nuqtah

Assalamu alaikum,

For a while I’ve been posting at http://nuqtah.wordpress.com .  I’ve decided that from now on I will only post there.  This blog will stay, but I’ll be active on the other address, Insha Allah.

I’ve been toying with the idea of moving to Hadithuna but that’s too much moving around…So yeh.

When tragedy hits close to home, with a potential of developing into much more widespread chaos; it creates a sense of insecurity in those affected, and those who could be affected.  One starts to read events, that have happened or could happen, as a moral paradigm.

Politically motivated massacres, ill-timed and ill-concieved attempts at quasi (social) revolutions, besieged mosques, sporadic suicide attacks; all of these paint a gloomy picture.

The situation of Law and Order in the society becomes, perhaps, the most pressing concern.  The succession of violent events creates a fear that this may trigger a domino effect, engulfing the whole society.  This is a scary thought.  Not many on the ground are prepared to think of what possibly the situation may degenerate into, as they are not prepared to deal with what may happen.

It is easy for most, when their words have no real consequences, in relative comfort, opine about what should happen, and what shouldn’t.  What is good and what is bad.  Above all, what is right and what isn’t.  However, when chaos is imminent, repercussions are a reality.

No sane individual wants; lawlessness or lawless oppressors to rule supreme, innocent lives taken, and have his or her own life endangered.  Chaos isn’t the right tool.  It is neither the right reason, nor the right outcome.  So, what is actually right becomes the question.

The answer is simple; whatever is right, there’s nothing right about chaos.

Shaykh Salman al-`awdah on condemning and tackling violence:

Sheikh Salman al-Oadah, speaking on the NBC program al-Hayât Kalimah, stressed that no one can deny that violence has become an ever-present problem in the Muslim World. He said: “It is usurping the Islamic program which is a program of mercy, development, peaceful discourse, and coexistence.”

Sheikh Salman, who is the General Director of IslamToday emphasized that current events internationally have contributed to the growing atmosphere of violence in Muslim lands, especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.

He sees that, more and more, people in Muslim countries are resorting to violence as a means to effect change, because of the impact that violent behavior has on people.

Therefore, he stressed that the problem of violence needs to be dealt with in a frank and unequivocal manner, complaining that “some people shy away from speaking out about violence, or think that doing so will play into the hands of certain interests. Some people are afraid to speak plainly about the problem of violence, because they want to avoid a backlash.”

He also said that it is not enough to just speak about those who are engaged in violent behavior. “What we say must be directed at all Muslims. They need to hear a decisive Islamic stance on this dangerous situation that affects the lives of everyone.”

He also criticized those who wish to capitalize on the violence in Muslim countries as a means to criticize Islamic trends in society by making sweeping accusations against all Islamic groups. “It is as if they found in these violent events a means to condemn all Islamic discourse.”

Sheikh Salman pointed out that most of the people who show sympathy for violent movements are not motivated by ideology as much as they are motivated by frustration. Anger at the deteriorating situation in their countries causes some people to sympathize with the perpetrators of violence. “Many people are angry with their circumstances, but have no clear aim or will to make a change.”

Sheikh Salman appealed to the governments of Arab states to do as much as possible to provide an environment for their citizens that is conducive to justice. This will bring greater security “because when violence occurs, it targets society as a whole.”

The Sheikh also believes that getting the people involved in projects of development and reform gives a sense of stability to individual members of society and provides an outlet for their aspirations. “It is a strategic solution that we need in order to confront the present ongoing strife.”

With respect to the role Islamic groups must play in combating violence, he stressed that “Islamic groups are a reality in our societies that we cannot get away from, and it is not possible to simply refuse to recognize them. In some cases, Islamic groups in Arab countries have more power than political parties. It provides greater transparency to acknowledge their existence and discuss them openly, to find out what these groups have going for them and what they have going against them.”

Sheikh Salman called upon Islamic groups to communicate a clear message to reassure society. “These groups must be held accountable and they must be brought to shoulder their responsibility. They must do away with any ambiguity about their activities, their outlook, and their ideas. They must be clear in their disavowal of violence.”

He added “Islamic groups need to have the courage to be frank and direct in clarifying their bad past track records so they can present themselves to the public in a more positive and clearer light.”

In turn, Sheikh Salman appealed to Muslim governments and society to deal normally with members of Islamic groups, affording them the same rights as any other citizens, because “experience has shown us that groups that integrate themselves in the political process or in society are open to the public purview and do not feel the need to act in a secretive manner. This keeps these groups away from making mistakes, just as sunlight kills germs.”

Sheikh Salman regards those groups that present themselves as an alternative to the government to be doing nothing other than “setting the stage for future conflict, because confining all change to political change is neither rationally sound nor Islamically correct. Any program of change has to be a cooperative effort to reconsider the values and opinions of the people. What good is it to get rid of a fascist regime with secular trappings only to replace it with a fascist regime with Islamic trappings?”

Sheikh Salman called for the need to address the issue of violence in Islamic terms and expose any act of violence perpetrated in Islam’s good name, adding that “the Islamic stance against violence must be delivered forcefully and consistently at all times, not just as a momentary reaction to violent acts when they take place.”

He concluded, saying “We need an Islamic discourse that is insightful, moderate, responsive, and independent. It needs to have credibility, and be given in a spirit that leaves the listener without any doubt that it is being spoken sincerely for the pleasure of Allah, and not to appease those in power.”

LINK

A heart-wrenching article on Jamia Hafsa by Dr. Shahid Mas’ood:

کون تھیں کہاں چلی گئیں

I’m Bored.

My heart is hardening.

My emaan is on an all time Low.

Such is my Life, and its Flow.

: (

Shaykh al-didou elaborates on the hadith of 73 sects:

The Question:

“Can you comment on the hadith that talks about the splitting of the Muslim nation into 73 sects?”

The Answer:

Pertaining to the statement of the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] that, “the Jews split into seventy one sects, and the Christians split in to seventy two sects. And my nation will split into seventy three sects”, then this portion [of the hadith] is from an authentic hadith related by al-Hakim and others. As for the end of the [of the hadith] which states, “Every one of them will be in the fire except one” or “Every one of them will be in Paradise save one” or “Whoever was upon what I and my companions were upon” then all of these additions are not authentic. Therefore, the hadith is sound, which affirms the splitting [of the Prophet’s nation] and is a proof of his prophecy, but concerning the statements referring to the “Fire”, ‘Paradise” or “What I and my companions were upon”, then none of these is authentically reported on behalf the Prophet [may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him].

Regarding the different sects in the Ummah, then from it are those who will be innovators and astray in religion. However, the one who engages in such acts is not a disbeliever. This is because whoever dies and bears witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah will not stay in the fire eternally even if he was astray or an innovator no matter how much he disobeyed Allah. His case is up to Allah to either forgive him or punish him according to the degree of that person’s sin, then, He [the most high], after [purifying this person of his sins] will take this person from the Fire.

Al-‘Allamah Muhamamd Hassan al-Dido al-Shanqiti

www.suhaibwebb.com

Courtsey: Imam Suhaib Webb

A plethora of articles consisting of commentaries, analyses, and critiques of the Lal Masjid event have been appearing in various different Pakistani newspapers, magazines and journals (especially english).  There are similar and recurrent trends that can be clearly established in all of these articles.

Firstly, all of these articles have been written by individuals who hail from middle or upper class of the Pakistani society, who are a minority of Pakistanis.

Secondly, almost all of these ‘commentators’ have been quick to lambast the actions of Lal masjid outright.  Accompanied usually with blanket labeling.  Such as  the use of the words; ‘fundamentalists’, ‘extremists’ and ‘brainwashed’.  One commentator even seemed to suggest that Lal Masjid adherents may have been taking drugs (?!).

Although they have been hasty to condemn the actions, their arguements have been nothing more than trite.  Repetitive, recycled and towing the same line.

Almost all of them have either ignored, or failed to take into consideration certain realities.  One of the realities ignored was; what made Abdul Rashid Ghazi into what he was, when he was killed?

After all, it only defeats reason, to not ask; why and how Abdul Rashid, a once non-practicing guy, became more and more conservative and even extreme in his views and idealogy?  This fundamental question has been tackled by almost none of these ‘commentators’.

If we are to look at the chronology of events that led up to the final outcome.  Many of the ‘vigilante’ actions that Lal Masjid took, the underlying reason and drive behind those actions was a call for social justice, economic equity, and moral accountability.

‘Aunty Shameem’(against whom residents of locality had complained many times, but to no avail) incident.  And, the rape victim from Jehlum, who willingly sought justice through Lal Masjid after being turned away from pertinent authorities, are sufficient proof.

This is attested to by Prof. Robert Jensen (who was on a lecture tour in Pakistan).  Although rightfully disagreeing with Lal Masjid’s actions, he states,‘ In addition to calls for shariah…Lal Masjid imams…critiqued the corruption of Pakistani political, military and economic elites, highlighting the living conditions of the millions of Pakistanis living in poverty.’ (source)

Similar thoughts are echoed by Farid Esack, a well-known progressive scholar from South Africa,‘ We can reject the jihadist and patriarchal aspects and still recognize that there is in this fundamentalist philosophy a call for social justice, a challenge to power-seeking and greed of elites.’ (source)

It is a matter of concern and shame that these non-Pakistanis (one being a non-muslim) have been more impartial and meticulous in their assessment, than our very own home-grown ‘thinkers’.  They, on the other hand, have only churned out reactionary acrimony, capitalizing on the situation, in a bid to earn some desperate brownie points and further their own agendas.

This motley bunch of ‘commentators’, made up of; liberals who derive their thinking from euro-centric ans imperialist western thought.  Thinking which, for most part, is irrelevant to indigenous discourse.  And, left leaning individuals, who have become accustomed to bourgeoisie comfort, and pay mere lip-service to leftist thought.  They have shown little or no signs of professionalism.

Instead of providing objective and fair criticisms, there has been a naked display of intellectual snobbery, which only panders to a strictly secularist, hence partial, worldview.

The obvious catch being the fact that these individuals are just as extreme and dedicated to their common cause i.e. eradicating religion completely from public sphere.  The only difference being; they happen to be on the other end of the spectrum.

Asking questions is a natural consequence of a desire or need to know and understand.  In fact, the Socratic method of imparting knowledge and instruction, is in a dialectical question and answer form.  Step by step questioning and answering harnesses a much better understanding, as opposed to rote learning.

However, for many this endeavor can turn into a means to criticize, marginalize, and ostracize.  It turns, more often than not, into a form of sophistry; a tool for dishonest conscience.

Some resort to such tactics due to their lack of exposure to rhetoric, and the art of inquiring.  Others do it due to their naivete and sheer stubborness, not realizing and remaining at their place in the heirarchy of knowledge; they are persistent upon displaying expertise which is non-existent.

And this hierarchy of knowledge is not in the least authoritarian or dictatorial.  Naturally, people are at different levels of knowledge.  There is mobility between these levels, provided the necessary conditions.  Individuals have to pass through school, college, and university, in order to become proficient in secular sciences and related fields.  The procedure of education of religious sciences is not much different.  A failure to recognize this fact is the hall mark of these ‘questioners’.

Collectively, these individuals are a product of a mentality which is a result of a complex involving; insufficient knowledge, propensity to think what they already know is sufficient- leading to worrying states of minds.  Many of them, often educated in secular and Western institutes, start to believe and act on the pretense that they know enough to be an authority.  Or, more appropriately a pseudo-authority.

In a socio-religious, or even political context, the Scholars (Ulema) are an easy target, and a constant scapegoat for these “experts”.

A barrage of slanderous accusations and labels are levelled against the Scholars.  Ranging from being backward and incompetent to outright liars.  The display of such civility does not cease at such vitroil.  Then, these individuals tend to delve into interpreting Qur’an, hadith, and fiqh.  Without having any qualification in any of the required Sciences, which demand rigorous training and education.  Such is the height of arrogance.  Nay, ignorance.

A sensible and impartial observer is forced to think and ask; who has the greater probability of being ‘right’?  The person who spends his entire life carefully studying and analyzing the corpus of Islamic Faith and Law?  Or, someone who is incapable of even differentiating between the technical terms such as Istinja and Istijmar?

Perhaps, these individuals should actually consider asking those who know actual relevant questions, the scholars, in order to gain more understanding and clarification, as per the dictates of common sense and command in the Qur’an.  Instead of, ridiculing them and questioning their authority on Islam, and then indulging in inept opining which has no basis in Islamic learning.  Such brash actions only accentuate such individual’s lack of knowledge and proper etiquettes.

Realistically, to think that such people may amend their ways, and display intellectual honesty, may be too ambitious of an expectation.  However, amid this corner the scholar culture, where the scholars, the experts are almost always wrong, and the self-proclaimed critics always right, an important question needs to be asked.

Can we atleast expect these so-called shining stars of modernity and reform, to maintain some level decorum in their apparently civilized, conveniently biased and often scathing ‘criticisms’ and ‘inquisitions’?  Or, is this too much to ask or expect from these reasonable men and women?

 إنما يخشى الله من عباده العلماء

…It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah…

(surah faatir, ayah 28)

I just don’t understand the human preoccupation with talking about everything, and absolutely anything.  Without even thinking about whether one is even qualified to discuss certain issues, or even realizing the consequences of usless and uninformed speech.

When it comes to Islam, and muslims discussing Islam-this preoccupation can prove to be quite dangerous.  Primary reason being; they are delving into issues that can affect their Hereafter.  If they happen to be the type who don’t give much thought to Hereafter, then it’s simple intellectual dishonesty, to altercate over matters they aren’t fully acquainted with.

Muslim discussion forums, blogs, online communities, journals etcetera are rife with discourses on everything, and anything even remotely related to Islam.  Islam does not impose a limit or hinderance on thinking, pondering, or even questioning.  However, there is a fine line dividing an ‘honest question’ and a ‘judgemental question’; the latter being more of a quasi-critique of one aspect or another of islam.

Approach and method are of utmost importance.  How can one expect to learn or seek to understand, when he or she has already formed a preconcieved judgement, often derisive in tone, relating to an islamic issue and those who disseminate it?

Sentimental tirades, that are no less than pseudo-literary whoring of spiritual, moral, and legal traditions of Islam, do not do any Justice.  Yes it is allegorical whoring, because mere opinions, without any basis or grounding, are being paraded as sound judgements for the suspecting and unsuspecting spectators to see and read.  And that too on something that is from Islam.  The greatest flaw in these diatribes being the fact that a clarification is almost never sought from the experts. 

So, what can we call this culture of discussing and dissecting Islam without Knowledge?  Mere gratuitous musings.  That’s what these opinions are, and that’s what they will remain, unless Muslims learn to talk and discuss Islam in an appropriate and more befitting manner. 

Bismillah,

The following is a timely article by our dear shaykh Salman al ‘awdah, discussing human rights in an islamic and muslim context.  How we lack these basic rights in our societies.  How we should strive to uphold them…Masha Allah, it is a must read:

After the great world wars in which human beings witnessed the unspeakable horrors that they were capable of unleashing upon each other, humanity began to fear itself. It was at this time that the great declarations and conventions on human rights were drafted and adopted.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is indeed a noble and historic document that enshrines the principle of human dignity and the preservation of inalienable human rights. There are Muslims who speak about it in distrustful and fearful terms, simply because it has its origins in the West and because it discusses a few principles that some Muslims may not readily agree with. For this reason, there are those who regard it as a collection of confused statements that the Muslims can dispense with. This is a point of view that Muslims need to seriously reconsider.

Many of the rights that the Declaration refers to are principles that were part and parcel of Muslim culture – and that Western civilization could very well have learned from the Muslims – at the time when Islamic civilization was ascendant. It behooves the Muslims today to be at the forefront of those who work to uphold human rights. The Muslims should be the furthest people from the evils and maladies of our present age, with all its wars, bloodshed, oppression, and tyranny.

Every positive development that humanity experiences is an opportunity for constructive activity, for positive change, and for calling people to Islam. Every alliance, conference, and treaty is a messenger of goodwill and of renewal.

Our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said about an alliance for the upholding of rights that existed in Mecca during pre-Islamic times: “I had witnessed an alliance being convened in the home of `Abd Allah b. Jud`ân that if the likes of it were to occur in Islam, I would enter into it. Seek such alliances and restore even the simplest rights to the people. No oppressor should have power over the oppressed.” [al-Bayhaqî]

This alliance was a source of goodness that brought general benefit to the people, and was thereby something that Allah loved. There is nothing more destructive in life than disregard for life’s mandates, the oppression of human beings, and wanton bloodshed. These are the very evils that made the angels dread Allah’s creation of the human being.
 

Read rest of the article Here

I have noticed something really peculiar about myself.  I write the best when I’m in a state of lethargy, and on the verge of falling asleep.  I have an explanation for this strange phenomena. 

I believe that when I’m in this ’state’, my brain slows down the activity related to all parts of my body, since it’s ready to sleep.  However, I force myself to think and exert effort to transfer my thoughts into words.  As my brain is relatively inactive, and not concerned about rest of the body as it normally would be, it is able to concentrate with more ease on a singular task.  The task being; converting my thoughts into words.  This results in me writing without actually consciously thinking about what I’m writing.  It just flows…

I try not to talk about contentious issues. Even If I do, I try to keep my blog as apolitical and impersonal as possible, when a conflict of beliefs and ideas is apparent. I came across an abysmally low and pathetic attempt at smearing the good name of a brother who stands firm against the onsluaght of neo-ijtihadis. Its nature is such that it warrants mini a response.

Mr. Ali Eteraz, our very own flag bearer of reform, has come up with yet another, not-so-new tactfully alarmist, and self victimizing, gutter exudation of a post, in a bid to put the brother in question on spot. It may very well be termed as an intellectually charged piece by Eteraz’s convertible hijaabi chearleaders and metrosexual fans.

Being a particularly articulate attitudinizer, who knows how to seek attention through sophisticated vocabulary, and references fixated all over his writings, Eteraz goes on a rampage. I must say I’m not surprised in the least, or even impressed. Such outbursts seem to be the routine and life line of Mr. Eteraz’s cyber existence.

I can’t help but think whether the ivory tower, to which Eteraz has chosen to self-appoint himself as a vangaurd, has “Listen to Me!” painted all over it.

I have a few humble and honest thoughts regarding Eteraz’s tasteless and trite rhetoric.

Eteraz accuses the brother of being a hypocrite among other absurdities, and by direct implication anyone else who happens to raise any concern regarding Ali Eteraz and his little band of thinkers. Eteraz should know better than anyone else that criticism is criticism, constructive or not. The fact that Ali Eteraz felt a need to misrepresent critique of him as ‘character assassination’, only emanates the true nature of his reform. It’s a reform yet it can not tolerate dissent.

And what exactly is the highest degree of hypocrisy?

Deconstructing the intellectual legacy and heritage of Islam, through a concerted and consistent effort of creating a repertoire of imagery and words. Often farcical in nature, and intended as mockery. All done in the name of Islam. This not only is hypocrisy, but deception. Only if Eteraz’s army of poster boys and poster girls were to realize this.

When and how did Eteraz appoint himself as the ‘moral police’? What makes the usage of terms such as ‘gutteraz’ so unacceptable? Isn’t innuendo, and other words in similar vein, used far too often on Eteraz? Eteraz can say what he wants to, but anyone who happens to disagree is characterized and deemed as having committed an abhorrent act? Seems a bit contradictory.

The issue at hand is simple to understand. As long as Eteraz continues to attack the legal, moral, basis and principles of Islam; concerned muslims will not desist from critiquing the pseudo-establishment known as “Eteraz and Co.”.

Update: It appears that Ali Eteraz has chosen to delete his post in question.  The only credulous reason I can think of is; he probably realized his emotive rants are only becoming a cause of him losing credibility and integrity.

Bismillah,

The following is the essay I wrote as my Sociology course’s term paper. It is a product of pulling an all nighter. So, I must state that I may have had made some moot points and generalizations in haste. They should be overlooked (or critiqued if one wishes to do so). I’ve edited the article from its original form, in order to refine it further and make it available to wider audience.
[ Stuart Hall, Schwalbe, Mc Intyre are the sociologists whose work I used for references and concpets while writing the essay, I'm too lazy to find and type in actual references over here]

Islam’s Image in American Context

A normal generic American’s understanding of social environment and world around him is extremely limited; having been gleaned from very few sources, media outlets such as Fox News being one of them.

What Americans definitely lack is an acute awareness of what actually happens in the society, let alone the greater world. I’ve personally come across at least one American who did not know where Canada was.

Most Americans aren’t sufficiently sociologically mindful. Perhaps it is the American individualism, as Schwalbe alludes, that has acted as a major hindrance. What an individual thinks or wants is given the priority, be it at expense of someone else’s ‘ideals’. When people live in such a ‘dog eat dog’ climate, as the clichéd saying goes, it is not hard to see why, what happens in the world, is the least of anyone’s concerns.

This can also be tied into the overall attitude of creating a dichotomy, whenever Americans place themselves against someone or something ‘foreign’. It immediately becomes a binary split of “Us vs. Them”. Such dichotomizing due to lack of understanding of the “other” has been extensively discussed by Stuart Hall in “Representation; Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices”.

Although Stuart revolves the breakdown of his understanding around the ‘racial differences’, he states, “…what is said about racial difference could equally be applied in many instances to other dimensions of difference, such as gender, sexuality, class and disability.” I believe we can add “ethnicity” and “religion” to the dimension of differences as well. Hence, parallels in perceptions of general masses can be drawn, related to these issues. Since, it is the same thought process at work.

As I mentioned earlier, media is one of the major sources that shape the understanding of Americans. Stuart suggests that words and images used in media can have either ‘denotative’ meaning. Which is the more immediate or literal meaning. Or, they can have a ‘connotative’, more subtle, more thematic meaning. Such duplicitousness helps enforce preconceived notions of ours about the ‘other’.

It is possible that such categorization of people into “Us” and “Them”, based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, actually help reinforce the sense of “being” on an individual level. And such categorization is seen as natural. It is the understanding that people conjure when certain images and words are projected at them.

As Schwalbe states, “…first we make rules for believing, then we follow our rules as a matter of habit, settle our beliefs, and presume to know how things really are, as if the truth came to us through no effort at all.”

It is important to realize that the way Americans perceive “others” is a result of understanding that has been ingrained into them over generations. As a result of this, it isn’t improbable why they are receptive to certain “connotative” meanings. This is after all how they’ve been socialized into society.

In this context, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that ethnocentrism also plays a focal role in how people see things, and react to whatever may happen around them.

Ethnocentrism, as loosely defined by Mc Intyre, is when, “Each of us likes to believe that his or her own people’s customs and traditions are best.” Hence, these traditions and customs are used to weigh others’ customs and traditions.

Ethnocentrism isn’t just limited to “customs and traditions”, it is an inculcated way of thinking and can be applied to race and gender as well. However, in the light of what is being discussed here, the given definition should suffice.

I have volunteered with “Muslim Student Association” at the school I currently study. It is an organization comprising of Muslim students. Among its goals is to spread awareness about Muslims and Islam. Oftentimes, I have “tabled” for them.

I’ve noticed in my personal interaction with people who come up to the table, few recurrent forms of mannerism. Whenever they approach the table, most of the times they have an inquisitive look. More often than not, they also have questions. Another thing that I’ve noticed time and again is that they always ask me, “Where are you from?”

Now what exactly makes them say that? Is it my appearance? Perhaps my brown color and beard somehow translate as traits of someone foreign or “other”?

Or, is it because I happen to be tabling with a large poster stating, “Islam on Campus”?

Despite the fact that there are an estimated 6-8 million Muslims in America, there is always a certain level of “otherness” associated with Islam or Muslims. You could be like any other normal American; walking, talking and living. The moment you say you are a Muslim; there is a different reaction, be it slight.

This brings us back to the ethnocentrism existent in this society, where as a Muslim it is hard for us to be seen as, “as American as other Americans.” It is a way of affirming the for of the “other”, the “foreign”. In fact, I would like to believe such ethnocentrism is the offspring of “Euro-centrism”. The Lands of Americas were literally purged off their natives. It was the same mentality at work, when the Natives were seen as strange, and not at par with the civil and noble traits and characteristics of the settlers. Columbus, after all, was not an explorer. He was a bounty hunter.

Corporate Media plays a humongous role in reaffirming and further inflaming such ethnocentric undertones. It is achieved by constantly throwing images and words that have a connotative message associated with them.

As Stuart Hall theorizes, “…at the broader level of how “differences” and “otherness” is being represented in a particular culture at any one moment, we can see similar representational practices and figures being repeated…This accumulation of meanings across different texts, where one image refers to another…We may describe the whole repertoire of imagery and visual effects through which “difference” is represented at any one historical moment as a regime of representation.”

This is a fairly large chunk of a quote; however it succinctly summarizes what Media does. It builds a “regime of representation” through such images. This solidifies the already deeply rooted distrust and fear of the other.

A perfect recent example, strangely enough, that I can think of is the Virginia Tech shooting incident. In the aftermath to what happened, the conservative commentators and Media jumped on to Muslim bashing bandwagon. Extreme right commentator, second only to Coulter, Debbie Schussel suggested the shooter was a “Paki”. Using a derogative term while referring to Pakistanis. When she was proven wrong, she kept on insisting on some mythical Muslim connection.

Then there’s Media’s fixation with the words “Ismail Ax” that the shooter Cho had written over his arm. Using this as a justification for the ‘non existent’ Muslim connection, Media has tried hard to connect him with Islam and Muslims. (see: http://muslimmatters.org/2007/04/19/cho-seung-hui-undercover-muslim-terrorist-or-just-certifiably-crazy/ )

From what little knowledge of sociology I have, I do remember reading a theory that states Media shows what people “want” to see. So, we can assume to an extent that, such fear mongering and demonizing only mirrors the beliefs held by the masses.

In this cultural context, dispelling misconceptions will be a painfully long process. As masses need to be educated and re-educated. The key lies in being more sociologically mindful and seeing the “other” at a more human level. I have no solutions, but my thoughts are an attempt towards a better understanding.

Bismillah,

I was listening to al-shaykh mawlana makki hijaazi, and he mentioned something really beautiful and profound. I shall paraphrase what he said:

Why is Jibril (`alayhis salam) called the Ruh (the Spirit/Soul)?…So understand the matter. If there’s no Ruh, there’s no Life. If there’s no Qur’an, there’s no Eman. So the Ruh became the source of our Life, and what Jibril brought became the source of our Eman. That’s why he was called Ruhul Amin (the trustworthy Spirit).

Subhan Allah. The parallel, the analogy, is striking and thoughtfully explained.

Bismillah,

The following is an excellent answer on issue of Istighatha, provided by a Hanafi scholar.

…The following hadith also shows that the Dua is a form of worship and as such cannot be made to the creation:
[1] The Messenger of Allah , “The Dua is the essence of Worship,” (Tirmidhi).

The above practice can take the form of Istigatha (shouting out for the aid of a saint) and as such it will clearly be impermissible. There is however another reason why Istigatha is not permitted, that is when someone calls on a pious person saying: “Ya Muhammad” or “Ya Abd al-Qadir Jilani.”

 Namely this entails the belief that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and various saints are present everywhere, seeing and hearing, which are the attributes of Allah taala and thus shirk. Thus to say most of the Ummah have permitted this is clearly unfounded.

The Hanafi jurists do not allow it. In Fatawa Bazzaziyya (printed on the border of Fatawa Hindiyya), Shaikh Al-Kardari writes: “Whoever holds the souls of the saints as present and cognizant has committed kufr,” pg.326, vol.6…

Read the rest of the answer Here.

Bismillah,

I know this might be kind of old and obsolete. But, the following Link is an interview with Mufti Taqi sahab (db) on Hudood Ordinance Bill of Pakistan. It is worth watching for the sake of information, and simply watching one of the foremost scholars alive today speak. The interview is in Urdu.