulogise them
Celebrate in their falseness.

A falseness you know and feel
And yet you want more of them.

Can miracles sometimes be bad?

When a person we cannot exist without,
passes on?

And we exist solely, lonely,
miraculously

Life goes on.

End.
A response to a poem by Conor.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Stray

The Stray

My second Hajj was phenomenal not just because of the multitude performing the rites all together and at the same time; a kaleidoscope of peoples and cultures. Nor because of the necessity of relying on other people within your group and helping still others. Nor because of the nearness of God to our everyday necessities and duas through simple remembrances.

But mostly because after the days of Hajj had finished a slow realisation of our state had once again dawned on me.

I try my best to perform simple acts of goodness; like the placing of my prayer mat under one who needs it after my own obligation had finished, or the simple salutations of "Hajj Mabrur" to my fellow Hajis from different nations with a smile and a hug even when we can only communicate in sign. And then on the road outside our residence in Aziziye I encouraged and helped a friend of mine feed a stray gangly cat.

The following day I entered the Grand Mosque at Mecca to pray my Jumaa Salaat. The Imam cried in the Khutbah when he recollected the great personalities of our glorious past and the people were moved. I have always had a disdain for people who cry in speeches ever since Abu Muntasir cried when talking about "these people".

Sincerity is never as simple as the shedding of tears. Nasser performed it to perfection and whilst some might argue that his aims were nationalistic, and ours are Islamic, the parallel is the same "what gain is there to be had from it other than pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible?"

Was the Imam speaking from the heart even when we realise that his was a Nationally scripted Khutbah? For all the Saudi emphasis on the Sunnah, did the Prophet (saw) ever cry whilst giving a sermon?

(I have heard that Imam Ali (ra) cried whilst giving a sermon. But I have not looked into the context of that, nor verified its truth.)

And then on the way back to our hotel I saw another emaciated kitten and I could not help it. Recollections of small things that I had seen over the past days caused my heart to tremble first in anguish and then in anger.
But I did not cry, nor shed a tear.

A Turkish woman threatening another cat at a distance with a pipe or other implement, whilst her husband or male relative smiled on as if it were comedy. Piles of food left on the street not out of consideration for the animals of the kingdom but because of sheer waste. With such waste why are the cats of the kingdom not well fed?

The picture that pained my mind was that mercy had left this Ummah. That whilst GOD is known as ar-Rahman, for most Muslims this is simply a verbal intonation and not a pressing invitation to emulation. That just with that Imam on that day his tears and his anguish belong in the books that he reads but do not extend to the everyday lives of our people.

In stark contrast to the lives of the companions who fell over backwards in trying to help one another. Theirs was not a socialist society but a 100% mercantile and capitalist society. The imam remembered them with tears but could not frame that remembrance as a call to action for the Muslims not here, not now. The obvious reason for such a lack is that he himself did not feel that same passion for the here and now Muslims.

Off course I could be wrong with regard to that particular Imam, but I know that I'm not wrong when it comes to Imams in general. For our Prophet (saw) informed us that we will get the leaders that we deserve. Did he use the word AMIR or IMAM when referring to those leaders? I do not know.

And being at present far from home, my books and the internet I cannot check.

But I can surmise.
The Prophet (saw) also informed us that each Prophet was a shepherd (Shwan in Persian) before he became an imam of his people. The shift from shepherd to one of imam was a shift from caring to one of leading from the front.

That an imam must also care for his flock can be seen by the fact that the greatest of imams, Muhammad (saw), was blessed with the miracle of being able to see through his thighs in both Ruku and Sadja. What use that miracle if he were not supposed to care for each and everyone of them even whilst he led them from the front.

But whilst a shepherd leads from the back and cares for the weakest as a means of caring for them all, an Imam leads from the front and the people play catchup. An Imam's job is to educate, to think about how to better the people's situations, to plan and then to mobilise the people to action by encouraging words and by, more importantly, example.

At the battle of Tabuk the Prophet (saw) mobilised his men to action against a threat from Rome. The Prophet (saw) lead from the front and arrived at the oasis first. Abu Dharr al Gifari (ra) narrates that he had a slow and old mount and he fell behind. The Prophet (saw) did not slow the army's march, but on arrival looked out across the dessert anxiously hoping that Abu Dharr (ra) would fulfil his obligation. And when he saw him walking through the dessert he was happy. Abu Dharr (ra) had realised that his mount would not carry him any further and dismounting let it go, knowing that it would find its way back to Medina. He continued on foot wishing to fulfil the command and follow the example of his Imam, and that during one of the hottest summers.

This is how an Imam acts, he consults, surmises, thinks and articulates about a position. And then he puts it into action and first with himself. He provides you with the boundaries to know what needs to be done and then leaves you to accomplish it. And then he looks out for you and aids you in it.

Most of our Imams do none of these things.

The Prophet (saw) said that we will get the leaders that we deserve. And yet an Imam leads and does not follow the people. This contradictory circle can only be squared when we realise that our leaders are not leaders, and when we cease to accept and honour
-those that cry on the pulpit,
-those that do not preface their words with meaningful action,
-those that do not lead by example,
-those that do not make their prime motive the betterment of the lot of their people,
-those that keep their heads in their books.

For those who keep their heads in their books they should remain in the scholastic classes but let them not aspire to being Imams of the People. For they are the bane of our World.

It is they who have failed the Prophet's (saw) nation miserably.

Why do I say that?
Because of what I have seen of the lack of mercy present in our Nation. Because of the lack of cleanliness on this city's streets. Granted five million people will create a lot of mess, but an Imam's job should be to help people on the ways of belief. And our Prophet (saw) instructed us that the least of it is picking up something from the way that people walk. Then what about providing receptacles to encourage people to dispose of their trash easily?

Such simple things can make a world of difference to everyone's experience.

When all of that has been said, Muslims are still one of the most generous and trustworthy people.

A Muslima had left her wallet in a taxi. The taxi driver only found it on arrival back in Jedda from Mecca. He drove all the way back to Mecca to fulfil his trust and refused a reward.

All of these good acts are not because of our Imams but in spite of them.

And in spite of them Mecca is the greatest of cities. Made great by what lies at its centre and then by the myriad noble people that come to go about it.

Later I will inshaAllah write about the Hajj in particular.

Shafeesthoughts.
At the centre of the World.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Islam a Religion of Peace? The development of Jihad

The development of Jihad; part 2.
Please read part1 first- find it ... how-can-islam-claim-to-be-religion-of-PEACE?

VICTORY
"VERILY, [O Muhammad,] We have laid open before you a manifest and clear victory" (S. Fath)

War is fought by men to fulfill specific purposes, that when achieved are called victorious.

The victory, termed by the God of the Qur'an in this verse as a clear and manifest one, was not achieved by War, nor the threat of War. Furthermore the following verse makes an example of it for all time, making it not a contextual victory but a resounding victory. A very real example of what Islam desires to this day.

That victory there refers to a Peace Treaty.

Specifically the treaty of Hudabiyyah that Muhammad (saw) entered into with Quraysh whilst all of his companions and helpers could only fathom the one-sidedness of it all. They saw from it only that the Muslims would garner further ill-treatment from Quraysh, their enemies of thirteen plus years, and yet Muhammad (saw) entered into it willingly with neither fear nor force brought to bear, and in order to secure Peace.

And it occurred when Muhammad (saw) ventured to make a peaceful pilgrimage to the Sacred City of Mecca. And from it stemmed a full year of Peace in the Arabian Peninsula until Quraysh broke armistice.

It is a remarkable story, so unbelievable in its detail as to make it absolutely convincingly true. And not just to the believer. *1 (the-coming-comforter-a-physical-proof!)

But what matters if you really want to understand Islam is not what, or how, other people interpret it but how the majority of well versed Muslim believers interpret it. *2 (What-are-cultural-truths?)

The claim that the Qur'an as a book promotes War, and is in essence evil, is based upon a non-contextual reading of its text and a cherry picking of its injunctions.

In fact such people are want to always accuse Muslims of hiding behind context.

However Muslims believe that the whole of the Qur'an is God's revelation sent down to Muhammad (saw) over a period of the 23 years of his mission.

Not only does that time span necessitate a contextual analysis but the Qur'an itself instructs us in that necessity. First by directly talking about those incidents during the Prophet's life and then by verses that refer to the primacy of seeking an understanding of its meaning. *3 (the-perfection-of-god's-favour-and-search-for-meaning.)

The CONTEXT.
In fact the theme of constancy and perseverance that underpins the Muslim conception of a fight against injustice; Jihad; starts within the first 13 years of the Meccan period.
And during that time the first Muslims bore their persecution with patience. Their poor and helpless were martyred whilst they could not, and did not raise a hand to stop that.
Muhammad (saw) reminded those that complained of their inability to help their brothers with the example of the people before them who had their skin scraped from their backs, and some who were ripped in two, all because they said ALLAH is One. A reference to the Nasarene before them.

This persecution did not affect them psychologically and we see the merit of their religion in the way that they treated the Qurayshi captives after the battle of Badr. *4 (The-quality-of-the-badr-ee)

For Islam taught the lessons of perseverance and patience well.
That it is not piety to not feel injustices bitter bite, but it is piety to recognise injustice, feel it's loss and then still continue to be just and true. And so the first Muslims suffered the persecution of their brothers and sisters, not in silence, but with hope. The hope that in the end they would be free to live their faith without fear.

Much of the further development of Jihad follows on from an understanding of the mission of Muhammad (saw). And like the great Messengers before him, his mission was manifold.
*5 (The-many-missions-of-jesus-(may-GOD-be-pleased-with-him)

"And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Quran, that you may warn the mother city and those around it, and that you may give warning of the day of gathering together wherein is no doubt", a verse of the Qur'an that reveals three of the recipients of the message of Muhammad (saw).

The MOTHER CITY.
For he was sent to Quraysh, his people of Mecca, the mother of all cities, that belied him. And then to "those around it" being a reference to all the cities and people around Mecca and for whom the Mufassireen tell us is a reference to the whole of the World. And then the third referenced by GOD is in His reminding us that it is an Arabic Qur'an, is the Arab Nation, the Umiyoon, or unlettered people of the Arabian Peninsula. A people descended of Ismail, the son of Abraham, who had not received a messenger for themselves until that time. And for whom the Qur'an informs us that Abraham (as) supplicated that they be given one.

The import of the first mission can be seen in the fact that Muhammad (saw) delayed leaving Mecca until he had first gained permission from GOD, most High, for the emigration.

PERSECUTION
The persecution of the Muslims instead of abating with the thirteen long years of the Meccan period actually continued with equal vigour. And then God opened up the hearts of the people of another city, Yathrib. And after the two treaties of Aqaba were concluded the Muslims slowly and quietly emigrated, with Muhammad (saw) permission, to that peaceful oasis that later became known as The City, or Medina. In the year of grief, Muhammad (saw) suffered a two fold loss and his protection amongst Quraysh waivered. For before that time his grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, a great chief of Mecca kept him safe from the wiles of Quraysh and allowed him to continue the call, in safety, to ONE GOD. Once buried the mantle of chieftainship of Muhammad's tribe, Banu Hashim, passed to the Prophets uncle, Abu Lahab, so named because of his enmity and hatred towards Islam and his nephew. But no matter how much he might deride Muhammad (saw), he could not act openly against him because of the nature of Chieftaincy. His role in that position was one of protection of his tribe irrespective of how base they might descend. And furthermore Muhammad (saw) was of noble blood, being the orphan son of his younger brother Abdullah, of a hundred camels.

In the end Abu Lahab did consent for Quraysh to murder Muhammad (saw) on the proviso that each tribe be party to that heinous crime, so that he could then claim that he could not as he should, exact blood revenge against the whole of Quraysh.

And only with the plan of action did GOD release Muhammad (saw) from the first mission, and grant him permission to leave Mecca.

During that period the command to strive in the way GOD was one of by word, argument and example;
"So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it" (S. Furqan). The word for striving here is Jihad.

Examining the context above shows that this striving, or Jihad, was not one of against the self as is so often proposed nowadays by proponents who claim that an eschatological Sufism is the underlying thought within Islam.*6 (Was-there-ever-such-a-thing-as-islamic-sufism?)

Islam was eschatological and yet more importantly concerned with the here and now as a forerunner to that eventuality. It emphasised the unity of man whilst at the same time being confrontational in regards to the disparity it saw in the beliefs of men and their actions. It never was an inward path but always a means of ironing out the consequence of true belief, as opposed to the hypocrisy of false beliefs.

After the emigration to Medina the believers who had lost everything in that flight from oppression; their homes, livelihoods and sometimes even their families; were given permission to fight.

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them....." S. Hajj.

This is the last proof required to confirm that during the first 13 years of the nascent call to Islam in Mecca, the believers did not fight a physical Jihad, but a mental, psychological and confrontational "striving" against all that was wrong.

It also highlights the definition that God, most high, gives to war. For the Muslims referred to there had no standing army, and nor did they retaliate but still war was fought against them. Most definitely war occurs between two opposing sides, and this verse pertinently asks us as to how the Muslims opposed the Quraishi oppression; torture and vilification; they did so with fortitude, patience and a belief in the ultimacy of goodness (al-husna).

COMMUNITY
With the formation of that community at Medina, and the development of it into a distinct Nation (Ummah), Jihad became a struggle for the protection of that Nation and Community against exterior political forces. This was enacted by Muhammad (saw) in the Constitution of Medina which saw a universal protection extend to all Medinese irrespective of belief. And was emphasised in the Quranic injunctions that encouraged all to fight against oppression.

Surah Baqara, revealed within the early Medinan period, lays the foundation stone for the Islamic conception of what a Muslim Nation should look like:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

"Fight those who fight you" sounds nothing like an all out call to arms against everybody. The second verse in that series reads:

"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."

Contextually this refers to Mecca and to Quraish who threw the Muslims out of their homes. But obviously the injunction for fighting against oppression is made general by the verse that living under it is worse than death. This is not war-mongering but a very realistic political view that if oppression visits you then it is your duty to fight body and soul to remove it from yourselves and your people.
Rather than being a negative instruction, this is, when examined in detail, a call to primacy of freedom. That freedom is worth sacrificing for, and sacrificing the whole of you and all of your people, to that end is a need that must be. *7 (Ghandhi-jinna-and-the-pianist!)

Irrespective of how you read the second verse in this series, it is obviously an addendum to that first verse that defines war as being essentially defensive.

And then the next verses read:
"But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

This then gives the limits referred to in the first verse above, the injunction "But do not transgress the limits" for when they cease fighting, you too incline to Peace.

Some Mufassireen do equate disbelief with oppression but this is from a theological point if view.
*8 (The-fallacy-of-disbelief!)

However when we read the life of the Prophet (saw) we see clear examples of him extending the hand of Peace and concluding Peace Treaties with Arab and non-Arab tribes even whilst they still disbelieved in him. Muhammad (saw) is known by Muslims to be the walking Quran and it is his example that explains the Quran in all aspects including this one.

(narrative *9)

And that was also the case with the Treaty of Hudabiyyah mentioned at the beginning. An occurrence that happened well after the revelation of S. Baqara above.

Muhammad (saw) as a man, leader and Messenger of GOD never did break any treaty and was always want to give easy terms in the conclusion of those treaties.

As a Muslim we are commanded to follow the example of Muhammad (saw).

Following the Quraish breaching the armistice, of Hudabiyyah, Muhammad (saw) marched on Mecca. He did so, not in revenge for the thirteen years of persecution that his followers suffered under Quraysh, but because the emissaries of the tribe, that had allied itself to Medina and then had suffered by Quraysh indiscretion of their unmet obligations, demanded the justice of retribution. Muhammad (saw) did not immediately rally the banners of war and conquest, so much so that his chief Qurayshi adversary went to Medina to plead the case that Peace should continue. But the demand to fulfil the obligation of treaty carried greater weight.

Mecca was his home of 53 years, thirteen of them sorrowed by Quraish's rejection of the best of their sons. The centre of the Muslim Universe, at whose centre lies the Kaba, a pure house, raised by Abraham (as) of old for the worship of the One True GOD.

Muhammad (saw) entered Mecca peacefully. Neither did he ride a war stead, nor did he captain any men; but he rode Qaswa the camel that brought him to Medina nine years earlier. He entered Mecca with bowed head, and cleansed the courtyard of all idolatry and forgave those who had trespassed against him.

All of Arabia fell completely under the influence of Islam.

But whilst idolatry had vanished from Mecca, it still remained the centre of pilgrimage for the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and there the idolatrous tribes were still allowed to practice those rites.
For one by one they had all entered into treaties of Peace with Muhammad (saw) and Medina.

Peace ruled in Arabia once again. And Muhammad (saw) received deputations from people outside of Arabia, notably the Christian Arab tribes of Syria.

The VERSE OF THE SWORD.
And then GOD revealed At-Tauba.
A chapter of the Qur'an that lacks the customary dedication, known as the basmallah which reads: "In the name of GOD the most gracious, the most merciful".

This was a phenomenal event that even most Muslims to this day fail to contemplate. And is even left unexplained by most Seerah books.

It is a question that every student of the Prophet's (saw) life must and should ask: "Why is at-Tauba not prefaced with the BasmAllah?"

And it is a question that needs to be constantly revisited. *10.

One of the greatest reason for the lack of the BasmAllah is that by it GOD is emphasising that what followed, on from it, came directly from GOD and that Muhammad (saw) had no part in it.

Whilst everyone agrees that the BasmAllah is part of the Qur'an its prefixing of the Chapters is an indication that Muhammad (saw) spoke only what was revealed to him. That Muhammad (saw) was the proxy and GOD's representative on Earth.

Surah Tauba did something that Muhammad (saw) would never do, it signalled the end of treaties. And by the lack of that BasmAllah, GOD said this is from me directly. That HE who has absolute right over all things, directly broke all of their treaties.

When it was revealed Abu Bakr (as) was on his way to lead the Hajj at Mecca. Muhammad (saw) immediately sent Ali (ra) with the revelation that it might become known and declared to all Arabs. And he explained that his sending of Ali (ra) would be so that the people might know that the revelation had come from him.

Ali (ra) declared it to the people without the usual reminder of God's mercy. This incredible act meant that Muhammad (saw) was saved from compromising on his way (sunnah); that treaties once entered into must be honoured. Furthermore since it was Ali (ra) that declared it to the people the Christian application that "He shall not speak of himself" was maintained as being reserved for Muhammad (saw).

What followed were the verses of war. And the Arab tribes were given notice that all treaties and contracts with the Muslims would become null and void after a period of grace.

Contextually those verses refer to the third group of people to whom the Prophet (saw) was sent. And these were the Umiyoon, the unlettered Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. We know this because the revelation itself specifies and talks directly to the tribes that were making pilgrimage to the Holy House.

Surah Tauba is after all an Arabic revelation to the Arab People of the Arabian Peninsula and NOT the Arab people of Sham or Egypt or elsewhere. And not to Muslims in general.

By it GOD sought to purify not just Mecca, but the whole of Arabia from idolatry.

The proof of this understanding is that whilst the treaties were broken with the Arab tribes, Muhammad (saw) maintained the treaties with the Arab tribes of Syria and no War was declared on them even after they failed to become Muslim, after the period of grace. There was no compulsion in religion for them.

The revelation of Tauba, of the Arabic Quran, was a direct challenge to the Arab Muslim tribes to cleanse Arabia of disbelief. Was this uncompromising view humanistic? No it was not.

However, it was to and for the Arab Nation to decide how to tackle that particular problem. They did so with eminence, fully backing the Islamic vision and thereby changed World history. And they are honoured allegorically in the heart of the Qur'an.

The importance in our understanding of the development of Jihad is that what followed on from the revelation of Tauba concerned the Arabian Peninsula only. That it was an Arabic revelation to the Arabian Peninsula's people only.

This was the understanding of all five of the great Imams of our religion.

That the normal rules of war that applied outside of the peninsula, and are espoused in Surah Baqara above, do not apply within that peninsula. And furthermore that this understanding and command is not for any non-peninsula Arab to act upon even that is in regard to the peninsula. Save only for those people ennobled by this direct message.

And this explains the following general verse of the Qur'an:

"Thus, have We made of you a justly balanced Nation, that ye might be witnesses over all the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves".

That the religion does not seek to overwhelm by force all other Nations. That the context of limitless war was bounded by its reference to the Arab tribes of the Arabian peninsula only.

And furthermore this was not the way of the one we were commanded to follow, Muhammad (saw) the Messenger of God, who forever will be blessed.

The WAY of MUHAMMAD (saw), and the THIRD GREATEST MISSION.
It was he (saw) who exactly one year after that declaration of war, and after all of the Arab tribes had formally entered Islam in Peace, reminded them on the great day of Hajj that...

"no Arab is superior to a non-Arab".

A hint that theirs was a duty sacred.
A universal message of Peace carried to the World by a people graced with the greatest of Messengers.

And a fulfilment of the third and greatest of the missions vested in Muhammad (saw), the Messenger of God, that he might warn all of the cities surrounding Mecca to the ends of the World.

And I bear witness that, by God's mighty grace, Muhammad (saw) has fulfilled that third and greatest of Missions and that I have believed in ALLAH t'ala, the One.

May God reward Muhammad (saw) and those who assisted him, and still do, in his task with untold blessings.
For there never was such a man, or such a time, Muhammad (saw) the proof of Merciful God. May he forever be blessed. *11 (A-celebration-of-prophet-in-poetry)

Shafees.
Disclaimer: this is my opinion and I am no Scholar. I write solely to stimulate your thought and then for you to investigate things for yourself and then to ask of Scholars.
Nor do I write to spoon feed.
Nor is this an explanation, or a justification, of what is sometimes wrongly presented as Jihad in this day.

Jihad ennobles you, and if it does not then it is not Jihad.

NOTES:
*1 -An appreciation of the apparent /gross contradiction present within the narrative (which can be explained) only serves as a proof of its authenticity. This also applies to the live of Jesus (as), the Messenger of God, see here:
The Coming Comforter; a Physical Proof

*2-
What are cultural truths and how can we justify them? Islam fulfils all of those requirements when it is considered that it was opposed from inception, and despite its opposition by the whole of Arabia, won through. The text of Islam, the Qur'an, details that opposition with clarity. And whilst today's truth might be at odds with the then Islamic truth it is not our interpretation of those truths that is the real yardstick in such matters.
See here for an explanation:
Cultural TRUTHS

*3- The proof that the life of the Messenger of GOD, Muhammad (saw), as being instrumental for understanding the Quran is found when we consider the verse "This day I have perfected my favour to you, o Mankind, and chosen for you Islam as your religion". See here for a fuller explanation:
The Perfection of GOD's Favour


*4 please see this blog for a fuller explanation of what happened on that day.
Badr-ee

*5 see here for a complex appreciation of the message of Jesus (as):
The many missions of JESUS (as).

*6 see here for a refutation of Sufism being at all considered Islamic:
Was there ever such a thing as ISLAMIC SUFISM

And here to appreciate the Worldly nature of the Islamic Message:
Heaven and EARTH

And

There are no gods

*7 read to the end of the following blog to get to victimization:
Gandhi-jii Jinnah and the Pianist

*8
The Fallacy of Polytheism and Atheism

*9 Intervening in the narrative of this blog are two fundamentally important events 1- The Battle of Uhud which reinforced the message of patience for a Muslim community exalted by belief, and furthermore that the victory is not for us, but for GOD. And we fight not to win but to be true. The interpretation of Uhud is fundamental for anyone who wants to know what Jihad is. 2- The establishment of community led to the development of a second hidden enemy who could not be fought but for whom the Muslims had to be constantly vigilant about, these were the hypocrites. How Muhammad (saw) dealt with these people is another lesson in the patient perseverance of what Jihad means.
These two aspects deserve a second blog.

*10 For the BasmAllah is potentially the greatest part of the religion that marks out Islam as being the modern religion, see the latter part of this blog:
The Fallacy of Polytheism and Atheism

*11 The life of the greatest of men in poetry:
A Celebration of the Prophet.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Mombasa, a poem

Mombasa.
What can I say,
Your beaches golden as hay.

Corny.

Brazen by equatorial sun,
Unspoilt by the mess of the world.
Desolate from the Faranjee that come.

Who stay holed up by the pool bar.
Missive of the best of the World.
Golden beaches, palm shade, sun.

Warm Indian Ocean waters,
drenching your shores,
quenching our desire for more.

Sated, peaceful and calm.
Ready for the mess of the world.
But stay you aloof from it all.

Stay you, unspoilt.
Till I once again come.

Hustle, bustle.
Mombasa Town.
Kahwa on a street stall.

Narrow lanes,
Hidden industry.
Red sweet sticky halwa.

Birazee, mandazi too.
What can I say.
O Mombasa, I love you xxx.

Stay you, unspoilt.
Till I once again come.

END.
Written in the departures lounge of Mombasa's International Airport.
On request by my brother in law, Osman Varvani, for a poem about us.

We are Mombasa,
Mombasa is us.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Bamburi

Why the Greeks didn't do Science

The Greeks, for all their mental acumen and veritable gymnastics, never did Science!

Theirs was confined to a philosophical appreciation of the World. For whilst the story of Science, in the Western Hemisphere, nearly always starts with Galileo gazing up at the Heavens and finding there something that just neatly fit with his mathematical theory. 

The Greeks had looked there long before that and even formulated ideas that related to the World at large, and not just the Heavens above.

Their elemental philosophy was extremely powerful at explaining things. But the difference between our Science and theirs is not in explanatory power, but in ours being generative of still more questions and frontiers of endeavour.

Some may argue that Archimedes with his Eureka moment was the birth of Science as we know it. But the Archimedial principle of buoyancy was based upon the original four element theory. And more importantly whilst it explained, it did not generate.

For the Greeks held that the elements were four, with each seeking its natural place: AIR. FIRE. WATER. EARTH.

Earth sought earth, and things fell to the ground.
Water sought water, with rivers flowing into the sea.
Air sought air, with bubbles rising through fluids.
Fire sought the ephemeral fire of the Heavens, both causing devastation here on Earth and dissipating above.

And Archimedes's EUREKA was borne of his realisation that that seeking could also be a negative force of rejection. That the buoyancy that you experienced in a bath was a nett result of the water trying to reject you from its medium.
A perfect explanation if there ever was one.

Was it the power of this explanatory idea that held them back from further investigation?

Or was it that they lacked some other basic fundamental conception of the World?

Some have argued that they were too comfortable to do Science, too rich and too fat, but that belies the truth of their fragmentary states and politics, and does no justice to their brilliance.

Their explanatorily powerful elemental idea did fail them in one respect. For they held that a flying arrow, flew straight and then fell vertically once out of sight.

Indeed the Science of warfare should have been a pressing concern of theirs given their continually fluxing political situation. And even the Archimedean principle would have been employed to great effect in their construction of sea-faring vessels.

So what gave?
They would have noticed the imperfect parabolas of slower arrows. Then why not extrapolate from known to unknown as is the normal basis for all rational thought? From the parabolas that they saw to the parabolas that were out of sight?

But instead they resorted to their elemental theory and furthermore claimed a special case: that the slower arrows were imperfect, and the faster arrows perfect and so flew till their flying power was expended and then fell vertically.

The erroneousity of this may be easily apparent to us here and now, but imagining yourself within the powerful explanatory world view of the Greek elements and it is not so.

It would take something far stronger than the minds of brilliant men to give us Modern Science.

It took a conviction of a belief in the Universality of GOD given laws and their consistency.
And then an insistence that there are things worth researching and looking in to.

A revelation from GOD, the most High,

"and NO change will you find in the Sunnat-Ullah (Ways of GOD)".

"He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out."

From an Arabic Qu'ran that launched the whole of mankind on a path towards self betterment.
A fact little known.
Of a people now disdained.

END

Written on the flight out of Gatwick, over Africa onward to Mombasa.
Thank you Thompson Airlines for your hospitality.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Mombasa

Does Belief Dumb Down?

Does BELIEF dumb down?

This questions hangs on two others.

On the one hand, belief at its most basic is about discernment, and the classification of the World on the basis of arbitrary terminology such as good and bad, right and wrong. But it is that judgement call, however arbitrary, that forces the Believer to think.

Furthermore morality, which is the prime concern of Believers, is often framed as judgements based on consequence. Consequence is a distant subject for thought, dealing both with far reaching ramifications and futures. These are not easy subjects to converse on, let alone present arguments about.

Which after all is what the Believer has to do both for himself and for his fellows. For when you make that judgment call, you invite the contrary both in thought and deed, both in yourself and others. For that is the nature of man, who after all is but a child of Adam. And then once invited, you must muster argument to justify yourself.

And on the other hand belief at its most basic is opposed to ignorance. For a believer "knows" and trusts his belief. Whilst the admittance of ignorance is certainly a motor for the pursuit of knowledge, belief does not readily lend itself to that pursuit there.

But it is the field within which belief operates there that explains the dynamic between these two poles.

For belief as regards the Muslim nation is clearly defined as being of six parts, collected into three themes. These are GOD, His Oneness and attributes, the communication of knowledge of Him, and His Ways, from Himself to ourselves and then our ultimate return back to Him. They relate to things which are invisible, and hence immune to reasonable question.

And so whilst these are taken as a given, by the believer, they leave open the question of how those beliefs impact on our everyday concerns. And whilst a believer might muster arguments in regard to the moral consequence of action using his or her beliefs, these as a rule do not preclude him/her from further examination of those questions. And in some cases they only provide the bedrock for the further examination of consequence.

So for example for a materialist person all research using embryos might be just Science doing what Science does, but for the believer such questions might hinge on the cases where such research is desirable, permissible and then plain wrong.

The thought processes of such a believer are therefore the more complex than the equivalent materialist.

And since the believer might elucidate cases, in those cases each would need their own justification. A more complex process and definitely not a dumbing down.

Isn't this a far superior version of rational behaviour that what masquerades as such in our time: the championship of freedom of expression when it is just plain stupid. Much of that that masquerades as rational is just that, the lack of discernment and the championship of the plain. Even down to the plain silly notion that there is no division between life and non-life, consciousness and dumbness.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Bromley

Why I choose ISLAM

It is a daily choice to be a Submitter. Not least because of the daily vilification that we have to bear courtesy of our main stream media.

But possibly most when we are faced with justifying our belief, to ourselves, when we come into contact with our own who have forsaken theirs. These call themselves Muslims in a cultural tome mimicking our cousin-brothers; the People of the Book; being the Yuhood and the Nasara.

Well today my belief was shaken in that way and not by the hardship of Ramadhan's long London fasts; lasting a full eighteen plus hours in searing 27 degrees without hydrating fluids; nor by some arrogant rationalist that could not see past the end of his nose, but by a young man who claimed to be Muslim and yet paradoxically did not know, and even shied away, from the defining words of our Shahadah.

But then I remembered that this Islam of mine is a choice; a choice I choose to make. A choice that my religion emphasises to me at the two corners of each day, with the Sunnahs of Fajr and Maghrib where by convention we recite individually Kafiroon followed by Ikhlas in the two circuits of prayer.

And I make that choice with good reason, for I believe in the ascendency and primacy of hope.
That there is MORE.

And that such a belief can have a profound effect on the behaviour of men.

For when men allow fear to reign their psyche look what happens; "They ended up focusing on just those last few seconds and minutes of the struggle, and did George Zimmerman fear for his life? And that's really what it boiled down to for them".

The jury in their negatively fuelled stupidity focused on FEAR. Whether or not Tray Martin was to be feared never entered into their deliberations. A travesty of a judgement that did no truth to the facts and yielded justice to injustice.

And this is one solitary example of what effect fear, or the lack of hope, can have on mans behaviour.

It is the hope that there is MORE that makes me a better person;
More trusting
More generous
More truthful and kind and in the end
More Happy.

And so I choose Islam.
And I believe.
And I submit to GOD in the hope of His grace and mercy.

And I choose Islam because it provides me with a codex of rituals that are abundantly graceful and accessible. That give structure to my daily life and enable me to find both solace and meaning. And I am not ashamed of that.

And I choose Islam because it is not hidden nor shrouded in mystery, so much so that those who make it their duty to destroy it have full access to its sources. But they cannot because they fail to see its heart.

And I choose Islam because no matter what, there can be no denying Muhammed (saw). That he changed the history of the World in the most marvellous of ways, may he (saw) forever be blessed.

And so by God's abundant grace I am Muslim, may He deign to keep me so. Ameen.

Location:Sulaymaniyah

The Miraculous Eyebrow

The Miraculous Eyebrow

I, for one, have never attempted this experiment. Nevertheless it is telling.

"Shave your eyebrow, just the one. And watch it grow right back."

Obviously the trick is not in the timescale, since it would take a few weeks.

The real trick is in the contemplation of the regrowth of the eyebrow. So complete is its enaction of what it was, that the pair would never ever seem to have been parted at all.

Contemplate.
Can evolutionary genetics account for this complete fulfilment of what was?

We know that hair in different parts of the body behave differently, and that their fineness in one part might be coded for separately from their coarseness in another part of your body.

We know that DNA, the very stuff of our genetic code, provides a template for protein expression and the relative abundance of one protein, over another, in one type of hair follicle, over another in another part of the body, might account for different tensile strengths and different grades of brittleness.
And that this might account for there being short hair and long hair in different parts of your body, and even different thicknesses of hair types.

But the eyebrow is miraculous.

It grew back and then stopped growing. Or it grew at a moderate pace and then it's pace of growth slowed to the imperceptible.

Either way it's hair grew until it had formed completely the shape of your previous eyebrow and then stopped or slowed.

How did it know when to slow or stop growth?

How did each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow know when it's desired length had been reached?

Although I don't generally like to labour a point, I feel that I need to here for the devil is in the detail.

For if we take the materialist point, and the genetic point, then each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow would have coded within it it's particular protein composition.

And if its matter of growth was given by the brittleness of its composition then wouldn't it be a probabilistic expression of that particular nature. Might not one overgrow, and another undergrow.

Still more incredible is its growing at a moderate rate, and then slowing the rate of growth when a particular length had been achieved.

The materialist will say that it doesn't know when to stop, and that it is just our projection of ourselves on to it.

That we know, and that it can't and so doesn't. Sounds a bit dogmatic doesn't it?

The funny thing is that that is not how rationality works.
Rationality moves from known to unknown and not in the reverse direction.

And whilst we know that we know, perhaps the very definition of consciousness, to impart ignorance to other things without proof of such is a movement in a reverse direction. It is an assault on the very essence of rationality itself.

The foundation of Modern Science ASSUMES that objects that are non-living, and even some that might be living, do not and cannot know.

Modern Science tells us that "genes" are not living and do not know.
That the hair follicles in an eyebrow are governed by such not-knowing genes.

Then how so the EYE-BROW?

Of course another explanation might be that the eyebrow has purpose and knows its purpose and seeks to fulfil its purpose.

Crazy as it may seem, it explains the thing in a language which is more readily rational, in that we can relate to it more easily than dead robotics, than current Science.

In fact this current of thought was at the very foundations of Scientific thinking, being known as Aristotlian. For the Greeks held that stones, and all matter, fell not because of seeking decreasing potentials within a gravitational field, but because that was what they did in seeking their nature. A purposive understanding of a purposive World.

That this view of reality held sway for long is no surprise, but what is surprising is that Science developed in the way that it did.
But that is a subject of another blog.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Athens

2nd blog in the series: 

https://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-greeks-didn-do-science.html?m=1

How Can Islam claim to be a Religion of Peace, and yet talk about War?

The Revelations in regards to War; 
"How can Islam claim to be a religion of Peace and yet talk about War?" (Part 1)


Have you never thought to put things in their proper context?

Fact 1: Islam was revealed to the Arab Nation, whilst the two superpowers of the day (Rome and Persia) allowed the Arabian peninsula autonomy.

Persia, a mighty civilization, stretching over today's Iran, and Iraq, was at continual loggerheads with Rome stretching over Turkey, Syria and Palestine. For either of them to have garrisoned Arabia would surely have been advantageous to them, since Arabia straddled both Iraq and greater Syria. It would have opened up another front for either of them in their long conflict with one another.

But neither did.

From the secondary fact that "it never did" it follows that there must have been even stronger reasons for it not happening.

The first possible reason relates to the inhospitable nature of the land.
But would that really explain the non-occurrence? Rome and Persia were both militarized societies that well understood the need for sacrifice in order to secure gain. They would have willing paid such a price if mere inconvenience were all that stood in their way.

The second possibility was that they had evaluated the option and both decided that only rudimentary gain could be had in it's annexation.

A second fact explains that loss- consider the fact that the Arab people were a warrior nation who above all else loved freedom from control. To garrison Arabia would have been both costly and of questionable benefit. That is fact.

Instead Rome and Persia both sought to placate the Arab conundrum by enlisting differing Arab tribes to their cause and then gave them autonomy. That is telling when you consider the Arab.

And so Islam was sent to work on that polytheist Nation and made it the ultimate monotheistic Nation.

From a Nation that buried their new born infant girls it changed it to a Nation that allowed women the right to possess and own.

From a nation that was tribalistic to the point of injustice bring ingrained and rife, Islam changed this to a Nation that made Law greater that all tribes and even greater than the best of their chiefs.

All of these things and more did the message of Islam achieve.

And yet when the Prophet (saw) died the Arabian peninsula was wracked with rebellion, as if attempting to revert to its original state.

For every Arab wanted freedom from a universal law, and freedom from a universal justice.

The three places.
Just three places remained true to the ideal of Islam; Taif, Mecca and Medina; from the whole of the Arabian peninsula.

A complete message?
Tell me now, in such a region and in such a place, to have left out instruction on how to carry out War, would it have been a complete message?

In fact it taught the rules of War, making them both comprehensive and limited, and even I might add honourable.

Unlike today's enacted concepts of limitless war, Islam teaches by way of a GODLY command and in reference to your enemies "If they incline to peace, then you too incline to peace." A rule of behaviour that even when it is known to be used to the Muslims' disadvantage, throughout history it is the Muslims that have honourable done so.

An unusual message.
What is unusual is not that it talked about War but that in such a place; in the dessert far from everything, to it's coming down to an insular Nation;  it is the Islamic message that is truly international.

For the Prophet (saw) said on his farewell sermon that "No Arab is superior to a non-Arab!" And to whom was he speaking? To the hundred thousands of Arabs that were before him and in Arabic. And by this he implied that this message of God is for all Nations, and meant to be delivered to all Nations:
That all men are equal in the sight of God, and that what elevates them one above the other is nothing less than godliness, piety and doing good to one another.

A message of Peace and Hope, not a message of War and Despair.

Part 2- to follow, God willing.
Find it here: http://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-development-of-jihad_9.html

Sent from my iPhone

A Short History of Progress

A History of Progress.

When the NHS was conceived off as an idea, it was assumed that one day it would fulfil all the needs of the people with regard to healthcare.

Historically that day never came, and looks more distant today than it did at it's very creation.

This is relevant because it shows a very real example of an occurrence where the needs of the people were thought to be finite and meet-able.

Utility is a measure of meeting a need and proving to be useful. Modernity can claim to have exponentially grown the needs of the people.

Why? Because the fulfilment of needs appears to be generative of still other needs. In the case of the NHS generative of further expectation. In simplistic terms as our lifespan lengthened, because of our fight against disease, so new diseases became prevalent and our expectation that they be fought with equal vigour grew. This is why the NHS focus has shifted significantly to both health inequalities and managing expectations.

And thus maybe fulfilling needs is the very kernel of progress: to seek to fulfil needs, is generative of still further needs.

For when we started to bring our specialities to the market-place the resultant efficiency in cost, and work saved, created more freedom for people to do other things that were not necessary. Before that time we lived, and still live in some parts of the World, in a hand to mouth existence.

And so unlike our other prior existence the marketplace and our increased efficiency savings allowed us both superfluous wealth and the time to spend it on recreation, on things other than were necessary. And this in turn generated still further industries on which that wealth could be spent, and then other needs that could then be met. A generative cycle that does not look like it can be sated.

And this is the conundrum of Heaven, an impossible place of satiety.

That maybe all of these needs that we fill ourselves with are superfluous; being as it were in addition to ourselves; and therefore can in fact cause us to loose ourselves.

The moral quandaries are two, individually they are the loss of ourselves, subsumed in the consumerism of the market-place.
The solution is not to deny the market place, but "to live in this life as if you are a traveller"(1) and are only passing through.

The second moral quandary is more insidious, and bodes of our collective responsibility one to another. For when the marketplace becomes King and efficiencies met reach a point of equanimity, the market is not moral. In the name of further efficiency savings, and further progress, exploitation becomes rife. And the people exploit the earth, its resources, and then still other people. And that exploitation of others is just slavery by another name; market efficiency and progress.
This is what is seen in the market factories of the developing World; Slavery by another name.

Shafeesthoughts
(1) a saying of the best of all men, Muhammad (saw), the Messenger from GOD, may he forever be blessed.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:NHS

Beauty Pageants

Beauty Pageants.

A friend recently, hit the nail on it's proverbial head, by saying that he liked my patriotism, in reference to my religiosity.

This is something that the powers-that-be hate tooth and nail. That we Muslims identify with one another even whilst we adopt different cultures and languages. It is a patriotism of a type because we gain a sense of belonging and identity through it. The second aspect of that patriotism is that we cannot help being proud of our religion and that is what my friend inadvertently referred to.

But just like secular patriotism, we are in danger of the same problem of doing, promoting and accepting wrong, just because it is what we 'as a collective' do.

Thankfully Muhammad (saw) kept us from that harm through his patriotic saying, "Help your brother whether he be the oppressor or oppressed".

In the era before Muhammad (saw) it was a pagan Arab slogan that cemented the tribal rights, and their sometimes consequent wrongs by quite literally admonishing the support of wrong-doing. But that was then transformed in Islam with Muhammad (saw)'s qualification "If he be the oppressor then help him by stopping his oppression."

A slogan that allows for no silence in the face of any wrong, and even less so when it is your brother who belittles himself through through doing, or accepting, wrong.

Later in the conversation he drew my attention to a woman of Iranian descent who was purportedly being threatened with stoning for taking part in a Beauty Pageant. Then I was at a loss for words.

But now my loss is all gain.
I can understand my Muslim brothers and their wives reaction to that nonsense. The single atomic unit of any Muslim society is the family and not the individual. This is quite unlike the West, where no matter how many policy essays address the benefit to society of families, the individuals rights remain paramount.

And so from my and the majority Muslim perspective, no women, nor for that matter any male, has the right to act or promote actions which can undermine the family. I do not believe that I need to spell out for you exactly how taking part in Beauty Pageants can undermine family values. I will leave that to your imagination.

So I believe in the primacy of family rights, over individual rights. And that acts that can undermine family values should be precluded by convention, and that anyone that seeks to undermine such values should be castigated with due measure.

But two wrongs never did make a right, as the English say.

Stoning or whipping is a punishment decreed by GOD for the sexual crimes. How then can they be advocated for anything less than that?

To advocate that is to make a mockery of the decree of GOD, and to visit an oppression that GOD himself likens to the killing of the whole of humanity.

We also know that it is decreed that the fornicator only be allowed to marry their like, the fornicatoress (S. Noor). Is not the similitude of a women who wishes to reveal her body to the World, like that of the fornicator? And whilst no sexual crime has been committed, the judgement in regards of her should be like that of a fornicator.

And should she not be excommunicated from the community?

And if it is that she, or for that matter he, feels more at home in the West, then they should be given every encouragement to relocate. That they might live with those whose values they mimic most.

And let us Muslim hold our values, true and solid, never deviating from them.

Shafeesthoughts.
This is about a conversation I had with my friend Lukas P. about a year ago. May God guide him to the straight path. And sufficient is God for me. Ameen.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Europe

The MULTIVERSE: An Admission.

The Multiverse, as an admission!

Science is often motivated, or if you prefer inspired, by ideology.

That's why Darwinism gained greater credence during the essentially European Market Revolution. Scientists are people after all, and most people could both assimilate and understand the idea of progress through trial.

It's interesting, then, to note the motivation for the Multiverse postulate.

You see a Multiverse is the opposite of a Universe. It is an idea, which says that our Universe is but one of a multitude of such Universes.

If Scientist are serious about entertaining this idea then shouldn't they as a matter of rule engineer a suitable test? Isn't that what Scientists are supposed to do?

But wouldn't such a test, if it existed, rule out the idea of a Multiplicity of "Closed Boxed" Universes?
Since by definition they would then no longer be CLOSED boxes.

And so they cannot.
Then why entertain an IDEA which at roots is NOT SCIENTIFIC?

Well the answer lies in this fact:

"He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out."
(Surah Mulk).

At every point from the Anthropic Principle; which sensibly suggests that the laws of Nature that were in prominence from even less than a microsecond after the Big Bang must account for our (cognisant and rational beings') existence; to the Sciences that cannot find any flaw;

The guardian/ sun is the most perfect natural sphere.
; the World that we inhabit is perfect.

For Scientists that entertain the Multiverse postulate it is in fact TOO PERFECT.

In fact it's so perfect that they are forced to assume an untestable idea of a near infinite number of other Universes where the law of Nature and Physics do NOT produce cognisant beings like us, and do NOT produce a perfect Universe that we see around us. And then Our Universe is just one single of a Multitude of other Universes.

Hah.

Doesn't it just make you laugh.

That in order to avoid admitting the perfection of creation that they would go to such lengths.

And in order to avoid the then obvious admission that there must be a PERFECT Creator and Designer they would also go to such lengths.

And to deny those things they would appeal to something even remoter and even more infinitely more unlikely than a Single CREATOR.

So it all really boils down to you.

You DO THE MATHS and work out the likelihoods:

A single CREATOR who sent countless Messengers and Prophets to proclaim His Truth and Oneness.

OR

A near infinite number of Universes each with their own Physical Laws and Cosmic Constants.
And of those off course we only need ONE to have the exact right conditions and Laws to sustain cognisant life that can account for our existence, and also create a Universe which is absolutely perfect in every way.

And that the rest of those Universes, that we cannot see, are DEAD. Lifeless and full of nothing of significance.


I know where I'd lay my bet.
Especially if my life depended on it.

YOU CHOOSE !!!!!

Shafeesthoughts. :)

Location:CERN Labs, I wished.

The Invisible WORLD

..The Invisible World..

To know it is to be blessed, to live in it is to live for an eternity......

to Know?
We wish to know things to satisfy our most intensive need for solidity, in an uncertain World.

But what does it mean to know something?

The short answer is that we know through our interaction, by changing and being changed, with the thing we seek to know. (For a fuller answer please see a previous blog if mine called "What Can We Know" 28 Aug 2007).

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=202238659&blogID=304426297&Mytoken=1A908A66-04F1-42E4-90F12611B4F66BAD45938673

Knowing the Unseen.
Just as the primary means of knowing are through our senses, the primary means of being changed is through the fulfilment of our needs. However the question that then presents itself is one of whether we can only know through the fulfilment of those, being our needs.

And if this is the case, then how can we ever know the objective truth whilst our only recourse to knowledge is through our subjective needs.

An Objective Truth?
Perhaps it is our very subjective needs that cause us to believe in a singular objective truth surrounding us all?

For, of course, a wrongly held belief in an objective truth would satisfy that most basic need for solidity.

So, can we safely assume such a singular objective truth?

But by our questioning, we know that we all have subjective needs. And furthermore we know that these needs are not dissimilar, even down to the need for a solid "unified" objective truth. And this of itself is sufficient to prove that there must be one. (*1)

That is the Invisible World that surrounds us.
An Unseen World.
The Real World.

Is it Knowable?
However, in essence, every action and interaction we have with our World is in search of fulfilment.

And so it would seem that we cannot know through our senses, the hidden objective world around us.

That GOD, being al-Haqq "the Ultimate Objective Truth", is not knowable!

Materialists and Scientists.
Materialists can only acknowledge what they can see and measure.

They deny an unseen reality.

But after the Kuhnian Scientific revolution even Scientists, the bastions of materialism, are recognized as holding acclaim within their respective scientific fraternities in equal import, if not greater, than the truth.

Theirs is not an objective truth, any more than any and all of us who seek to make sense of our World.

We are all tainted with the same problem of subjective needs.
And thus to dismiss the Unseen World is not rational!

The Qur'an.
It is Religion that teaches us that the un-see-able can be known.
And it is the Qur'an suggests that it is possible that the conundrum of knowing the unseen through your senses is possible.

To see the Invisible.
By in essence, acting such that you remove yourself from being the centre of your known world.

For not all the actions that we might do, seek to fulfil our needs solely.

Some of them we do for primarily for the benefit of others, and secondarily for ourselves. It is through these actions and interactions with our World that we might glimpse the eternal with our very own senses.

This is S. Baqara (S. 2)
"Those who believe in the Unseen and who establish the prayer and give out of what WE have given to them".

For the prayer is the centre-point of doing good to the people as a community. And the charity is the centre-point of doing good to a person as an individual. And the invisible is the reality we cannot see.

And these are part of the small miracles that we can perceive. When we see a true good dream, or when we feel the whispher into our hearts of the salutations of the Angels saying Peace. Or when you do Dhikr in a Masgid, or in the depths of the night, and you feel sakina and you taste a remarkable taste. Or when you smell a beautiful perfume as you walk in the dirt of the street towards the Masgid and the ordained Prayer.

These are the miracles that happened to our Predecessors when they gave what had been given to them, of their lives and their possessions, to do good to their fellow-man. They perceived the Angels with their sight, and smelt the fragrance of the eternal garden.

To cast the veils from your eyes, ears, nose, taste and to feel eternity within your heart.... believe and do good!
That is to be blessed...

To Reason.
The Qur'an continues "Those who believe in what has been sent down to you (O Muhammad (saw)).." S. Baqara (S. 2) Contd.

For the Qur'an, for one, appeals to man's higher faculties of knowing, being reasoning as a means of knowing the hidden World.

To reason is to know. And reasoning is to progress by way of argument from what we do know to what we don't know. And what is the Unseen World other than the greatest of unknowns.

Does this knowledge affect us and do we affect it?

In the classification of this theory of knowledge such a question is of importance, since I have said that we know a thing through it's interaction with ourselves. Through our changing of it and it's changing of us.

And it is this that the Qur'an itself lays emphasis on this "Have you not seen the one who denies the Religion. Do they not repulse the orphan, and urge not the feeding of the poor" (Al-Qur'an S. Maun).
And the Hadeeth Qudsi inform us that GOD Says "I am as MY servant thinks of ME!" and "If you come to ME walking, then I will run to you"..
So ever is the True Unseen World, a World that changes with your perception of it and changes you for the better. It is a thing that makes you better than who you are, more upright, more trusting and more willing to give.

Thus to know the Unseen, is the supreme knowledge... it can change you as nothing else can change you.
And the Qur'an's main subject matter is the unseen World, and yet contrarily its arguments are fully rational.

It suggests that it is through our rational minds that we might come to know of the World that we cannot normally perceive.

Al-Qur'an "Have you not considered the camels and how they are created? And the Heavens and how they are raised..."etc.. (S. Ghashiya).
" And look at the World, and look again at it and your gaze and sight will come back to you dazed and confused (because of the perfection you will find there)" Paraphrased Al-Qur'an.

Revelation.
And the Qur'an continues "And that which was sent down before your time." S. Baqara (S. 2) Contd.

It says this in reference to the revelation from before, and revelation in general.

In general we know thorough direct sensual perception and reasoning based upon that perception.

However there is another way beyond reasoning that we often glimpse. This is intuition and inspiration, the ah-hah feeling of eureka, that comes from a place we know not where. In Arabic this is ilham, the sister of Wahiy (revelation).

The Ways of KNOWING...
And so just one verse of the Qur'an lays down the hierarchy of how we may come to know the True Invisible World that surrounds us, and is independent of our subjective needs.
"Those who believe in the Unseen and establish the Prayer and who give out of that which WE have given to them. They are the ones who believe in what has been sent down to you (O Muhammad (saw)), and what has been sent down before your time (O the Prophets and Messengers of old, amongst them being Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (as))... And they are the righly guided, the successful!" S Baqara (Chp2, v2..)
The Certain Knowledge (Ilm al Yakeen of S at-Takathur Chp 102) is
seeing it, feeling it and knowing it. And this is conditional on first believing in it. That there are things that you cannot see and cannot know, directly.

This first means of perception is the most intimate and direct, and the least detailed. It is to make yourself not the centre of your World, to give without count.. that GOD might give you without count or measure.. abundantly from HIS mercies.

And when you do that even in the most basic of forms, you feel good! As Allah t'ala declares in Al-Qur'an "And what is (can be?) the recompense of Good, other than Good". No evolution or Darwinism can explain that feeling. Doing good for the sake of Goodness, itself!

And when you do it collectively and individually, following the Way of Muhammad (saw), you shall taste it in your mouth, smell it in your nose, and feel it in your heart.... a far superior means of knowing, that which is promised.

The last is the most detailed and the least direct. It is to believe in the Truth of Muhammad (saw), who forever will be blessed.. and then to follow him. The question is not whether his morality agrees with your morality, but whether he was as he claimed to be "the seal of the Prophets and the last Messenger sent from GOD" to the whole of Mankind. And to believe in him and follow his way is to know the unseen with your senses and your mind.
In the middle is reasoning applied, and it is to know somewhat of the unseen.. but it is forever the maid of it's premises.. of it's beliefs.

PARADOXICALLY.
Islam as a religion is counter-intuitive. It seeks to teach man the REAL, Unseen World about us through not renouncing the World. Instead the Muslim lives fully in this World, sensually, but makes not this World his centre. That is the Whys and Wherefores of so much of our religion.

To give to others abundantly, without count, so that GOD might say "I am the Magnanimous, the Most Generous" which HE is, that HE might give to us.. even beyond our wildest dreams.

That is why when we fast, we wake for Sobh and sin not by delaying the breaking of the fast. For we fast not to eschew the World, but to feel the pains of hunger and the feelings of satiety. That we might feel, and be alive.

That is the why of our daily ablutions. To wake our senses from their slumber.

That is why when we go to our wives, we make wudhu.. to better enjoy and better give pleasure.

That is our prayer and our Hajj.. a Worldly Prayer and Hajj.. with GOD, the Most Gracious at It's Centre.
So To END
Knowledge of the Unseen is of three types. Direct and Sensual, which is available to us all when we make not ourselves the centre of our Worlds. Indirectly we can know the Unseen, even as Abraham (as) became convinced of the reality of a Benevolent GOD by reasoning based on observing the World and it's intricacies and beauties. The third way is through the acceptance of a BOOK, the revelation that was sent down to Muhammad (saw) the Messenger of GOD. This of itself blesses us with an abundance of knowledge, wisdom and depth whereby we might know the Unseen World about us.
Your Brother in PEACE...
Shafeesthoughts

FOOTNOTES
*1: Because even as I write questioning an objective truth, I am affected and concerned by it, and as you read it you are yourself concerned with it. So that at the very least we are, the two of us, concerned with the same problem. And then this need becomes at once something not solely belonging to us.

A VERY Tired Shafeesthoughts
I will revise this later!



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:London