In the Shadow of the Sword III; History, Myths and Prophecies

 Dhul-Qarnayn with the help of jinn, building  the Iron Wall to keep the barbarian Gog and Magog from civilized peoples.Courtesy: Wikimedia

Tom Holland mentions in his book the stories and legends popular among the Christians and Jews living in and around the Fertile Crescent. These are the tales of the seven sleepers, of the two-horned king and of Gog and Magog which also are mentioned in the Quran. A valid question can be raised perhaps, that why such stories of a victorious King, of mystical time-travelling Christians and of demonic hordes locked away behind a metallic wall were reproduced in the Quran? What kind of plagiarism is this! Was this an attempt by the “authors” of Quran to entice their Israelite cousins into the new-found Ishmaelite Empire? Or was it an effort to impress the Quraish with the knowledge of fantastic happenings which could only have come from God?

Let us examine the Islamic source material while ignoring the classical Muslim scholarship on this issue. I ignore it because classical Islamic scholars like Tabari, Ibn Ishaq etc. have borrowed heavily from Jewish and Christian sources to fill the gaps in their own understanding of history. Their commentaries on Quran often cite tales and fables of the Israelites. So Islamic understanding of Quran isn’t necessarily “Quranic” on many matters. For example, Book of Genesis becomes the guide for Muslim understanding of creation myths. Similarly whatever Quran mentions with references to Torah and Gospels, gets superimposed by the popular Judaeo-Christian opinion. Muslims start believing in ascension of Jesus and his return in latter days. Although they take care that rather than dying and rising up again, he is replaced on the cross with a look-alike (a story which existed in one of the lesser known gospels). Ibn Kathir went so far as to state that the earth rested on the horns of a bull. None of these stories can be verified by the Quranic text.

As the main thrust of Tom Holland’s argument is that Quran is a book manufactured, borrowed and edited to support an empire for the Arabs, I would like to compare these stories and legends with Quranic source material to see if there is any evidence of Divine knowledge in it.

A few points of clarification before I proceed further:

1. If Quran records an event or the past, regardless of its existence in Torah or folklore, the Quranic account will always be free of error. i.e., there will be no supernatural happenings, demons; time-travel etc. and it will be consistent with the scientific findings.

2. The story of Moses and “Khidr” is actually a vision of Moses which foretells of the future interactions between Israelites and the Muslims.

3. The story of Dhul-Qarnayn is significant because of its prophetic nature. i.e., Yajooj and Majooj making reappearance in the latter days.

For centuries Muslims have believed that Dhul-Qarnayn, the two horned king was Alexander the great. Some have asserted that the story has been copied from the “Romance of Alexander” which conveniently converts a pagan warrior into a soldier of God. But a closer look at the Quranic text and verified historic evidence shows that it was Cyrus the great who was the pious king. Also, Jewish records interpret Daniel’s vision about the two horned ram as Cyrus, their liberator. This understanding is consistent with other verses of Quran which also counts Sabians (Zoroastrians) as those who will be judged as monotheists along with Muslims and “people of the Book”. Quran also informs us of the geographical limits of Cyrus’s empire and location where the wall was built to keep Gog and Magog out.

The identity of this prophet-king matches the prophecy of Daniel in Torah, and not the myths prevalent among the masses. Thus Quran presents the correct history without error and also predicts the future. Exactly what a Divinely revealed scripture should do. When I say that the correct history was recorded, please note that the alleged supernatural beings helping the King build the wall and any myths regarding Gog and Magog are absent from Surah Kahf.

Now let’s see what Quran says about the future. Although it mentions Gog and Magog only twice, it does not elaborate on their origins or identity. Contemporary Jews put the title of Gog and Magog to everyone who came to harm them, including the Saracens. To them, Gog and Magog would inevitably be followed by the Messiah. Cyrus has been called a “Messiah” by Torah, so it was understandable that a future Messiah should also battle against the menace that is Yajooj and Majooj.

Quran says that in future Gog and Magog will cross all barriers and will spread on the earth causing mischief. If Biblical genealogy is to be believed, Japhethites (Gog and Magog) now inhabit Europe, Russia and North America.

This brings us finally to the story of the seven sleepers as was popular among the Syriac speaking Christians. Quran calls them Ashab-e-Kahf (Kahf=KHF=Cave) and does not give a number. Also, if we only read the text, it can be understood that these people of the cave may have belonged to various times and locations across the Roman Empire during the 3oo years of persecution. It also becomes clear that Quran does not mention a set number of the cave dwellers, which means that they were many in number who lived in the catacombs and caves around the Roman empire, virtually cut off from the daily business of life.

A test for the authenticity of Quran would be to prove that any of the historic accounts mentioned in it are erroneous in the light of the modern research. History at the time of late antiquity appears to be re-written and in many cases fabricated to validate a dynasty or religious order. Alexander or his historian sought to replace the memory of Cyrus with that of the invading conqueror. Umayyids and Abbasids were known to make use of fabricated hadith to help their popularity in the masses. Jews and Christians were also waiting for the Messiah or his second coming and their narratives were driven by this expectation. If Tom Holland’s theory is correct, Quran should be full of historic errors considering it narrates many stories from the past. In his book he does mentions such errors, but always through the agency of early Islamic commentators, who in turn were taking the best guess from many versions of history available to them.

If Quran is to be a collection of stories from syriac Christian and Jewish literature, it should also have the errors that they contain. An idea for another book for Mr. Holland perhaps?

In the Shadow of the Sword II; Quran and Sana'a manuscripts



A segment of the "Sana'a Papyrus"



Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful; This verse appears in Quran 114 times, at the beginning of each Surah or chapter apart from one exception. Surah Tauba (Chapter 9) starts without this verse. But Bismillah, as this verse is commonly referred to, also appears in the middle of another Surah. Completing 114 appearances in Quran, equaling the total number of Chapters in it. An interesting trivia which I learnt as a child growing in a Muslim household.

While reading Tom Holland’s “In the shadow of the sword” it never occurred to me that the total number of “Bismillah’s” in Quran will have any relevance to his critique of the origins of Islam. The book itself is a very interesting read. The author has complete mastery over the era which saw the end of the glory days of both Roman and Persian empires. Be it Peroz’s last ditch attempt to regain lost prestige of the house of Sassan, or Justinian’s endeavors to bring Rome back into the Roman Empire, the book paints a picture so well defined and detailed as far as Romans and Persians are concerned. But when it comes to Mecca, Mr. Holland resorts to broad brush strokes. He laments the lack of historic evidence, ruins, engravings, coinage etc. but still assumes so much based on what little “secular” evidence exists.

So, what of the authenticity of Quran? Tom Holland observes that the paradise of Quran sounds very similar to the Greek myths. Why are there so many frequent references to agriculture, olives etc? Could it be that the author(s) of Quran had an eye on the Fertile Crescent, or even better, was it written in Mesopotamia? To a Muslim, such questions are obviously bordering the ridiculous, but a secular reader should also be taken aback by the naivety of such fantastic assumptions.

Mr. Holland’s assertion that Quran is not as infallible and unchanged as Muslims would like to believe because

a. There is no evidence that Quran ever existed as a single text during the life of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) and

b. The Sana’a manuscripts, discovered in 1970s have evidence that Quran was revised and amended.

As for the first argument, it can be said that the author has willingly ignored the distinctly oral tradition of the Arabs. The fact that thousands of verses of classic Arab poets were preserved without much adulteration in pre-Islamic Arabia: The fact that even in this day and age, millions of Muslims have memorized the full text of the Quran, and can recite it whole without consulting a paper copy.

And when it comes to Sana’a manuscripts, Mr. Holland gets a bit overexcited due to the knee jerk Muslim reaction to the German scholar in charge of the restoration of the Sana’a scrolls. Gerd Puin stated that the scrolls were re-written where various alterations were made to the spellings and order of the verses. Also, in his opinion Quran is not a clear book, its vague and may contain texts from before the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Tom Holland has taken a similar stance in his book. But Sadeghi-Gourdarzi critique of Puins’ work (Gerd’s wife published more material recently) debunks the theory that Quranic text has been inconsistent and also confirms the mainstream Muslim understanding of how Quran was compiled and its recitation standardized. If anything at all, Sana’a scrolls are a testament to the early Islamic efforts to ensure Quran was preserved on paper (Papyrus) and disseminated far and wide for the new converts. Sana’a scrolls were washed and re-written with the Mushaf-e-Uthman. And residual traces of old ink show the older version of Quran where many words were spelled differently and some verses/surahs were in different order.

One thing struck me while reading the research on the manuscripts. Scholars working on a particular section of the manuscripts found that they were looking the earliest written version of the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th Surah. There was no Bismillah written at the beginning of the 9th Surah. So in addition to finding no textual contradictions (additions or deletions) between the Sana’a scrolls and the modern day Quran, there is consistency in minutest details which takes us back to the time of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). For those insterested I would recommend looking into the "absent" Bismillah before Surah Tauba, which links the revelation of the Surah with cetain events int he life of the Prophet (pbuh). Regardless of what Tom Holland thinks of the authenticity Hadith and Seerah literature, this evidence alone can refute the myth of the "authored Quran".

In his book, Tom Holland also poses a number of other questions which I will address in near future. InshaAllah

In the shadow of the sword

I recently heard a radio interview of Tom Holland speaking about his new book, In the shadow of the sword, which presents his own interpretation of the origins of Islam. From what Mr. Holland said, it appears that he was very excited to present to the world this new idea that Islam borrowed heavily from older religions. The assertion is that Makkah, a town in the middle of the desert could not produce a man who could write such elegant prose.  

For a secular/atheist writer and researcher, arriving at such a conclusion does not require in-depth research. This is how the world works. Empires rise and fall, major centres of learning produce big poets and philosophers. Major civilizations attract the scholars and scientists to their cities. Anyone unconvinced by the Divine origins of any world religion should have doubts on the authenticity of any Holy Book.

But for me, Quran is the word of God, and it proves itself to be so. It does not need interpretation of historical events and what was happening around the world to prove its authenticity. Any book claiming to be the Word of God should have the evidence of its authencity within it.

So, in an unknown town in the middle of the desert, a man proclaims to be God’s prophet, just as Moses was a prophet to Israelites. Quran not only acknowledges this link, but also tells the Muslims that they must learn from the mistakes of the Jews and Christians. Quran also claims to be the continuity and culmination of the same message which was sent from the One God to all the nations and tribes before. So any similarity and resemblance between Islam and other world faith is not coincidental at all, but very deliberate. Islam is to the world faiths what human beings are to the rest of life on this planet. We share the same roots, but we evolved into better forms over the years.

Take the Islamic ritual of daily prayers. Muslims stand still, bow down, kneel, prostate, sit in submission with heads bowed, hands folded etc. etc. All done during the same prayer. You can find a hint of all faiths in this ritual.

Just like Hindus, Muslims believe in many attributes of God. Just like Buddhism, Islamic philosophy teaches to suppress the ego to find One True God. Just like the Zoroastrianism, Islam focuses on the fight between the good self and the evil self within us. Just like Judaism, Islam teaches to fast and pray on regular times during the day. Just like Christianity, Islam tells us to forgive and be meek and humble.

My point is, Muslims already know that Islam shares many values, rituals and ideas with the older religions. It is because all faiths came from the same God, who over many millennia sent His Guidance to mankind still getting to grips with its new found evolutionary superiority.

Anything to do with documented history will not resolve this question. Let us examine the content of Quran. If it stands the test, it is real, authentic Word of God. If it doesn’t, it is a fabrication, a work of elegant prose if you like.

There are many verses which I can quote. But I will only mention a few. I will not even attempt to interpret them. But please feel free to tell me which city in the world 1500 years ago had the knowledge such as I quote below?

 

We created them and strengthened their make; and when We will so decide, We will change their form to something completely different. (76:29)

 

Woe to every backbiter, slanderer,

Who amasses wealth and counts it over and over.

He imagines that his wealth will make him immortal.

Nay! he shall surely be cast into the "hotamah". (tiniest of the particles)

And what should make thee know what the "hotamah" is?

Allah's fire as preserved fuel,

Which will leap suddenly on to the hearts.

It is locked up in outstretched pillars to be used against them.(104:2-10)

 

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together,

then We clove them asunder and We created every living thing out of the water.

Will they not then believe? (21:30)

 

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with Might,

and it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an 51:47)

 And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people. (17:105)

A response to "The Apostates of Pakistan" by Aakar Patel

Aakar Patel's recently published article "The apostates of Pakistan" was penned a couple years ago, but did not see the light of day until now. He states the reason for this delay as reluctance of seemingly liberal Pakistani English language papers to publish some material. Reading through the piece, I could easy spot a number of problems that an editor may see with the article. It mentions the persecution of the Ahmadis in Pakistan, it also tries to explain Ahmadiyya beliefs, history and the bigotry of Pakistani society. The editors may have imagined a backlash from many of their conservative readers. An influential section of Pakistani society has always managed to keep this topic out of public eye for decades. But, as an Ahmadi, I would have sent the article back to Mr. Patel with red lines all over the text. For factual inaccuracies, incomplete research and almost slanderous accusations. 

Let me say that I admire Mr. Patel's attempt to look into the Ahmadiyya history to give a fresh perspective to his readers. I wish more people could go to the source materials and inform and educate their readers. I also hope that they make a better job of it.

Mr. Patel narrates a vision received by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which is recorded in in his own writings as follows;

 "I presented the document containing divine decrees for attestation and He, Who was manifesting Himself in the form of a Ruler, dipped His pen in red ink and first flicked it in my direction and with the rest of the red ink which remained at the point of the pen He put His signature to the document. Thereupon, the state of vision came to an end and when I opened my eyes to look at the material world around me, I witnessed several red drops falling on my clothes. 2 or 3 of the drops also fell on the cap of one ‘Abdullah of Sanaur (Patiala State) who was at the time sitting close to me. Thus, the red ink which was part of the vision materialized externally and became visible. Many other such manifestations have been witnessed which it would take too long to 

relate. "

According to the Mr. Patel 

" This message from God qualified Ahmad as a prophet."

The claim of Hadhrat Ahmad as being a prophet did not originate from this experience. In fact such spiritual experiences had started in 1870s when he was still an unknown man, immersed in worship and religious studies. He received many revelations confirming his status as a prophet from 1882. But he did not claim to be the "Promised Messiah" until 1891, when he also revealed that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) had passed away and he was appointed as the Promised Messiah by God. The status of Promised Messiah according to Quran and Hadith is that of a subordinate (Ummati) prophet. 

Continuing in the very next paragraph Mr. Patel contradicts himself by stating "Despite his visions, Mirza Ahmad personally did not claim prophethood." 

Hadhrat Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi (pbuh) wrote a book to remove any misconceptions about his claim to be an Ummati Prophet called "Aik Ghalti ka Izala". He writes 

"Wherever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger (pbuh) whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God. But I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi (Prophet) in this sense. Indeed it is in this very sense that God has addressed me as  Nabi and Rasul; and it is in this sense that I do not deny being a Nabi or Rasul" (A misconception removed, page 10)

The above is just one example of how Aakar Patel has not done justice to his article by including opinions which could have benefited from some proper research. He also states that Hadhrat Ahmad (pbuh) denouced Judaism and Christianity as error. Islam considers both Judaism and Christianity as true faiths corrupted by their followers. Hadhrat Ahmad (as) made his claims at the time when Christian missionary effort in India was at its peak. He held debates with prominent Christian missionaries of his time and showed to the world that Islam was a perfect religion. He also challenged various Hindu revivalists of his time as they also attacked Islam. 

But this is only a minot problem with this piece, easily corrected by a letter to editor. My problem lies with what follows in the last part of the article. According to Mr. Patel, Ahmadis should share some blame for being persecuted in Pakistan. He states that Ahmadis supported the two-nation theory and Sir Zafrullah Khan Islamized Pakistan by supporting the Objectives resolution. 

Do Ahmadis do deserve to be punished for their support of Muslim league? There are many so-called revisionist liberals who may think that the creation of Pakistan was an accident brought about by a mixture of British and feudal Muslim interests. 

Please also note here that the most conservative amongst the Muslims supported Indian National Congress. Same Muslim leaders saw opportunity in Pakistan and started agitations against Ahmadis in 1953. Ahmadis supported Pakistan because the ground realities of British India demanded Muslims to defend their rights. Qaid-e-Azam was right, but unfortunately, Pakistan also inherited the Ahrar, the spiritual forefathers of present day militant outfits. To add to our misery, Maulana Maudoodi also chose Pakistan despite his aversion to its very idea before 1947. The purpose of Ahmadiyya Movement has always been to cleanse Islam of the oppressive and suffocating ideology of such Mullahs. This "war" has been waged since the inception of the community and will carry on until the true Islam is made manifest to the world.

It is obvious that majority of the people who helped create Pakistan including the leadership, were tolerant, democratic and liberal. The very same people accepted Ahmadis in their ranks as their equals and even sought guidance from the Khalifatul Masih on important matters. Kashmir Committee (of 1930s) is one shining example of Ahmadiyya contributions to the Muslim cause in India.

Objectives resolution has also been blamed for Islamization of Pakistan. I can understand that in some circles it causes concerns because of its religious tone. I disagree with the critics. To me, objectives resolution was a document written by idealists who had high hopes for Pakistan. Their Islam was not the totalitarian oppressive Islam that Ahrar and Maudoodi had unleashed in the streets in 1950s. For an Ahmadi scholar and a secular Jurist of Sir Zafrullah's calibre, Islam can only "impose" a secular government which affords full freedom to its subjects. Please also note the emphasis of fundamental rights, freedom and democracy in the text of objectives resolution. 

That brings us finally to the matter of "Furqan Force". A battalion of Ahmadi volunteers which supported the Pakistan Army in 1948 Kashmir conflict. Mr. Patel thinks that this was a religiously motivated move and a betrayal of "Gandhian" non-violence that the Ahmadiyya community followed. First of all, our non-violence is Quranic non-violence. Mr. Gandhi was a respected politician and I admire his achievements and philosophy. But Ahmadi Muslims follow the teachings of Quran, as explained to us by Promised Messiah (pbuh). He also taught us that loyalty to our state is a religious duty. So if Pakistan was at war with India, Pakistani Ahmadis were duty bound to protect their country. Besides, Hindu rule of Kashmir was no Gandhian rule. It was probably the most oppressive and cruel rule in the history of subcontinent. 

I can also clarify here that Jihad as taught by Promised Messiah (pbuh) includes fulfilment of our duties to protect our faith. And loyalty to our homeland is part of our faith. 

Mr. Patel ends his article on a very harsh note. He started the piece with sympathetic statements, included examples of persecutions and his own dismay at the hatred he saw in Pakistan. He then moves to blame the Ahmadis for their own bad karma; for supporting Pakistan movement. Sir Zafrullah, a prominent defender of human rights and freedom of religion on the global stage, becomes the reason for Islamization of the country.  And the article then ends with a statement I can only call a fallacy. Aakar Patel writes;

 "Such bigotry against other faiths usually invites punishment against your own". 

i.e., Ahmadis opposed an oppressive cruel Hindu ruler; they supported equal rights for Indian Muslims etc etc; so they deserved to be punished in their own country for this. What twisted reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

I would request Mr. Patel to review his whole article, but in particular this last statement. He should go and read about the message of universal brotherhood that the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim community sent out to the whole subcontinent just days before his death. Ahmadis stand by every word our Mahdi and Messiah (pbuh) has said and this is apparent through our actions. In fact, it is our belief that all major religions are based on truth and we give great respect to their founders like Raam, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster and Baba Nanak (may peace be upon them all). You will see evidence of this respect throughout Ahmadiyya history. 

To Mr. Patel, I can also suggest humbly that having an influence on your readership is a big responsibility. I am sure he will correct the factual errors he has made. I hope his opinions are also altered after these corrections.

As an Ahmadi, I believe that the revival of true Islamic ideals has been ongoing for the past century and Indian subcontinent is its epicentre. It is also my belief that Islam as presented by Promised Messiah (pbuh) will be victorious in this struggle. 

Drawing Pictures: Since when has it become offensive?

Over the last many decades, a large majority of the western Christian world has in practice stopped being Christian, thus reactions to insults and blasphemies have dimmed down to solitary voices here and there. Atheism is the fashion. No one wants to declare openly that they revere a person or deity because of their religious faith.


But this is not a question of existence of God. The question here is.. Can you force a group of people to change their values that you do not agree with? Aggressive atheists these days are happy to shout at every forum how religion has caused intolerance and bigotry in the society. But here is a test case.. UCL's atheist society publishing cartoons of Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) and expecting this to go unnoticed!

Muslims do not draw human form; they do not build statues for religious purposes. Yes, there are Muslim artists who paint and draw human form, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this has to be kept strictly outside of religious sphere because of the express command of the founder of Islam (peace be upon him). This is a strong value that all practicing Muslims adhere to. No pictures are to be found in any Mosque around the world. A Billion Muslims hold this belief which safeguards the monotheistic basis of Islam. Yet a handful of atheists think that drawing a picture of Muhammad (peace be upon him) for whatever reason should be acceptable?

Atheists, born and brought up in the West (or influenced by European values) may think that drawing pictures is what humans have always done. What is wrong with that? European art galleries are full of depictions of religious figures on canvas and in stone and in metal. But Islam is not a European faith. Neither was Christianity. Regardless of what Greek and Roman art did to Christianity, Islam has not “traded in” its values for the sake of gaining adherents.

This is despite the fact that Islamic scholars re-discovered Greek philosophy and had decades of conflict with the Romans. Usually such interactions results in softening of certain closely held values, and they did. Early rationalist movement in Islam (Mu’tazillites) had deep roots in Greek logic. Yet, no Muslim ever thought of painting or sculpting a Holy figure or a saint. Enough proof that depiction of religious figures was an absolute taboo for Muslims.There are some very rare depictions of Holy personalities in Iranian Shia culture, but it has never been accepted by the wider Muslim world. Those paintings in which the prophet has been depicted can only be described as only limited to a particular era and was largely unknown by the Muslim majority. Most other depictions in Islamic minature arts show the prophet as a halo or a veiled figure.

All reasonable Humanists and Atheists will understand why Muslims take offense when someone tries to depict the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him). It is because drawing of a picture has never been an Islamic tradition. Yes, it has been a tradition in the conquered lands and Islam has not forbidden artistic representations of human form, but only as a secular art. It has become a Christian tradition, which is why even many Christians do not take offense when Jesus has been mocked at by cartoonists and comedians. People at this atheist society at UCL want practicing Muslims to “tolerate” their attempts at mocking Muslim values? Where is the sense in that?

Why should we not allow BNP and EDL to mock and vilify Islam and Muslims too? What is the difference? And what is wrong with a bit of holocaust denial and some “good-natured” anti-Semitism? Some "fact based" scientific racism.. anyone? Let us accept all this in the name of tolerance!! Updated: 28Jan2014

Why British Muslims should wear a Poppy?

War is the greatest injustice mankind can inflict on itself. Unfortunately, not a day has passed for centuries when somewhere and somehow one nation was not at war with the other. It appears that war is a natural state of being for our species. And as we are still learning to attain peace in our world, we sometimes have to take sides in such wars. Especially when our country, nation or way of life is under threat. It also becomes necessary to use moral judgement when taking sides in war. For example, one must not initiate a conflict or show aggression without a just cause. A just cause according to the principles of Islam is to defend one’s life, property, territory and freedom.

90 years ago, the Royal British Legion started to commemorate the war dead of the WW1. The poppy appeal, which collects funds to support war veterans and serving personnel of the British armed forces is in the noble tradition of being grateful for the “sacrifices of a few”. In essence, it is a very Islamic idea fulfilling our duties to be charitable, thankful and loyal to our country.

Many British Muslims do not feel obliged to participate in the appeal. One reason for this could be the fact that NATO contributes to so much misery in the Islamic world. I do not disagree with this criticism of our opportunistic foreign policy based on greed and make-belief sense of moral duty. But Poppy appeal is not to support our politicians or their allies in Brussels and Washington. This fund is to pay our respect to the courage which saved our country and the countries of our fathers twice. These red plastic flowers are not to show the world who was the victor; but to show that we respect our soldiers who risk their life and limb to serve our country. If these poppies are to be taken as a symbol of something more than this, then these are a symbol of defiance against aggression and totalitarian and fascist ideologies.

British Muslims should wear the poppy with pride to show their non-Muslim countrymen that close to 80,000 Muslim soldiers laid down their lives in both world wars. These soldiers were all volunteers who left their homeland to fight in the battlefields of Europe and Africa and died along with their comrades from the commonwealth.

We should wear the poppy with a renewed sense of duty to remind our fellow countrymen about the idea of sacrifice. That one must look for ways to contribute to the peace we have in today’s Britain.

We should wear the poppy with a feeling of gratitude for all the freedoms we have in this country. Freedom to worship, practice and preach our faith; and live without the fear of persecution and discrimination.

We should wear the poppy with a prayer for peace. Ameen

Pakistani Integrity and Self-respect Omelette:

I don’t think much about music. I enjoy it for what it is. A collection of pleasant sounding notes with some meaningful, decent lyrics usually does the trick. Music, like any other activity in human life should be meaningful and for the betterment of human condition.

Among this huge, ever growing, heap of rubbish that we call modern Pop/Rock music, sometimes you can spot real gems. A new Pakistani band called Begayrat Brigade, have released a new song, Aalu Anday. There is some guitar, a catchy tune, and three kids dancing like idiots in the video. My first impression after watching such videos is that rich kids in Lahore have nothing better to do. But then I hear the words “Mullah”, “Qadri”, and “Ajmal Kasab”.

There are many placards with various statements shown during the video. Most of them are humorous and liberal observations on Pakistani political scene. But these boys are challenging the very core of Pakistani reigio-fascist right-wing through a stupid song and dance. They are not happy that Qadri has been made a celebrity, Ajmal Kasab a hero. They also remind the listener that Mullah is an opportunist creature. A blasphemy of sorts. And on top of that, they mention the name of Abdus Salam, the Pakistani Ahmadi Nobel Laureate. And how fitting it was that his name was placed opposite the symbols of bigotry and hatred in modern day Pakistan.

Right.. Why would you invite the wrath of a very influential segment of Pakistani society while in pursuit of your showbiz dreams? The video ends with the lead singer holding up a placard displaying the words ”if you want a bullet through my head, like this video”. I admire their courage and hope that this song is only the start of a new wave of popular liberal expression in Pakistan.