Helping Google Find Sensibility

Regarding the latest attack on the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, Google has certainly acted as if Muslims do not matter. It has arrogantly refused to remove the offending content from the YouTube site that it owns. The offensive video, the reactions to it and the reactions to reactions have generated lot of heated debates.

Could it have been avoided?
Many have observed that the offensive video remained un-noticed for fifty-five days. Then curiosity traffic increased the hit count from five thousand to five million in a couple of days. Obviously ignoring it would have been a better option. That is true, as far as it goes. In the initial stage the best option was to ignore it. However those who profit from such offensive material also know this. They tried to get negative publicity in Rushdie affair, they tried it now and they will try it again. They will rub it in your face until there is a reaction. And when that happens, just wishing that there had been no reaction is not going to help us solve the problem.

What Makes Google Tick?
The question arises, why Google must rub it in our face? Google would not allow the freedom to insult to its own employees in its offices that it says we must learn to live with. Why? Why can’t it see reason? The answer lies in its very nature. It is a corporation---impersonal and amoral. You cannot plead with it on the basis of morality, decency, or sensibility. It does not understand the language of right and wrong or good and evil. It could not care less about the Prophets. It only cares about its profits. Right and wrong translate into profit and loss in its world. It would enforce a code of behavior and decorum in its offices because that is needed for ensuring productivity. It upholds the exact opposite on its sites because that is good for business. If it can increase its profits by inflicting pain on us it will gladly do that. If it sees that doing so reduces its profits, it will “find” that inflicting pain is wrong and insulting the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is immoral.

And it has been very successful.

Last year Google had revenues of nearly $40 billion. Ninety-six percent of these came from ads. And its claim to fame in the advertizing world is that it has revolutionized advertizing by providing targeted ads: Ads that are delivered to each viewer based on the personal preferences and interests of that viewer. Both the AdWords and AdSense programs that it uses are based on information about the users that it gathers and stores through their use of its free services.

It has a huge database about everyone who uses it and it uses that database to generate money. Every time you search for something using it, it learns something about your interests. It knows how to translate that information into hard cash because it can find the right buyers for that information. Every time you click on a Google ad, you are simply sending a check to Google as ad revenues are on a per click basis. It may be a fraction of a cent per click. But trillions of clicks turn into billions of dollars. In other words every time you use it you are financially supporting it and nurturing its arrogance.

It is our clicks that make Google tick.
Therein lies the secret to making it see reason. If most of us stop using Google even for one week, it will see such a huge shrinking of its revenue stream that it would find sensibility and decency faster than its fastest searches. It would immediately stop any and all insulting content if that happened.

Google Ads
A second but related area of our concern should be the otherwise responsible and serious websites that allow Google ads. When a web site agrees to allow Google to display ads on it, it gives them a blank space over which they can write the message they want. Google gets money from the ad sponsors for these directed ads and passes a fraction of that money to the site owner. For that fraction many “Islamic” sites are selling their iman. One can find a site hosting a lecture on Qur’an and Hadith and on the same page a Google ad displays a semi nude picture. Sometimes this blurring of the boundaries of the sacred and the profane is justified by the owners by issuing a disclaimer that they are not responsible for the ads. In most cases even the disclaimer is not there. As an example Pakistani Newspapers like Jang and Ummat frequently have obscene ads consisting of pictures of nude and semi nude women on their sites.

That such scandalous behavior has become acceptable is an indication of the toll that our blind submission to the Internet revolution has taken on us. For thinking people this should be cause for much reflection and soul searching. This calls for a new level of media activism that has been totally missing from the Muslim world. Isn’t it time that someone convinced the owners of such sites to stop allowing such ads?

Is It Futile?
There are those for whom all this talk is futile. In Google they see just an innocent search engine not a cold calculating advertizing giant that is also serving a cultural agenda, about which we may have some concerns. In the Internet and the media revolution they see only wonders.

It is part of a larger malaise in our attitudes about technology that we have been seeing for the past couple of centuries. In the 19th century the British introduced science and technology in the subcontinent through exhibitions for the public. The idea was not to educate but to impress. It was presented as magic. At an exhibition in Calcutta in the early 1800s the visitors were reported to make such comments as “Bap rey bap (Oh My!)…How fantastic.” 

It seems we have not stopped saying “Bap rey bap… How fantastic.”

Once we come out of this spell, we may realize that technology both gives and takes away. And the resulting bargain will be in our favor only if we are actively negotiating with it instead of passively submitting to it. A cell phone magically can connect you to another person on the other part of the globe without any visible link. Yet it also disconnects you from your immediate surroundings. We see that in the horrible acts of insolence when people even in the Haram making tawaf are talking over their cell phones.

Once we determine that technology should be our servant and not our master, our attitudes about it will change dramatically. And so will our attitudes about the technology leaders. We may then realize that Google’s declared goal is to “change the world.” Can anyone in their right mind advocate that we should just be a passive spectator as they go about changing our world?

Of course in the latest episode Google is betting that our love for the convenience it offers is greater than our love for the Prophet and our sense of honor. And not even convenience but only addiction. For there are a dozen search engines like Bing out there that we could use without sacrificing anything.

It is only through our determined individual and collective efforts that we can convince the likes of Google, Facebook, and others to agree to a code of ethics that assures freedom from insults for everyone--- which is the only way to ensure peace in the global village.

Khalid Baig in Albalaqh. Here

Salman Rushdie, Freedom from insult and Islam

“I wrote this biography of Muhammad just over ten years ago at the time of the Salman Rushdie crisis. For some time, I had been disturbed by the prejudice against Islam that I so frequently encountered, even in the most liberal and tolerant circle. After the horrific events of the 20th century, it seemed to me that we simply could not afford to cultivate a distorted and inaccurate view of the religion followed by 1.2 billion Muslims who make up a fifth of the world’s population. When Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwah against Rushdie and his publishers, this Western prejudice became even more blatant.

“In 1990, when I was writing this book, nobody in Britain wanted to hear that almost exactly a month after the fatwah at a meeting of the Islamic Congress, forty-four out of the forty-five member states condemned the Ayatollah’s ruling as unIslamic––leaving Iran out in the cold. Very few Western people were interested to hear that the Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land of Islam, and the prestigious al-Azhar madrasah in Cairo had also declared that the fatwah contravened Islamic law. Only a handful of people seemed prepared to listen sympathetically to the many Muslims in Britain who dissociated themselves from the Ayatollah, had no wish to see Rushdie killed, but who had felt profoundly distressed by what they regarded as the blasphemous portrait of Prophet Muhammad in his novel. The Western intelligentsia seemed to want to believe that the entire Muslim world was clamouring for Rushdie’s blood. Some of the leading writers, intellectuals and philosophers in Britain described Islam in a way that either showed astonishing ignorance or a quite horrifying indifference to the truth. As far as they were concerned Islam was an inherently intolerant, fanatical faith, it deserved no respect; and the sensitivities of Muslims who felt hurt by Rushdie’s portrait of their beloved Prophet in The Satanic Verses were of no importance.

“I wrote the book because it seemed a pity that Rushdie’s account of Muhammad was the only one that most Western people were likely to read. Even though I could understand what Rushdie was trying to do in his novel, it seemed important that the true story of the Prophet should also be available, because he was one of the most remarkable human beings who ever lived. It was quite difficult to find a publisher, since many assumed that Muslims would be outraged that infidel woman like myself should have the audacity to write about their Prophet, and that if they publish this book I would soon be joining Rushdie in hiding. But as it turned out, I was greatly moved by the warm and generous reception that Muslims gave my book in those difficult times.”

- the first few paragraphs of the Introduction to October 2001 edition (just after 9/11) of book Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet written by former Roman Catholic nun Karen Armstrong.

Karen Armstrong was motivated to study Islam so thoroughly and come out with this biography only after the protest by Muslims following the publication of The Satanic Verses about two and a half decades back.

Soroor Ahmed in Two circles. More Here

Salman Rushdie is a third class writer: Justice Katju

Salman Rushdie is a “poor” and “sub-standard writer” who would have remained largely unknown but for his controversial book ‘Satanic Verses’, according to Markandey Katju, till recently a judge of the Supreme Court.

Katju, who is now the Chairman of Press Council of India, criticised the admirers of India-born author based in Britain, saying they suffered from “colonial inferiority complex” that a writer living abroad has to be great.

From a report in Hindustan Times. Here

Slamming the Jaipur Literature Festival's focus on the Indian-origin British writer, Justice Katju, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, criticised “so-called educated Indians” who “suffer from the colonial inferiority complex” and believe that writers living in India are inferior to those living abroad.

“Salman Rushdie dominated the Jaipur Literature Festival. I do not wish to get into the controversy whether banning him was correct or not. I am raising a much more fundamental issue,” he said in a statement issued on Wednesday. “I have read some of Rushdie's works and am of the opinion that he is a poor writer, and but for The Satanic Verses would have remained largely unknown. Even Midnight's Children is hardly great literature.”

From a report in The Hindu. Here

Islam emphasises on 'Freedom from insult'

Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. 

It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions.

Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.

As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants.

Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.

A earlier post in Luthfispace Here and More by Khalid Baig Here

The Fast Car

If the life of this world is an illusion, the period of greatest illusion occurs during youth. It is a period of high energy and great enthusiasm, coupled with an air of invincibility and perpetuity. Like the driver of a fast car, one may also develop a disdain for the slower cars on the highway of life. It is difficult to imagine that the car will run out of fuel and that one day the engine will wear out.

For the moment though the car is fast and it can go places!

For this reason there are special warnings for the youth and glad tidings for the person who uses this energy wisely. A famous hadith tells us that on the Day of Judgment no man will be able to move from his place until he answers five questions. "How did he spend his life? How did he utilize his youth? How did he earn his wealth? How did he spend it? And, how did he practice what he learnt?" [Sunan al-Tirmidhi]. While the first question asks generally about one's life pattern, the second especially focuses on the period of youth.

On the other hand, the person who devoted his youth to the worship of Allah will be among the selected seven kinds of people [Bukhari, Muslim].

Hence the profound advice in another famous hadith to value five things: "Youth before old age, health before sickness, wealth before poverty, free time before preoccupation, and life before death."

A fast car is dangerous if it does not have strong controls. And that is where Shaitan targets the vulnerable --- by loosening the controls. It has been his time-tested trick to work through temptations and make desires look irresistible. The path of deviation looks good. It is cool. It is fun. It is endlessly entertaining. The only problem is,it leads to assured disaster.

Compiled From:
"Youth: On Culture, Religion, and Generation Gap" - Khalid Baig

Why I Shed Bikini for Niqab: The New Symbol of Women's Liberation

I find it to be a blatant hypocrisy when Western governments and so-called human rights groups rush to defend woman's rights when some governments impose a certain dress code on women, yet such "freedom fighters" look the other way when women are being deprived of their rights, work, and education just because they choose to exercise their right to wear Niqab or Hijab. Today, women in Hijab or Niqab are being increasingly barred from work and education not only under totalitarian regimes such as in Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt, but also in Western democracies such as France, Holland, and Britain.

Today I am still a feminist, but a Muslim feminist, who calls on Muslim women to assume their responsibilities in providing all the support they can for their husbands to be good Muslims. To raise their children as upright Muslims so they may be beacons of light for all humanity once again. To enjoin good--any good--and to forbid evil--any evil. To speak righteousness and to speak up against all ills. To fight for our right to wear Niqab or Hijab and to please our Creator whichever way we chose. But just as importantly to carry our experience with Niqab or Hijab to fellow women who may never have had the chance to understand what wearing Niqab or Hijab means to us and why do we, so dearly, embrace it.

 
Most of the women I know wearing Niqab are Western reverts, some of whom are not even married. Others wear Niqab without full support of either family or surroundings. What we all have in common is that it is the personal choice of each and every one of us, which none of us is willing to surrender.

Willingly or unwillingly, women are bombarded with styles of "dressing-in-little-to-nothing" virtually in every means of communication everywhere in the world. As an ex non-Muslim, I insist on women's right to equally know about Hijab, its virtues, and the peace and happiness it brings to a woman's life as it did to mine. 

Yesterday, the bikini was the symbol of my liberty, when in actuality it only liberated me from my spirituality and true value as a respectable human being.

I couldn't be happier to shed my bikini in South Beach and the "glamorous" Western lifestyle to live in peace with my Creator and enjoy living among fellow humans as a worthy person. It is why I choose to wear Niqab, and why I will die defending my inalienable right to wear it. Today, Niqab is the new symbol of woman's liberation.

To women who surrender to the ugly stereotype against the Islamic modesty of Hijab, I say: You don't know what you are missing.

Sara Bokker is a former actress/model/fitness instructor and activist. Currently, Sara is Director of Communications at "The March For Justice," a co-founder of "The Global Sisters Network," and producer of the infamous "Shock & Awe Gallery."

Sara Bokker in Albalagh. More Here

Television, Islamic Dawah and Muslims

When television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials -- many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.

Is there one person in this room who claims that broadcasting can't do better? Well a glance at next season's proposed programming can give us little heart. Of 73 and 1/2 hours of prime evening time, the networks have tentatively scheduled 59 hours of categories of action-adventure, situation comedy, variety, quiz, and movies. Is there one network president in this room who claims he can't do better? Why is so much of television so bad? 

From Newton N Minow's speech on Television and the Public Interest delivered on 9 May 1961, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC. More Here.

In the Lizard's Hole: Television, Televangelism and Muslims

By Khalid Baig

We must not underestimate the destructive power of television. Television did not cause all the upheavals in society by being ineffective. Rather the above only highlights its ineffectiveness in carrying a serious discourse. But it is a very effective tool for carrying propaganda. Since television appeals to emotions not intellect, it can be easily used to stir up emotions of, say, hate and anger --- something that has been used effectively by the Islamophobes in the Christian world and beyond. Some televangelists have played a major role in the rise in Islamophobia in the US through their media crusade against Islam.These also cannot be ignored in our discussion of television policies.

Obviously simple yes or no answers cannot work. Just ignoring television will not reduce the destruction it is causing in the society. Jumping on to the bandwagon and starting Islamic television programs to reach the large audiences without careful analysis and planning will only perpetuate the problems that have been outlined above. Due to the nature of the medium, if it is given legitimacy as the venue for Islamic teachings, then in time alim and mufti actors will replace the real alims and muftis as is already happening. They will also set the expectations for what the real alims should look like and behave.

There is no ready made solution. The real solution will be the outcome of a rigorous and ongoing discussion involving the scholars, thinkers and the media experts and will require first that we do fully understand the nature of communication in the video world and its peculiar problems.  

TV Free Home
The solution they come up with will be a multi-faceted one and will vary with the circumstances of the person. For an individual the prime goal is just to protect him and his family. For this the message should be that the less you watch, the better it is. An atmosphere is to be created in which not watching television and maintaining a TV free home is a perfectly respectable and even desirable option. Grass roots organizations and all means of persuasion should be used to promote this idea. Such an organization exists in the US (10). It is a pity that it does not exist in the Muslim world.

The success of this campaign will not be measured just by how many stop watching but also by what they think about watching it. The objective should be that those who do not have a TV free home should look up to those who do and not the other way around. Declaring Ramadan as a TV free month, where participants pledge to keep television off during Ramadan and use the time so saved to benefit from Ramadan may go a long way towards this objective.

Alternative Channels of Communications
At the same time we need to develop the non-television channels of communication to the best of their potential. In the communication landscape, television is one option. It is not the only one. It is expensive and it is fraught with serious problems in its ability to transmit our message. Even if we cannot avoid it, we do need to put it in its proper place. This means we do need to rethink the older avenues. 

Friday khutbahs are a case in point. They offer an immense resource for educating the masses. Everywhere Muslims turn in large numbers to them and there are no production or distribution costs like those associated with TV. Unfortunately this priceless opportunity is wasted because the great majority of those speaking have not been prepared for the task. They either do not have an understanding of how to relate Islamic teachings to the problems of today or do not know how to communicate that effectively. As a result most attendees go without any expectation of enlightenment through the khutbah. Squandering of this tremendous opportunity has no excuse. It is a pity that Islamic religious schools have, by and large, failed to step up to the responsibility to have special training programs for speakers and guiding the khateebs.

The Okaz Market Model
What about using television itself?

We may learn from the Prophetic Example in the souq of Okaz, the largest and the most famous of the annual markets and fairs of the Jahliya period. There pilgrims from all of Arabia gathered for business, poetry competitions, networking and entertainment. When the opposition of the Quraish to the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, increased to a point where continued call to Islam within Makah was not possible, he sought all avenues outside to continue his mission. This included his visits to Okaz. The purpose of the visits was to meet the people and pull them out. The place of training and education was Dar Arqam.

Using that model as our guide, we may make a case for reaching out to the people who are today in the Okaz market created by television. That is we must not confuse it with the masjid, or school, or Dar Arqam. The purpose should be to pull the people out from there to these places where real worship, education, and training can take place. Recognizing the peculiar problems of this new venue, we must make sure the programs avoid all the pitfalls outlined above. No run for ratings. No entertainment. No music. No celebrity culture. No expectation of a return on investment. No competition with the commercial world. No ads that can dilute or counter the message. In other words no distortion in the message in exchange for a large audience. 

The numbers who respond will be small, just as they were in Okaz. But just as the Prophetic example in Okaz showed, delivering the pure unadulterated message to a small number is infinitely superior to delivering a distorted message to the millions.

From Khalid Baig's enlightening analysis "In the Lizard's Hole: Television, Televangelism and Muslims". More Here.

How in the world did Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi find time for that?

Today men, materials, and ideas can be moved from one place to another at an astonishing speed. The tasks that used to take months and years can be finished in minutes. And yet there is something ironic about all this development. Despite the tremendous explosion in timesaving gadgets, life has become busier than ever before. Overall we can't show much for all the time that has been saved.

We are very busy, but at the end of the day we can't tell what we have been busy doing. Where all the saved time has gone? In what way our lives have become more productive? Just imagine how Internet has made it possible for information to move all over the world in seconds. And then see how the same medium is being used to waste countless hours in frivolous discussions in chat rooms or meaningless net surfing! The juxtaposition of the time saving and time wasting nature of the same tool brings in full focus the basic problem with the prevalent ideas of time itself.

One may think that the metaphor is not to be blamed for this waste. After all "Time is money" would seem to suggest that no time should be wasted. Actually belittling time by equating it with money allows whiling it away when one has made the money he needs! So people talk about "killing time" and the need for the gadgets that let them kill time. One has to consider time to be much more important than money not to waste it like this!

To put things in perspective a quick historic comparison is in order. Consider the period of early Muslims when none of these technological marvels were available. There is a common notion that people then leisurely lived in sleepy little towns and had little to do. Actually that was a period of unprecedented activity in all aspects of life! Theirs was a period of intense military and political activity during which nearly half the known world came under the banner of Islam. Coming from a most backward part of the world, they introduced a new civilization to the world that was proud of its civilization and its military might. In personal life they used to spend a lot more time in worship than we do, most of them spending big parts of their nights in individual prayers.

This would seem to leave a lot less time for other pursuits in life. We also know that means of communications were so poor then, that sometimes they had to travel on horseback for weeks or months to go to another area, say, to collect a report of a hadith from someone who had heard it directly from the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Yet during this period and despite all the logistics problems, together they collected the hundreds of thousands of ahadith that have been compiled into various collections and are available today! And this is just one aspect of their work! How in the world did they find time for that?

The answer is simple. They were driven by a different metaphor for time. They valued it as the gift whose proper or improper use would determine the outcome for the eternity. They had listened to the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, when he said: "There are two blessings that most people are deluded by. Health and available time." [Bukhari]. They took his advice very seriously when he said: "Value five things before five other things: Youth before old age; health before sickness; affluence before poverty; leisure before becoming too busy; and life before death." [Tirmidhi]. Abdullah bin Hasn (Radi-Allahu unhu) reports that whenever two companions met they would not depart till they had recited sura al-Asr to each other reminding themselves of the eternal loss that everyone faces if we waste away our time in foolish pursuits. They did not waste any moment of their life in gossips, useless talks, or meaningless pursuits.

The difference is clear. We may have a fast car, but if we are riding it for the joy of speed driving, not because we want to get there, we'll never get there. The success of our elders or salaf lies in their overriding sense of purpose and accountability and their concern with using their time very carefully.

Coming closer to our own period we find other examples of a similar nature. Consider the case of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who died about sixty years ago. On the surface he just ran a small monastery and a religious school and was given to spending long periods of time in individual worship. But he also authored about 1200 publications ranging from small booklets to encyclopedic works like "Bahishti Zevar", which has seen millions of copies in print. He also used to answer all his mail everyday, which consisted of dozens and sometimes hundreds of pieces. And he taught many generations of scholars! His secret? A strict discipline born of a deep concern about accountability for time.

We are becoming older every day. One day our time will be up and we'll leave this world forever. What happens afterwards will depend solely on how we used all the moments available to us before that certain but unknown moment comes. Time is life. What is at stake is the entire eternity.

From Khalid Baig's timeless article in Albalaqh. More Here.

Banning the burqa is banning modesty and decency

In the early 20th century the Rockfeller Foundation sent Ruth Frances Woodsmall on an eighteen month trip to the Muslim World to study the changing state of Muslim women under the influence of colonial rule. Her voluminous report was published by the American University of Beirut in 1936. She traveled to Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and India. At each place she put the subjects of her study under the microscope, looking at all signs of Westernization, which she called as advancement and progress. “Undoubtedly the barometer of social change in the Moslem World is the veil,” she wrote. So she studied it in great detail noting the designs, material and sizes, practices regarding it, and cheering those who were fighting to eradicate the “evil of the veil.”

Mustafa Kamal Pasha, the autocratic and apostate ruler of Turkey, had banished veil along with other Islamic obligations and was therefore a hero and received glowing tributes from her. Everything he did in this regard was, of course, logical and just. “When Turkish women were granted suffrage, women wearing veils were debarred from voting, a regulation which was accepted as entirely logical.”

In Iran the puppet His Majesty Shah Riza Pahlvi declared 8 January 1936 as the day of “emancipation” forcing women’s “advance”. Along with the compulsorily unveiling in schools and elsewhere was the oppressive measures that no veiled woman could receive treatment in Iran at a public clinic or ride in a public conveyance. What did Woodsmall think about this denial of basic human rights on the basis of religious observances? “These two regulations will doubtless for a time work genuine hardship on conservative Moslem women but eventually their conservation will doubtless be overcome.”

King Amanullah with his unveiled Queen Suriyah was set to introduce the same “spectacular change” in Afghanistan but his “tragic” fall delayed women’s advance in Afghanistan and slowed it in Iran.

The book is full of condescending comments that betray the colonial mindset. One entry in her book reports: “A former young Moslem leader of Beirut who was taking an advanced position there in regard to the veil, after her marriage in Jerusalem has followed the prevailing convention of the veil.” Another gives the good news: “Madame Sharawi Pasha, the leading Moslem woman in Egypt, head of the Feminist Movement, with her niece Mlle Ceza Nebaraoui, the Editor of L’Egyptienne, unveiled in 1923, giving prestige to the whole movement.”

The colonial rulers used all of their powers in this crusade against the hijab from ridicule to fierce propaganda to coercion. Hijab was a relic of the dark ages, a sign of oppression, an impediment to economic progress, and an infringement on women’s right. The campaign has continued in the post-colonial period through a vastly improved propaganda machine as well as through myriad agencies of that surrogate of the colonial powers known as the UN.

There have also been cases of aggressive actions by European officials in Muslim countries. In October 2000 it was learnt that a French run school in Alexandria, Egypt banned hijab for its students. When a lawsuit was brought against the school administration, the French embassy tried to shield them by claiming diplomatic immunity. In January 2003 it was reported that the Jeddah Prep and Grammar School, operated by the British and Dutch embassies, did not permit its students to wear hijab. Girls wearing hijab were forced to remove it every morning before entering the school. It was only the refusal of one Egyptian girl, Lujain, to take off her hijab and subsequent refusal of the school to let her attend classes that brought the issue to the surface. When contacted by an Arab News reporter, the school administrative secretary said the school policy was a total ban on head scarves. She added, "Any girl wearing a head scarf will NOT be allowed to enter school." The resulting public outcry and the pressure from Saudi Education ministry finally persuaded the school to change its policy.

And yet the tide has been turning; the Muslim women are coming back to Islam and hijab in greater numbers both in the Muslim countries as well as in the West. A century ago hijab seemed to be on the way out in the Muslim world; today it can be seen in increasing numbers even in London, Brussels, and New York. Further, despite the incessant propaganda about the oppression of women by Islam, western women are coming to Islam in even greater numbers than western men. They have found through personal experience and observation that Islam—hijab and all—is the true liberator for all humanity that brings peace to the mind, contentment to the heart, and dignity to life.

These old and new Muslims in the West represent a change that some view with apprehension because of that old resistance to change or because of a colonial mindset that they cannot get rid of. But the reaction is far from uniform. While in the US and UK a wise multicultural policy is accommodating this genuine demand for freedom of religion, France is still living in the past century, and buckling under the White Man’s Burden.

Banning hijab is banning modesty and decency. There is no doubt that those behind it in France have the fervor of a crusader. But the crusades—despite their bloody toll—were a failure. Will this one succeed?

From Khalid Baig's article in Al balagh. More Here.

Islam emphasises on 'Freedom from insult'

Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. 

It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions.

Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.

As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants.

Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.

What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults.

From Khalid Baig's article in Al balagh. More Here.

Facebook: Social Networking or Social Engineering?

The big question is, ‘What is social networking and how is it useful?’
 
Of course you will hear the usual bleating saying, ‘It is so nice to know what my sister is doing….blah, blah.’
 
So ask this person, ‘Why can’t you send your sister an email asking what she is doing and she can respond to you. Or even better, if you can, call your sister and talk to her.’ But no, I must talk to my sister in a space where it is not only the sister who is listening but almost anyone who cares to listen, even if that person is a total stranger. So is it about your concern for your sister or is it something else?
 
So also in this space are pictures which really have no place outside the home – like the pictures showing you hugging your sister or wife or whoever! And so on and so on. I don’t think I need to describe all that there is to people who put it there in the first place.
 
Yes, of course there are controls. Tell me all about them. Tell me also how come almost nobody uses them. How many Facebook profiles do you know who have the maximum control activated where only their immediate family can see them? And of course in the end, all control is only as good as the techies and geeks on the Facebook site allow. After all they can access all that information anyway.
 
So what is really being achieved by Facebook, Twitter and so on? (Twitter?? Whoever coined that term was clever. Talk about under the belt. Who twitters? A twit!! – but then I suppose a twit doesn’t know that he is a twit, right?)
 
So what is achieved?
 
What is achieved is what would be the equivalent of peeping in through your window. Wanting to know what you are doing all the time. I want to know what you are doing all the time and I want you to know what I am doing all the time.

Intrusion into privacy when it is done against your will is unpleasant. So what is better? Get you into a state of mind where you will volunteer to tell people all about your internal organs on your own. See the change? An intruder is an intruder only when he intrudes against your will. If you invite him in, then he is a guest, not an intruder. Same person, same you but different rules. And that’s what it is all about, the rules of engagement.
 
So is it ‘social networking’ or is it ‘social engineering?’
 
The purpose is to change the rules of the society. Break barriers. Destroy the boundaries that protect us.
 
And where does this lead to? Addiction and intoxication. Addiction to seeing what others are doing and telling others what you are doing on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis. And being intoxicated with the false feeling that you are so interesting that people are really interested in what you are doing. Not realizing or willing to believe that these are the actions of other intoxicated people.
 
You don’t like the word ‘intoxication’? Just don’t log onto your Facebook or Twitter account for two days and monitor your heartbeat, blood pressure, tremor in your mouse, whatever and you will see what I mean.

And all this for what? What is achieved with the time that you spend reading about other’s adenoids and telling them about yours? Incidentally I know what adenoids means and that you don’t talk about them. But let us not mention what facebookers really talk about!
 
So what did you achieve? Just ask yourself this question, ‘What did I achieve by being on Facebook and Twitter (or whichever of these infernal social networks you are on) over the past month, year or whatever period.’ Remember this is a serious question because you Muslim/ah are spending your time (life) doing it. And that makes it among the first questions that you will have to answer to Allah. So what did you achieve? Prepare the answer. You will need it. 

 
Social networking is social engineering. Its purpose is to change the values and ethics of people. This is done, in its most benign form, to encourage you to indulge more and more in the consumerist society that is all consuming. We think we are the consumers. But we are in reality the consumed. Just think, how many of you buy things, see shows, go to restaurants (and other places), like or dislike things because of campaigns on Facebook and Twitter? See what is happening? Your minds are invaded, your thoughts are influenced, and consequently your actions are manipulated and you may not even realize it.

 Today Muslims the world over are very angry with the latest offensive of the Facebook. But an impulsive reaction will hardly do us any good. Just staying off of the offensive site for one day, as many have advocated, will only highlight our capitulation to it.

It is time we rethink what are we doing with our lives and say no to social engineering. It is time to get off of Facebook, Twitter, and other similar sites that are destroying us from within. 

From Mirza Yawar Baig's article on Facebook in Albalagh. More here.

Tasawwuf is the soul of Islam

A lot of people have misunderstandings about tasawwuf. Many think that it is something beyond Qur'an and Sunnah. Errant Sufis as well as the superficial ulema, although on the opposite ends of the spectrum, are together in holding this mistaken notion. Consequently the first group has shunned the Qur'an and Hadith while the second group has shunned tasawwuf.

Actually, although the term tasawwuf, like many other religious terms in use today, evolved later, the discipline is very much part of the Shariah. The department of the Shariah relating to external deeds like salat and zakat is called fiqh while the one dealing with the internal feelings and states of the heart is called tasawwuf. Both are commanded in the Qur'an.

Thus while commanding Salat and Zakat, the Qur'an also commands gratefulness and love of Allah and condemns the evil of pride and vanity. Similarly, in the books of hadith, along with the chapters on Ibadat, trade and commerce, marriage and divorce, are to be found the chapters on riya (showoff) takabbur, akhlaq, etc. These commands are as much a mandatory requirement as the ones dealing with external deeds.

On reflection it will be realized that all the external deeds are designed for the reformation of the heart. That is the basis of success in the hereafter while its despoiling is the cause of total destruction. This is precisely what is known technically as tasawwuf. Its focus is tahzeebe akhlaq or the adornment of character; its motive is the attainment of Divine pleasure; its method is total obedience to the commands of the Shariah.

Tasawwuf is the soul of Islam. Its function is to purity the heart from the lowly bestial attributes of lust, calamities of the tongue, anger, malice, jealousy, love of the world, love of fame, niggardliness, greed, ostentation, vanity, deception, etc. At the same time it aims at the adornment of the heart with the lofty attributes of repentance, perseverance, gratefulness, fear of Allah, hope, abstention, tauheed, trust, love, sincerity, truth, contemplation, etc.
[Condensed from writings of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi]

From an article written by Khalid Baig in Albalagh

To read the full article click here